Something to think about...

2

Comments

  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    saveuplife wrote:
    Oil is formed by the earth naturally. It's not destructive at all.
    Have you tried drinking it?


    Yes, oil is natural, but do we keep it in the state nature made it? No.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Fair enough...I think that's a fair argument. I think this is probably feasible for a big company like Wal-Mart.

    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    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.


    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    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.


    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.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    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 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.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    they should at least make a living wage.

    What do you mean a living wage? They are alive. They are certainly living well above the subsistence level.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    who has time? ;)


    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. :D
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    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.


    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    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.


    Who makes higher profits? WalMart or Taget AND Costco combined?

    I
    mammasan wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mammasan wrote:
    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.


    They don't have Target in Canada, but I have been to quite a few in the US and the level of customer service, not to mention the cleanliness and orginization of the store, seem quite higher than in any Canadian or US walmart. Target obviouly sees value in hiring people with higher skills, which to me deserves more money. So if walmart raises their wages to match Target, how much should Target raise their wages, to maintain their higher skilled workforce?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    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.

    Walmart is a lot larger than target and Costco so you can't look at profits, you have to look at percentages.

    We see this issue differently and I grow tired of discussing this as you have shown to have zero flexability when discussing a topic. Why bother engaging in a discussion with someone who really doesn't care to hear others opinions.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    They don't have Target in Canada, but I have been to quite a few in the US and the level of customer service, not to mention the cleanliness and orginization of the store, seem quite higher than in any Canadian or US walmart. Target obviouly sees value in hiring people with higher skills, which to me deserves more money. So if walmart raises their wages to match Target, how much should Target raise their wages, to maintain their higher skilled workforce?


    Well that would be up to Target. They would have to decide what the best approach would be to maintaining their skilled workforce while balancing profits. Raising wages may not even be necessary. they could compensate their employees in other ways, offering management training to make advancement in the company easier as an example.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    Walmart is a lot larger than target and Costco so you can't look at profits, you have to look at percentages..

    Marketshare by definition is what one looks at when determining it's competitiveness.
    mammasan wrote:
    We see this issue differently and I grow tired of discussing this as you have shown to have zero flexability when discussing a topic. Why bother engaging in a discussion with someone who really doesn't care to hear others opinions.

    You aren't being flexible either. I was simply commenting on something you said, that appeared to me to not be even slightly related to a free-market ideology. That was my opinion and I stated it. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear other peoples opinions.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    You aren't being flexible either. I was simply commenting on something you said, that appeared to me to not be even slightly related to a free-market ideology. That was my opinion and I stated it. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear other peoples opinions.

    What ever you say boss.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Marketshare by definition is what one looks at when determining it's competitiveness.

    Yes market share is important to determine competitiveness but not profitability, which is what you where discussing. You specifically asked who makes higher profits and I told you that WalMart does but that is not a proper way to gauge them because Walmart is far larger than Target or Costco. Market share has little impact on profit as you can have a higher market share but a lower profit margin than your competitors. If you want to compare them correctly you need to look at their profit margin, not their total profit or their market share.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • stuckinline
    stuckinline Posts: 3,407
    polaris wrote:
    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



    excellent post !! i just wish more people would realize this
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,112
    saveuplife wrote:
    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.
    well from my drivers seat I still see the same amount of traffic on the road. So please tell me Where demand has dropped.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    Yes market share is important to determine competitiveness but not profitability, which is what you where discussing. You specifically asked who makes higher profits and I told you that WalMart does but that is not a proper way to gauge them because Walmart is far larger than Target or Costco. Market share has little impact on profit as you can have a higher market share but a lower profit margin than your competitors. If you want to compare them correctly you need to look at their profit margin, not their total profit or their market share.

    Profits are revenue less cost. Market share is one firms revenue vs. all other firms in the industry's revenue. Market share has an enormous impact on profit..... you are talking about "margins".

    And I completely disagree, to compare on the subject of competitiveness, one should look at market share and profits. Profit margins are rarlely used to compare different organizations. They are used for internal comparisons.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mickeyrat wrote:
    well from my drivers seat I still see the same amount of traffic on the road. So please tell me Where demand has dropped.

    First, less people are driving and more are using public transit.

    Second, ever hear of the term GDP? It's not only plummeting in the U.S., it's plummeting in the world. Production uses oil. Since, world production is plummeting, demand for oil is plummeting.

Categories