Ok, well i guess they sell things cheap

[KatKanPlay]

if they start paying employees 10-15 dollars an hour + healthcare prices will stop falling and they will start rising, no thanks

At that rate of pay, I can certainly understand. Why you pulled those numbers out of the air I dont know. But if it made you feel you got one over on me, then so be it. I think you just like to argue......but I must admit, I enjoy a healthy debate myself. Minimum wage to $8.00 and hour is Walmarts payscale.

There were other retailers before walmart, there are still other options but we as Americans have decided this is what we want. I believe we should be able to get what we want.

I think you should be able to get whatever you want too. Americans love Walmart, and many are just coming to the realization of Walmarts policies towards its employees. So still no excuse for Walmarts lack of responsibility as a very prosperous American company to abuse the free enterprise system and not give back. Your shit and my shit can still be cheap.

Why doesn't McDonalds give similar benefits to its employees?

I dont know about McDonalds, I havent seen it mentioned in the who's who of contributions to corporate greed that strengthen the bonds of poverty in this country.

[R-Type]

As long as large corporations are permitted to create 'walls of poverty' in their markets, more and more americans will still 'want' to buy cheap shit because they'll have no choice. The problem with unchecked capitalism is that the self-serving greed of those who inevitably become the economic powerhouses destroys any chance of others achieving what they themselves have. Of course, this is exactly what they want: no chance for competition. Keeping the majority of citizens in the poorhouse by paying them shit wages and then offering them cheap shit to buy as a solace keeps them in check, and the corporates in control. As a result, the majority of people end up living a third-world country lifestyle, while a tiny affluent minority lives like kings. How is this different from a communist system where the wealth resides with the government? It isn't. The net result is the same as is the problem: too much power in one place with no oversight.

Honestly I'd like to see some breakups of long-standing monopolies... It might open profit margins enough to start breeding some real product quality and innovation again, which is sorely lacking these days. I don't always want 'cheap shit'..sometimes I want shit that is designed well and will run for longer than 6 months, and.or isn't built like a $0.25 toy from a vending machine. It's not JUST about price.. It's hard to live a decent life when everything accessable to the average citizen is 'cheap shit,' especially when it comes to basic necessities.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by R-Type

As long as large corporations are permitted to create 'walls of poverty' in their markets, more and more americans will still 'want' to buy cheap shit because they'll have no choice. The problem with unchecked capitalism is that the self-serving greed of those who inevitably become the economic powerhouses destroys any chance of others achieving what they themselves have. Of course, this is exactly what they want: no chance for competition. Keeping the majority of citizens in the poorhouse by paying them shit wages and then offering them cheap shit to buy as a solace keeps them in check, and the corporates in control. As a result, the majority of people end up living a third-world country lifestyle, while a tiny affluent minority lives like kings. How is this different from a communist system where the wealth resides with the government? It isn't. The net result is the same as is the problem: too much power in one place with no oversight.

Honestly I'd like to see some breakups of long-standing monopolies... It might open profit margins enough to start breeding some real product quality and innovation again, which is sorely lacking these days. I don't always want 'cheap shit'..sometimes I want shit that is designed well and will run for longer than 6 months, and.or isn't built like a $0.25 toy from a vending machine. It's not JUST about price.. It's hard to live a decent life when everything accessable to the average citizen is 'cheap shit,' especially when it comes to basic necessities.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by R-Type

As long as large corporations are permitted to create 'walls of poverty' in their markets, more and more americans will still 'want' to buy cheap shit because they'll have no choice.

I'm not going to disagree completely, but I feel I should point out that while that people permit these corporations to create these walls in a variety of ways.

The obvious one is by not legally preventing them. Other ways include accepting the pay rates and purchasing products from them.

Originally Posted by R-Type

The problem with unchecked capitalism is that the self-serving greed of those who inevitably become the economic powerhouses destroys any chance of others achieving what they themselves have. Of course, this is exactly what they want: no chance for competition.

This is only due the consumers themselves. Say there is a town where wall-mart moves in, and "destroys" the competition. Whose fault is that?

Originally Posted by R-Type

Honestly I'd like to see some breakups of long-standing monopolies... It might open profit margins enough to start breeding some real product quality and innovation again, which is sorely lacking these days.

That can only be done throug law, well at least easily.

