Anyone else who hates Wal-Mart - check this out!

[jmjj215]

Fern,
I don't agree. I never said that treating your employees well would mean hurting your bottom line. I think that's a short-sighted business strategy. I going above and beyond in how you treat your employees has a direct and positive impact on your bottom line when looked at from a long-term perspective (5-10 years). Happy employees = happy customers = more sales = greater profit.

Sorry if my previous post sounded a bit too simplistic. What goes around comes around. And even in a capitalistic society - that can come right around to your bottom line.

Don't you agree Fern? I don't think our system rewards a company that makes a profit at any cost. We have a social conscience that can be seen in a small way on this board.

Greed is from human nature, not from capitalism. I know plenty of people who have succeeded in this capitalistic society and are extremely generous. You will find the same greed in socialist and communist models.

[Fern]

Yes, I think more enlightened employees would agree with your long-term assessment that happy employees = more sales = greater profits. But I don't think that's the norm. As examples, you can pick up the paper and read about all the subterfuge in any number of major corporate scandals. And those are just the ones we know about.

Capitalism encourages a bottom line mentality. We have a social conscience on this board, but we don't represent these large companies. When you make decisions for a large entity, it's easy to hide behind the corporation and avoid personal responsiblity for those decisions. (Until you get caught.)

Yes, greed is an indivudal human trait, but it's one that's encouraged and facilitated by the American business model. In socialist western Europe, it's not as extreme. Uemployment is approaching 12% there, so they know they've got to compete, but again,that's the multi-national companies talking. Talk to the average joe on the street and you get a different response. That's why voters in Itlay and France recently rejected EU membership, because they're afaid it's going to change a way of life that's existed for generations there.

[paulmish]

Fern - yes, yes, yes, you have it! Wal-Mart will not fall due to their greed, they will thrive on it, because money is power, until WE create checks and balances to stop it from happening. In other words, unions. Very simple, but very, very maligned (mostly through ignorance). I said this before, but again there was NO middle class before unions, and with unions suffering (mostly through propoganda from the rich upper crust telling others that THATS where the waste is - what a joke!), the middle class is shrinking. Hmmm, seems, I don't know - logical??

Two: I don't think socialism is evil or anything. I just don't think it's the best system. I think capitalism is. Socialism has been tried and I think the U.S. - with all of its problems - still offers a better chance for people to make a great living.

Jesse, socialism has in no way shape or form been "tried." We have the most resource-rich land in the world, so, until it is tried here, it has not been tried. Actually, Capitolism with firm checks and balances (not the c**p we have now) and Socialism are the same, in my mind. The best of both worlds. Everything we are being taught (not me, because I know how to sift through the info) about how social support cripples people is bull (pardon, I'm being mild). Security on the most basic level (food, shelter, knowledge that children are safe) is necessary before real talents can be used. Look at yourself and everyone you know. Do you see a contradication to this? Stop with the "welfare" families we all "know" (we don't). Look at what you know and what you feel, and what you have seen with you own eyes, and than think about it.

I am living the (capitolistic) American Dream, actually, so why else would I believe in this, unless it was pure conviction, based on a deep moral imperative?

[jmjj215]

Security on the most basic level (food, shelter, knowledge that children are safe) is necessary before real talents can be used. Look at yourself and everyone you know. Do you see a contradication to this? Stop with the "welfare" families we all "know" (we don't). Look at what you know and what you feel, and what you have seen with you own eyes, and than think about it.

Paulmish, you're assuming too much about me and my situation! It's not "bull" as you say. I'm sorry, I just totally don't agree with you. People begin to develop this feeling of entitlement: "I deserve this because I breathe." And that is what cripples them. As I said before, the necessities of life should be given - we should never let people suffer. But above that, as you said, they should use their own talents, desire, and work ethic to earn what they want. I do know welfare families and I have seen what's happened to them over the last 6 years. Their situation has not improved - it's gotten worse. (I'm thinking of two in particular). The money they received did nothing but make them think they needed or deserved more. They're falling victim to that greed mentality also - just from a different angle. Don't try and convince me that it is not a real phenomenon - when people are given things for free they (1) don't appreciate it as much and (2) eventually want more.

My wife worked as a social worker before we had our baby. She was right in the middle of the system. Don't tell me what I know or don't know or to "see with [my] own eyes" - I have. It really ruins these people! It's like giving a drunk a drink. Do you want me to start telling you all of the situations my wife was in with these people? We should probably start a new thread if you really want to hear them. I have dozens and dozens of first-hand stories - and yes, they've convinced me that it is NOT best for the recipient to be given things above the necessities of life as discussed earlier. I would love to EMPLOY these people to teach them the value of work to the spirt of a person. I think that would bring them much further than just cutting them a check for their needs. Do you not agree?

