Something to think about...
saveuplife
Posts: 1,173
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?
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?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
How would you say we do that?
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'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.
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.
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
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
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.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough...I think that's a fair argument. I think this is probably feasible for a big company like Wal-Mart.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
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.
Yes, oil is natural, but do we keep it in the state nature made it? No.
I don't think it is too much to ask. I don't think that the stock clerk at WalMart should make anywhere near what I am making, but to provide just a tad bit more may actually benefit WalMart with a better rate of employee retention and loyalty.
Dude, you always say you are a libertarian. You obviously are not, if you believe in so much government involvement. It doesn't make any sense, so maybe you should rethink the whole free-market limited gov't stance.
WalMart is subject to the same laws as everyone else. Acting as though they pay too little because they pay the minimum wage is ridiculous. Moreover, if you are for increasing the minimum wage... keep in mind... wage floors create MORE unemployment for the same people who would TAKE those low-paying jobs... so you are actually hurting the poor.
Wait, please point out where I said the government should get involved. Please point out where I said the government should raise minimum wages, because I just reread my posts, all of them, and no where did I even mention the word government so you must either be referring to someone else or you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are 100% right. Like I said to mamassan, wage floors create unemployment for the very people they seek to help. If we increase the minimum wage to help these people, WalMart will most likely cut labor or increase prices. One of the options hurts the people that the minimum wage increase sought to help and increases the unemployment rate, the other raises prices for a store that offers extremely low prices to consumers. Regardless, knowing the stores history, they would most likely cut workers before raising prices because thier low prices are their brand.
You said they should offer them a much higher wage. They are paying them atleast, and in some cases higher, than the minimum wage. Why would they do that, if the people are working for said wage? It makes logical sense that you are fighting for a rise in minimum wage or some sort of wage increase. Let the free-market work: If people are willing to work for that wage, let them. They have the choice.
Bottomline: They have a right to do whatever the F they want, as long as they aren't breaking any laws. Moreover, the consumer.... especially right now... is the one who is benefitting.
What do you mean a living wage? They are alive. They are certainly living well above the subsistence level.
seriously...these topics all run in cycles here. once one topic runs cold for a bit, a new, rehashed topic is brought back up with fervor, and the cycle continues...
right now we've got a newly elected obama....prop 8....bailouts.....lots of stuff.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I believe that they should pay there employees better but I never advocated that the government should some how be involved so quit jumping to assumptions. I have also stated how a slight wage increase and better benefits can benefit WalMart financial but I guess you chose to ignore that since it didn't jive with your agenda. It is common knowledge, and statistically supported, that companies like Target and Costco pay better and offer better benefits which attributes to lower employee turn over (which is extremely costly to companies) and better employee loyalty. Not only would WalMart be benefiting their work force but also benefiting their bottom line.
I never once spoke against free market economics. I never once spoke about government intervention in minimum wage. I simply stated that WalMart is behind in employee pay and benefits and it would probably be in their best interest as well as that of their workforce to offer a competative package. If that is not free market economics then I don't know what the fuck is.
Who makes higher profits? WalMart or Taget AND Costco combined?
I
It doesn't make logical sense that a cost increase will increase their profits, and therefore make them more competitive... they are already wiping the floor with the competition.