OCCOM BILL wrote:At what point does running a successful business make you evil? How many jobs do they provide? How much easier do their low prices make budgeting for the poor? I can't believe you guys fault a company for buying land to expand (at 4 times its value by the sound of it). Can anyone define for me exactly when one makes the transition from successful entrepreneur to evil oppressor? Is it really evil to succeed?
A job doesn't mean anything if you're still as poor as those on welfare.
As for being evil to succeed. It's when you exploit people for success that you become evil.
Roverroad; my aunt, who is one of the sweetest, most honest people I know, recently purchased a trailer home on the inter-coastal for the purpose of profit when a large company inevitably chooses to develop that valuable piece of land. This park is owned by the owners of the trailers on it. Renters in that park will no doubt suffer when this happens, but is that her responsibility? Is she evil? Or is she simply making a sound investment?
Point taken Set... But I'm not aware of any antitrust violations on Wal-Mart's part (like Microsoft's giving away Explorer in an attempt to crush Netscape). If memory serves; Wal-Mart's tremendous growth can be attributed to Sam Walton's "dept free" philosophy that enabled the company to operate as a cash cow and thereby offer goods at lower costs. Your example is somewhat flawed in that Wal-Mart could not survive in a location where they employed the majority of the people, while paying them to little to buy their goods. Do you hold against them their ability to adapt to a changing economic climate? Or do you really thing they are responsible for creating it? Do you have any thoughts on how to remedy the situation? If I sell a rental property, should I have to do more than give my tenants sufficient notice? If I open a giant restaurant, that consequently bankrupts the neighboring restaurants, have I succeeded? Or am I an evil jerk who cares too little for my inept competitors. 9 out of 10 restaurants don't make it through their first year in business. Does the 10th do something right or something wrong? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Wilso; people choose for themselves where they will work... and just who is Wal-Mart exploiting?
MOst people I know work where they can get a job.
Who are they exploiting. Those they pay absolute minimum wages to. Those who earn $200 a week less than their unionised counterparts. (That's an Australian figure-don't know what the US one would be)
O'Bill, you seem to miss the point about durable goods. Walmart doesn't sell cars, nor pay enough for a family to go out to look at a new one. Walmart does not offer any wide range of large durable goods, and any of those large ticket items of a reliable quality will be beyond the range of the $10.00 an hour employee. So we all go to hell slowly in a hand car, and walk to the nearest Walmart? Walmart assured its cash-flow initially by killing small town business districts, beating the local store owner's prices until they got big enough to dictate prices to supliers. Now they've expanded in to competition with grocery stores, and they're going to kill off all but the hardiest of those business, who will have to, sooner or later, get concessions from employees, pay them less, or get rid of the unions. When fewer businesses compete, the situation is eventually created in which a company like Walmart can give you any quality of goods they like, if you haven't any alternative due to price or availability--any quality of customer service, or none at all. And finally, as they kill competition there's no hedge against them raising their prices, locally or nationally, and soaking us all for every penny they can get.
So that a handful of executives can buy even bigger yachts.
Wilso, I don't know about Australia... But I can tell you a cashier or a stocker here probably makes about $10 an hour whether it is at Wal-Mart or anywhere else. There is no $200 per week differential (if, indeed, there is any differential at all). Unskilled people in most areas have a plethora of **** jobs to choose from... some with honest opportunities for advancement. People have to be somewhat accountable for their own lot in life. We all make choices that lead to our success or lack thereof.
Set, I can not see blaming the "low cost leader" for economic destruction. The doomsday scenario you are painting is just not realistic. I buy most of my food from an owner operated store that has been thriving for as long as I've lived here. Wal-Mart didn't "kill small town business"
Small town businesses failed to compete. We have Super-Wal-Marts (groceries) here, but Carmine's still has the best food. When does outperforming your competitors become evil? 1 store? 10 stores? 100 stores? How many of there competitors ever paid their unskilled employees enough to buy new cars? Are people entitled to new cars? There is no realistic system in which every person will prosper. A shot at prosperity is as much as a system can offer the poor
and we still have that. I submit; the poor in this country are far better off than 90% of the world
With or without Wal-Mart. Perfect? No. But I have yet to hear a realistic solution. Do you have one?
In Australia, union workers earn on average $200 a week more than their non union counterparts. Personally, I wouldn't consider working for the scum I work for without the protection of a union. And my union fees are even tax deductible.
I read this comparison of US workers to "third-world" workers frequently of late.
Is this one of the new talking points?
Because the two standards of living are moving closer together does not mean the the US worker is "still" better off, or even well off.
Read about the economy of the state of Michigan for proof of this.
The American laborer of only twenty years ago would never have been compared to any other in the world in this manner. His standard of living was far beyond comparison. Due in no small measure to the mega-corporations' (with help from their cronies in the Republican party) full frontal assault on worker representation in this country, his wages, his benefits, his relationship with his company, for whom he toiled typically for the entirety of his career, has become nearly extinct.
The US laborer has been transformed by his company into a dinosaur.
Or more accurately, a retiree who is having his pension eroded.
Wal-Mart has done nothing to be admired for, save the accumulation of wealth by Sam Walton's heirs. And personally I don't find that admirable.