Fern, it's definitely not the norm - but I still believe it's totally true. Are you familiar with the company SAS? It's a software company privately held by a guy that is really, really rich (Forbes 400 I'm sure). That company is the exception to corporations, but it is extremely competitive and profitable when pitted against all of these "greedy" companies. He treats his employees well and they treat the customers well and the customers give him their money. I would love to be the head of a huge corporation that could be another one of these examples. Yes, there's lots of greed and evil out there - but there's also a lot of good the media just doesn't report - remember that too! There are a lot of very good "big business" leaders out there that try - and succeed at - doing the right thing.

[Fern]

As you can see from some of my previous posts, I have conflicted feelings about the whole Wal-Mart issue. However, i guess the preponderance of my feelings are that Wal-Mart should treat its employees better, if only because, like a lawyer who considers what's "reasonable," it's reasonable to expect them to provide insurance to f/t employees because 99% of other companies do.

that being said, would you think i'm a hypocrite if i told you i regularly shop at wal-mart? I do, simply becus they have the best prices. In the same way, tho I'm American and would like to see, in an abstract way, american companies (run by American people) get my business before others, i'm on my 3rd honda now becus it's made better. And no, i don't feel bad about that at all.

[paulmish]

Don't you agree Fern? I don't think our system rewards a company that makes a profit at any cost. We have a social conscience that can be seen in a small way on this board.

Greed is from human nature, not from capitalism. I know plenty of people who have succeeded in this capitalistic society and are extremely generous. You will find the same greed in socialist and communist models.
__________________

Sorry, but capitolism nurtures and rewards that basic greed the best. That's the underlying problem (again without restraints). Also, without intervention, our system does reward the company that profits at any cost, because our barometer is the stock market, which only sees those profits. The most successful companies in history (think Robber Barons) have the more horrendous stories of abuse. How does that not make sense if money and not all-around operation policy is our definition of success (in the corporate world, I mean)?

[paulmish]

Jesse - you're looking at people who are on Welfare long-term, am I right? I said earlier that without good jobs, people are ruined (and I know that you agree with this). So, by making corporations fork up the means to give someone a job that they can "get ahead" on, the Welfare disaster is helped, isn't it? And isn't Wal-Mart an example of a company who throws people BACK on social services??

I don't doubt the horror stories, I'm using them in my belief system! My comment meant that the crippling effect that Welfare has does not excuse putting money on the golf course instead into fair wages which can give people desperately needed dignity and independence (and get them off our tax rolls).

[paulmish]

ALso, when I said basic security, I meant a WAGE which would provide these... I wasn't clear. When you work 2 jobs, and are not even basically secure, you tend to give up right? That's what I meant about motivation to use your talents and untimately not only get independent, but even contribute.

[jmjj215]

I agree. Exploiting workers through inhumane wages is not acceptable. Did I just say "I agree"?!

[paulmish]

Well, it's time for me to do some real work - I'm a terrible housekeeper (ha!).

Jesse - if only people would listen to us, I think we could solve all the world's problems... oh well.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

Okay, so if I want to compare two countries' SOLs, I need to look at their country-specific wages to inflation.

Yes.

Does the buying power of the country's currency come into play?

No.

It’s a matter of whether or not one’s income keeps pace with the Cost of Living in whatever country you are living in.

Socialism has been tried

I’m not looking to defend ‘Socialism’, but I know of nowhere that it has been “tried”. I would say that Finland is about the closest I’ve seen, but it’s still nowhere near there.

I think I understand how you can say socialism isn't that bad (federally supported day-care, health-care)

Neither of which is an example of “Socialism”. Better check your definition.

Am I correct in seeing this? Wal-mart is skirting its responsbilities and that ticks you off - not the idea of paying taxes to support socialized medicine.

I know of no political officeholder in this country that has ever advocated “socialized medicine”. Again, you had better check your definitions.

:]


#

[jmjj215]

I guess I jump to using the word 'socialism' a bit too quick. Those things I mentioned above are more in the direction of socialism than capitalism on a spectrum.

[lvhocken]

Originally Posted by VJW

First off, raise the Federal Minimum Wage.

When the Federal Minimum Wage was raised multiple times in the '90s, it increased wages for more than 10 million low-income workers, which in turn:

* Lowered the child poverty rate from 22.7% to 18.9%, the largest drop in nearly 30 years.

