Something to think about...

saveuplife

1. Why aren't more people complaining about Walmart these days? Is that company still an evil empire, or is it only evil during expansions and good during recessions?

2. Why aren't more people complaining about high oil prices, evil oil executives and their alleged ties to the Bush administration? Prices have dropped significantly. As you know from econ 101, when prices drop, so do revenues. It will take time, but I wouldn't be surprised at all, if fourth quarter profits are negative for many oil companies.... bailout anyone?

know1

saveuplife wrote:

1. Why aren't more people complaining about Walmart these days? Is that company still an evil empire, or is it only evil during expansions and good during recessions?

2. Why aren't more people complaining about high oil prices, evil oil executives and their alleged ties to the Bush administration? Prices have dropped significantly. As you know from econ 101, when prices drop, so do revenues. It will take time, but I wouldn't be surprised at all, if fourth quarter profits are negative for many oil companies.... bailout anyone?

If the oil companies show a loss, should we give them a bailout package or incentive since there's always a call to tax them more when they do well.

saveuplife

know1 wrote:

If the oil companies show a loss, should we give them a bailout package or incentive since there's always a call to tax them more when they do well.

Oil is bad! So, we should just tax them more,.... so they can pass along the tax onto us by raising prices.

Remember: cheap gas is very very bad!

PJ_Saluki

saveuplife wrote:

Oil is bad! So, we should just tax them more,.... so they can pass along the tax onto us by raising prices.

Remember: cheap gas is very very bad!

Saw T. Boone Pickens on Wednesday's The Daily Show. He said oil would be back over $100 a barrel within a year. It' not that oil is bad (though its pretty toxic and destructive); it's that the countries from which we get 50 percent of our foreign oil have some bad people with bad intentions towards America.

Big fan of big oil, are you? I'd imagine you'll tell me, "No, but I'm less of a fan of more taxes."

saveuplife

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Saw T. Boone Pickens on Wednesday's The Daily Show. He said oil would be back over $100 a barrel within a year. It' not that oil is bad (though its pretty toxic and destructive); it's that the countries from which we get 50 percent of our foreign oil have some bad people with bad intentions towards America.

Oil is formed by the earth naturally. It's not destructive at all.

I do agree that we import oil from a number of countries with bad people and bad intentions towards America. That said, we have oil in America. While we are working on a new energy source, it would be wise to use a portion of what we have... atleast when prices are high abroad.

I can see oil being volatile, maybe even going back above $100 for next year's memorial day. However, I don't see it averaging even close to what it's averaged annually again.... anytime soon. We're in a global recession, demand has retrenched.

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Big fan of big oil, are you? I'd imagine you'll tell me, "No, but I'm less of a fan of more taxes."

I'm not a fan of big oil at all, but I'm a fan of being fairminded. I'm simply not a fan of having to pay extra at the pump. And yes, I'm not a fan of more taxes either.

I think the media isn't playing the "evil oil" card right now because prices are low. The fact that prices are low and the fact that they have dropped significantly shows that supply and demand really set the prices. It's not big oil execs sitting in a room saying to one another "let's F them for some more loot". That's simplisitic and naive, but the media plays that story up all the time. Why aren't they playing up the reverse angle now? Hmmm.

mammasan

saveuplife wrote:

1. Why aren't more people complaining about Walmart these days? Is that company still an evil empire, or is it only evil during expansions and good during recessions?

2. Why aren't more people complaining about high oil prices, evil oil executives and their alleged ties to the Bush administration? Prices have dropped significantly. As you know from econ 101, when prices drop, so do revenues. It will take time, but I wouldn't be surprised at all, if fourth quarter profits are negative for many oil companies.... bailout anyone?

Since you brought up Wal-Mart;

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/13/news/companies/walmart_earns/index.htm?postversion=2008111308

I don't think Wal-Mart is an evil empire, but I definitely do not agree with the manner in which they treat their employees. Other large discount superstores offer low prices but still manage to provide living wages and decent health insurance to their employees.

Second of course people are going to bitch when oil cost over $4.00 a gallon and companies like Exxon-Mobile are breaking earnings records every quarter. I don't think it's unfair for a company to make money, but when the public in general is struggling because of fuel costs and your executives are bring home multi-million dollar bonuses you should expect some public backlash, it's just natural.

polaris

this is hypocrisy of wal-mart ... people here in n. america want good paying jobs paying fair wages for their efforts but yet shop at wal mart where people are not getting paid "fair" wages ...

take the auto sector - those guys that work for the big 3 want good paying jobs yet they aren't willing to pay a few dollars more to offer someone else that same opportunity to make plates, clothes or knapsacks ...

everything is interconnected ... you might think getting your stuff at the cheapest possible price is the only thing that matters but it has a consequence and you are seeing that now ... no manufacturing jobs, economic crisis, etc

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

Since you brought up Wal-Mart;

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/13/news/companies/walmart_earns/index.htm?postversion=2008111308

I don't think Wal-Mart is an evil empire, but I definitely do not agree with the manner in which they treat their employees. Other large discount superstores offer low prices but still manage to provide living wages and decent health insurance to their employees.