PDiddie, I belong to the first generation of American's not expected to get as far as their parents... But there are two sides to every story. The narrowing of the gap between the American Standard of Living and the rest of the worlds should be expected if we are truly working for a global economy. I'd say it is indicative of less exploitation, not more. I knew in my heart that Ross Perot spoke the truth about NAFTA and his prophecy of a giant sucking sound. Still, I prefer that the citizens of other nations have a fair shot, in a competitive environment, rather than rely on the supposed good will of our "superior" nation. Did NAFTA dent American's ability to make a living? Yes. But it did so by improving the ability of people in general to make a living. "My fellow man", to me, is not limited to those lucky enough to be born American. I also support CAFTA and any other agreement that levels the playing field for the rest of the world. Any feeling of superiority I may have, does not stem from my place of birth. It stems from my ability... and I do not wish to retain my advantages by keeping my fellow citizens of planet earth down.
PDiddie wrote:Wal-Mart has done nothing to be admired for, save the accumulation of wealth by Sam Walton's heirs. And personally I don't find that admirable.
Sam did plenty to be admired for. You could learn a little about him here:
http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/bbios/biograph/walton1.htm .
This is a man who lived the American Dream. "he went from being a poor town boy to the richest man in the world" His innovative techniques and strict cash management is what made this company grow. If the US government managed money so well; they could cut taxes by 1/3 without losing a single program
Probably 2/3s after a decade or two. What's not to admire about that? I've been lucky enough to know personally a self-made multi-millionaire in manufacturing. He is sometimes hated by low level employees but almost unanimously respected by those who know him personally. "Have-nots" pointing out the "Haves" as evil are not always justified in doing so. I have yet to see a single evil deed perpetrated by Sam Walton. Why is it so difficult to accept the success of a self-made man? Sam Walton was the embodiment of the American Dream.
OCCOM BILL wrote:PDiddie, I belong to the first generation of American's not expected to get as far as their parents... But there are two sides to every story. The narrowing of the gap between the American Standard of Living and the rest of the worlds should be expected if we are truly working for a global economy. I'd say it is indicative of less exploitation, not more. I knew in my heart that Ross Perot spoke the truth about NAFTA and his prophecy of a giant sucking sound. Still, I prefer that the citizens of other nations have a fair shot, in a competitive environment, rather than rely on the supposed good will of our "superior" nation. Did NAFTA dent American's ability to make a living? Yes. But it did so by improving the ability of people in general to make a living. "My fellow man", to me, is not limited to those lucky enough to be born American. I also support CAFTA and any other agreement that levels the playing field for the rest of the world. Any feeling of superiority I may have, does not stem from my place of birth. It stems from my ability... and I do not wish to retain my advantages by keeping my fellow citizens of planet earth down.
Bill, very well said. In this we agree.
Because I know now, that Walmart's is against Union's, now, I have another reason to shop there. Uninon's is the main reason for our "Economical Troubles." As all our jobs are going going gone to other Nation's. It looks like to me the Union's are playing the "Blame Game," on our Dear Elected President.
Wilso wrote:kjvtrue wrote:Because I know now, that Walmart's is against Union's, now, I have another reason to shop there. Uninon's is the main reason for our "Economical Troubles." As all our jobs are going going gone to other Nation's. It looks like to me the Union's are playing the "Blame Game," on our Dear Elected President.
Gotta agree with you there Wilso :wink:
Looks to me like kjvtrue is playing the blame game on the unions. God forbid that anything resembling the truth would interfere with his/her opinion.
Quote:Damonte, the owners' attorney, said the renters all had the chance to buy a share two years ago when the all-renter park changed hands.
The goal of those who bought in was to have control of the park and its future. They also knew that was a prime place for redevelopment, he said.
Those who refused to buy shares are now suffering from their own decisions, he said.
"They practically begged them to buy in," Damonte said. "They chose not to."
A small part of the article but I knew there was a part that would make it worth reading that crap. Aw the poor old people, right? No. They are not smart. They had a chance to change how the land was going to go. But did they do it? Nope. They decided not to and now they are going to face the consequences of their dumb actions.
Because they are stupid old people, not buying when they could have, people feel so sorry for them. Aw them. Poor them. Wal-Mart is kicking them out of their homes. Wa. Feel sorry for the loose skinned. Oh give me a break. They had their chance. They had the ability to change any of this two years ago. They passed it up.
Whose fault is it that their land is about to be bought by Wal-Mart? The dumb old people. I do not feel sorry for them. They were not smart enough and therefor those that are not smart enough get left behind.
Survival of the sMARTest.
kjvtrue wrote:Because I know now, that Walmart's is against Union's, now, I have another reason to shop there.
I am sure you would shop there. But, would you
work there.
Unions came from our Judeo-Christian heritage to stop oppression of the weak by the reich and powerful. I don't think any sane person could argue that unions have not been necessary.
Unions have also been at the forefront of keeping businesses from sending work overseas. This has been one of the greatest disagreements between them and your dear president.
I don't always agree with unions. But this way to give workers a bit more power against wealthy corporations has undoubtably made our country a better place to live and work. I don't always agree with them, but life without them would be unchristian.
Unions are a natural part of supply and demand. I'm not sure they'll do Wal-Mart's employees any good though because of the enormous supply of unskilled persons. I'm hard pressed to imagine a neighborhood where you could organize enough unskilled people to actually bargain from a position of power. I suspect you need to bring a little more to the table before you can make a credible threat of taking it away. For this reason; Wal-Mart simply needs to compete for individual employees, for groups of them are really not much harder to find.