* Lowered the overall Poverty Rate to the lowest level in two decades, with the African-American poverty rate dropping to the lowest level ever recorded, and the poverty rate for Hispanics declining to the lowest level since 1979.




There's a list of policy shifts which would be required.





Well,

* Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland all exceed the United States in 'Earning Power' as expressed by GDP per capita.

* Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Canada all exceed the United States on the 'Index of Economic Prosperity'.

* Japan, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, and Britain all have larger Middle-Classes, as a percentage, than the United States does.

* The United States exceeds Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Britain, Germany, Norway, and Sweden in inequality of BOTH 'Income' and 'Wealth'.

* The United States exceeds Canada, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and Norway with the percentage of the population living below the 'Poverty Level'.

* The United States exceeds, by a wide margin, Canada, Britain, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, and Norway in children living under the 'Poverty Level'.

* The United States exceeds, by a wide margin, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan in the rates of Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery, and most other crimes.

* Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Belgium, and Australia all exceed the United Sates on the 'United Nations Human Freedom Index'.

#

THANK YOU! I am so glad to see that someone else out there actually recognizes that there are a huge number of U.S citizens (not illegal immigrants) who aren't able to capitalize on "the land of opportunity".

I recently changed jobs in order to complete my Bachelor's degree. I didn't fully consider some of the things I was going to be left without, which is my own fault. However, I still firmly believe that finishing college will be far better for me in the long run than staying at a job that I hate and would, most likely, end up losing because I cared only about the paycheck not the job or company.

When I changed jobs, I lost a couple of dollars an hour, but it didn't seem like a big deal. The problem is that my previous employer offered health insurance to part-time employees. I'm still making well over the minimum wage, but I have no access to health insurance. I am single, a full-time student with no children and I don't make enough money to pay for private health care. Between my school and work schedules, as they are, I absoultely can't fit in another job and still have time for "luxuries" like sleeping and doing laundry. I live in a depressed county in northeastern Ohio and full-time jobs are hard to come by, especially if you have to try and fit in a college schedule. So, some may say that I should just drop out of college and get a better job. The problem with this is, I currently owe just under $20,000 in student loans. If I drop out, I still have to pay those back, even though I don't have a degree which would help me get a better paying job so that I can pay the student loans and still survive.

The area where I live is one of those places where lots of people shop at Walmart and it is one of the larger employers. My younger brother worked there when he first started college because he was told that he could work out a schedule that allow for his school schedule. That was an absolute lie. He was forced to stay at work after he was supposed to be done, frequently working through classes and working very late into the evening. He did eventually quit working at Walmart, but he ended up having to repeat a semester because of his experience at walmart.

The other problem that I have with the concept that Walmart provides a valuable service by offering products that were produced in other countries where workers are paid even less than our minimum wage is that it sets a standard for worldwide poverty. The people who shop at Walmart say they have to because they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Walmart then says that they have to buy clothing from sweatshops and produce from farmers who aren't paid anything near a fair or reasonable wage in order to keep their customers and have the ability to employ Americans. Everyone keeps pointing their fingers back at the other person. When I was growing up we had very, very little money and there was no Walmart anywhere near where we lived (if only it were still that way). My parents went grocery shopping based on what was on sale at the store. We went to farmers markets for produce. I still do this. I have checked Walmarts prices and it isn't uncommon to find things on sale cheaper at the grocery store than they are at walmart's regular price. The farmer's market always provides a much better "bang for your buck" than the grocer or walmart, but you have to learn to eat seasonal food. In other words, you won't find tomatoes in March, but you will find fresh asparagus and greenhouse grown lettuce. We also put in a garden and froze or canned whatever we harvested to help save on grocery costs. I have done this throughout my adult life, whether it was a container garden in my apartment windows or the garden that I have at my house now. While groing up, we wore hand-me-down clothes, either obtained free or purchased at a used clothing store. When we got new clothes, they were either purchased on clearance or handmade.

My point in this whole "rant" is that people who are trying very hard to make a better life for themselves still don't always have what they need. Notice that I said need, not want. I'm not talking about not being able to afford satellite TV service or designer clothing; I'm talking about being able to go to the doctor when you're sick and have enough to eat. Also, there are better ways to try and make ends meet than to spend your hard-earned dollar at a store that just perpetuates the problem. The walmart executives are very, very, very wealthy while their customers and the employees of their vendors are becoming more empoverished with every sale. I don't fully agree with the way that other countries are run, and I don't want the U.S. to become a socialist nation, but there are some things that Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. are doing that offer more people a better standard of living than we do and I don't think that it is a bad idea to at least entertain the idea of making some changes that will allow every American to have basic necessities.