I don't think walmart is evil either. Yes they pay their employees low wages, but everytime I go in there (at least the ones in Canada) it seems their employees are on the lower end when it comes to retail skills. They seem to hire people that probably couldn't get jobs at a department store or grocery store so of course they would be paid less. On the other hand, without places like walmart a lot of those people probably would have jobs at all.

digster

saveuplife wrote:

I do agree that we import oil from a number of countries with bad people and bad intentions towards America. That said, we have oil in America. While we are working on a new energy source, it would be wise to use a portion of what we have... atleast when prices are high abroad.

How would you say we do that?

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I don't think walmart is evil either. Yes they pay their employees low wages, but everytime I go in there (at least the ones in Canada) it seems their employees are on the lower end when it comes to retail skills. They seem to hire people that probably couldn't get jobs at a department store or grocery store so of course they would be paid less. On the other hand, without places like walmart a lot of those people probably would have jobs at all.

That is true that in many places Wal-Mart is the only source for employment but that still doesn't mean that you should take advantage of these people. I'm not saying that they should be paid $60,000 a year, but they should at least make a living wage.

PJ_Saluki

saveuplife wrote:

Oil is formed by the earth naturally. It's not destructive at all...

It's not destructive when it's under the ground. Look at crude oil spills on the ocean and tell me it's not destructive. Just because something occurs naturally (see: plutonium, cyanide, anthrax, small pox, AIDS, radon, etc) doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

That is true that in many places Wal-Mart is the only source for employment but that still doesn't mean that you should take advantage of these people. I'm not saying that they should be paid $60,000 a year, but they should at least make a living wage.

It is tricky though since the people who work at walmart, and depend on their walmart paycheck to live are also the people who probably depend on walmart's low prices. So say if you raise walmart wages across the board, then the cost of stuff at walmart is going to go up, and all of the sudden the people who just got raises now have to pay more than they can afford for things like tooth paste and toilet paper.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It is tricky though since the people who work at walmart, and depend on their walmart paycheck to live are also the people who probably depend on walmart's low prices. So say if you raise walmart wages across the board, then the cost of stuff at walmart is going to go up, and all of the sudden the people who just got raises now have to pay more than they can afford for things like tooth paste and toilet paper.

You can raise the price on more of the luxury goods in order to offset the cost of higher wages. This way you necessities maintain their low prices.

g under p

mammasan wrote:

Since you brought up Wal-Mart;

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/13/news/companies/walmart_earns/index.htm?postversion=2008111308

I don't think Wal-Mart is an evil empire, but I definitely do not agree with the manner in which they treat their employees. Other large discount superstores offer low prices but still manage to provide living wages and decent health insurance to their employees.

Second of course people are going to bitch when oil cost over $4.00 a gallon and companies like Exxon-Mobile are breaking earnings records every quarter. I don't think it's unfair for a company to make money, but when the public in general is struggling because of fuel costs and your executives are bring home multi-million dollar bonuses you should expect some public backlash, it's just natural.

You're right about there health care for their thousands of employees. It sucks I worked part time at Sam's Club once there health coverage was minimum at best unless you got hurt on the job.

I gather they used ALL that savings and profits to put towards the huge payout to the band AC/DC for exclusive contract of selling their new album *Black Ice* at all Wal Mart/Sam's Club.

Peace

hailhailkc

mammasan wrote:

That is true that in many places Wal-Mart is the only source for employment but that still doesn't mean that you should take advantage of these people. I'm not saying that they should be paid $60,000 a year, but they should at least make a living wage.

But that's the crux of the issue...what, exactly, is a "living wage"? And furtheremore, I've worked my butt off to earn what I earn, so if they give a Wal-Mart employee my salary (which is lower than 60,000 I might add), should my salary then be bumped up accordingly to adjust for their compensation? After all, my career field required a college degree, higher skill sets, longer periods of training, and is much more competitive.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

You can raise the price on more of the luxury goods in order to offset the cost of higher wages. This way you necessities maintain their low prices.