[al0061]

I, personally, will never shop at Walmart again.

Torch - aka al0061

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

I guess I jump to using the word 'socialism' a bit too quick. Those things I mentioned above are more in the direction of socialism than capitalism on a spectrum.

The only industrialized country on the planet that has “socialized medicine” is Britain. There, the physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals are EMPLOYEES of the national government. The national government OWNS, OPERATES, and EMPLOYS all medical workers.

Conversely, “federally supported day-care, health-care” are SUBSIDIES. Of course, there are federally subsidies for the oil & gas companies, timber companies, coal companies, etc. Corporate welfare is one of the largest federal expenditures.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the FORTUNE 100 have thrown the insurance companies overboard and switched to providing health coverage by self-insuring. Just as the auto companies found it far more efficient and cost-saving to set-up their own in-house finance companies (GMAC, FORD CREDIT, CHRYSLER FINANCIAL) years ago, corporate America has found the value and efficiency of in-house health care coverage. In this same manner, a national single-payer health insurance plan would be a form of self-insurance for America, but as the medical system, and all of it’s providers and employees would remain in the private sector, it would not be “socialized medicine”.

Hopefully this has made the distinctions clear.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by lvhocken

The problem is that my previous employer offered health insurance to part-time employees. I'm still making well over the minimum wage, but I have no access to health insurance. I am single, a full-time student with no children and I don't make enough money to pay for private health care. Between my school and work schedules, as they are, I absoultely can't fit in another job and still have time for "luxuries" like sleeping and doing laundry. I live in a depressed county in northeastern Ohio

I recently steered a relative from Ohio to ‘Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield’. They have an interactive online health insurance section on their website, where you can input various parameters and see what the cost will be. You could initially go with a very high deductible, basic coverage plan, in essence designing your own catastrophic insurance, at a reasonable rate. Then later, as you can afford more, you can adjust your coverage at any time. I cannot recall the name, but they have a plan that combines individuals into a group plan.

I don't fully agree with the way that other countries are run, and I don't want the U.S. to become a socialist nation, but there are some things that Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. are doing that offer more people a better standard of living than we do and I don't think that it is a bad idea to at least entertain the idea of making some changes that will allow every American to have basic necessities.

I could not agree more. There’s something to be said for looking at what others have done that have gone before us, and learning lessons without repeating the mistakes. Unfortunately, it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that, ‘Americans always do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else first’.

#

[jmjj215]

VJW,
Thanks for that extra explanation. So is Britain's health care system subsidized by taxes or funds from other government sources? Or does it operate like a stand-alone business?

[CRFSaver]

The story I like to give about big box stores is the following. Its not Walmart but you can see the similarities. One Christmas my neighbors bought me a fish tank and the filter. All I had to do was get the little plants and rocks and fish. SO me being a person who likes to support local business went to the plant store after work.

Hmmm, pet store closed at 6 PM. Well jeez, I work till 5:30 or 6:00 then take the train home. Ok, maybe they are open on Saturday. yep they are, from 9-12. Well I like to sleep in on Saturday mornings especially if I went out the night before. Guess I will go to PetSmart then. Which is exactly what I did.

Can you seriously say that was PetSmarts fault that pet store went out of business? Maybe, but I doubt it. I like Walmart for what it is. A great place to get commodity items such as cleaning suplies, soap and what have you. I tend to shop at Target more since it is closer to me, but no one talks about the low wage jobs they pay either.

As for being Union... Unions benefit me not one bit. Never have and never will. All they do is make me have to pay for more things, make it more difficult to run a business, and rewards complacency. (Waits for the slamming he will get on this one.) As much as I am a patriot I have learned to never buy a car made in a US union shop.

Is Walmart perfect? NO, far from it. But there are tons of small businesses that offer ZERO health care for their workers. At least Walmart offers a catostrophic healthcare coverage, more then many small businesses offer.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

VJW,
Thanks for that extra explanation. So is Britain's health care system subsidized by taxes or funds from other government sources? Or does it operate like a stand-alone business?

“Socialized”, by definition, means owned and operated by a national government. Therefore, in Britain, the medical system is a government agency, not unlike the ‘Agriculture Department’, or the ‘Health and Human Services Department’ here in the U.S., and is funded out of general revenue funds just like any other budget item.

#