Maybe but it is not like Walmart sells a lot of luxury goods to begin with. Plus part of me doens't mind the fact that the store pays people low wages. If people can live off them fine, but if they can't it is a nice motivation to work hard and get a promotion, or gain the skills (either at the store or by education) to find something better. Plus if the wage is too high, it makes it harder to justify hiring someone with zero experience since hiring them becomes more of a risk, then it hurts employees since people can't get the experience they need to find a better job.

Plus say walmart decided to give everyone on minimum wage say a $2 an hour raise. With the amount of people walmart employs I imagine that other stores that pay minimum wage would have to follow suit, otherwise they would lose their employees to walmart and walmart would just fire their low skilled employees to hire people from other stores that wanted that $2 raise. So either the other stores paying minimum would end up with all the people walmart didn't want, or other stores would raise wages and you would see higher prices everywhere.

mammasan

hailhailkc wrote:

But that's the crux of the issue...what, exactly, is a "living wage"? And furtheremore, I've worked my butt off to earn what I earn, so if they give a Wal-Mart employee my salary (which is lower than 60,000 I might add), should my salary then be bumped up accordingly to adjust for their compensation? After all, my career field required a college degree, higher skill sets, longer periods of training, and is much more competitive.

No they should not make what you make since, and I know this because we are in the same field, you field requires a degree and is far more competitive and demanding.

You are correct about who determines what a living wage is but what about health benefits. If you, as an employer, is not going to provide decent health benefits to your employees then you should at least up their salary or wages a tad to compensate for that. Stores like Costco and Target offer better wages and better benefits than Wal-Mart and they are able to remain competative cost wise. Also the quality of their goods, especially clothing at Target, is far better than Wal-Marts. So if these companies can manage to at the very least give a little more in return to their employees then why is it so hard for Wal-Mart. Also there has been employees studies shown that Target has a lower turn over rate than Wal-Mart which is also a great cost cutting measure because it cost money to have to constantly train new employees.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Maybe but it is not like Walmart sells a lot of luxury goods to begin with. Plus part of me doens't mind the fact that the store pays people low wages. If people can live off them fine, but if they can't it is a nice motivation to work hard and get a promotion, or gain the skills (either at the store or by education) to find something better.

Plus say walmart decided to give everyone on minimum wage say a $2 an hour raise. With the amount of people walmart employs I imagine that other stores that pay minimum wage would have to follow suit, otherwise they would lose their employees to walmart and walmart would just fire their low skilled employees to hire people from other stores that wanted that $2 raise. So either the other stores paying minimum would end up with all the people walmart didn't want, or other stores would raise wages and you would see higher prices everywhere.

Other stores like Target and Costco already pay better and they have better health benefits. On top off all that target even invests more in the communities it is located in by donating to schools and educational programs.

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

Other stores like Target and Costco already pay better and they have better health benefits. On top off all that target even invests more in the communities it is located in by donating to schools and educational programs.

And when I go into those stores it seems that I get way better customer service then I do at walmart. So why should the lower skilled employees at walmart get the same wage as the higher skilled employees at Target? If someone works at walmart and they have the skills to get a job at Target, they should apply there.

hailhailkc

mammasan wrote:

No they should not make what you make since, and I know this because we are in the same field, you field requires a degree and is far more competitive and demanding.

You are correct about who determines what a living wage is but what about health benefits. If you, as an employer, is not going to provide decent health benefits to your employees then you should at least up their salary or wages a tad to compensate for that. Stores like Costco and Target offer better wages and better benefits than Wal-Mart and they are able to remain competative cost wise. Also the quality of their goods, especially clothing at Target, is far better than Wal-Marts. So if these companies can manage to at the very least give a little more in return to their employees then why is it so hard for Wal-Mart. Also there has been employees studies shown that Target has a lower turn over rate than Wal-Mart which is also a great cost cutting measure because it cost money to have to constantly train new employees.

Fair enough...I think that's a fair argument. I think this is probably feasible for a big company like Wal-Mart.

mammasan

Kel Varnsen wrote:

And when I go into those stores it seems that I get way better customer service then I do at walmart. So why should the lower skilled employees at walmart get the same wage as the higher skilled employees at Target? If someone works at walmart and they have the skills to get a job at Target, they should apply there.

And in locations where they have both more power to them but what about in areas where all there is is a Wal Mart. There are plenty of areas in this country where all the jobs have dried up and the only source of employment is a Wal-Mart. Trust me I commend the company for going into these areas and at least providing a source of revenue for these people. Without that store they would have no work at all, but that still doesn't mean that they should pay these people less or offer them less health coverage simply because they are the only source of employment.

As for the customer service I don't know. I can honestly say that I have never stepped foot in a Wal Mart, not because i think they are evil, but because I love Target. I am a certified Target junky and have heard from several people that the quality of their goods is far superior to WalMarts.