Originally Posted by R-Type

I don't always want 'cheap shit'..sometimes I want shit that is designed well and will run for longer than 6 months, and.or isn't built like a $0.25 toy from a vending machine. It's not JUST about price.. It's hard to live a decent life when everything accessable to the average citizen is 'cheap shit,' especially when it comes to basic necessities.

Most of the time I try to buy reasonable quality, I hate crap quality

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not going to disagree completely, but I feel I should point out that while that people permit these corporations to create these walls in a variety of ways.

The more money one has, the more powerful he is, and the more he can do, but it takes serious collective force to hamstring him if he uses his power to curtail the liberties of others. You set the most powerful private interests against the pivotpoint of public interest. That is the only way to preserve freedom in a society of individuals who each feel they deserve more than the rest. I'm not advocating we beggar these companies for their success, just hurting them where it counts so they'll think twice about economically subjugating whole towns to the economic whims of their investors, most of whom don't even live in the town in question.

Originally Posted by Kytro

The obvious one is by not legally preventing them. Other ways include accepting the pay rates and purchasing products from them.

partly answered above, but as I said, in some situations, the consumers in a particular area may not HAVE a choice anymore because of the predation, especially when it comes to basic services.

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is only due the consumers themselves. Say there is a town where wall-mart moves in, and "destroys" the competition. Whose fault is that?

It depends. If a 'walmart' comes in and plays cutthroat by selling below market value, then that's illegal. If not, then it's less clear because consumers are being attracted to low prices without being informed of the quality dropoffs due to the propagandistic nature of advertising (why spend $1.50/lb for this farm raised chicken when you can have this hormone pumped one for only $.50/lb!!?). By the time the collective conciousness of the consumer base realizes the quality loss, it's too late. the 'walmart' has driven the competition out of business and now all that is left is the cheap crap. Anyone trying to answer this newfound market demand for better quality is crushed/absorbed by the establishment, especially if the local government is bought out by it. I agree that consumers need to make good economic decisions and accurately judge price/value propositions, but the companies which sell them must provide unbiased info on what it is they're selling for the consumers to do this. I'd like to see an end to flashy advertising that does little to inform the customer of what is being sold at the very least, or purposely misinforms them at the worst. Regularly, I hear how consumers are 'sheep,' yet when I look around in the environment, there's precious little information out there that isn't overly coated with bullshit, and THAT is the fault of the purveyors.

Originally Posted by Kytro

That can only be done throug law, well at least easily.

I agree, even though I don't like the idea of yet more legislation. I think what DOES exist needs to be rewritten so that it is harder for corporations to get around it..and easier for consumers to bring forth valid grievances. Of course, this would only work if the government wasn't mired in it's own greed and quests for power. Otherwise you end up with hilary clintonesque/libermanesque 'crusades' "for the children" which can do just as much damage the other way.

Originally Posted by Kytro

Most of the time I try to buy reasonable quality, I hate crap quality

As do I.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

They can, but there is no compelling reason for them to do so. They are not a person, but a company whose primary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the general public, not the employees.



They would have to reduce profit. That is not what sharholders want.

The only ways of making a company like wallmart change tactics is to make it more profitable to do so, or make them legally obliged to do so.

best post in this thread

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Why should any of us have to pay. With the huge profits Walmart enjoys, they cant take a hit and be responsible as an employer? I see no reason or justification that this company cant take care of its own. The only answer is sheer corporate greed.

Since when are corporations required to buy healthcare for their employees ? Should walmart buy them a car ? Pay their rent ? Clothing ?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Kytro

They can, but there is no compelling reason for them to do so. They are not a person, but a company whose primary responsibility is to the shareholders, not the general public, not the employees.



They would have to reduce profit. That is not what sharholders want.

The only ways of making a company like wallmart change tactics is to make it more profitable to do so, or make them legally obliged to do so.

See this is the sort of mentality that creates these problems to begin with. Of course walmart has an obligation to it's shareholders and to produce a profit.. but thier obligation does not end there. They have an obligation to the society of which they are a member.
People seem to think that socially responsible companies are not profitable... that is a false perception.

Business_Ethics_Magazine: What's New
This group puts out a ranking of the top 100 socially responsible companies..
There are some big names on there. Wal mart is not one of them. These are companies like Procter & Gamble, Intel, Southwest airlines. etc. Most of the companies on the list are quite profitable.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

See this is the sort of mentality that creates these problems to begin with. Of course walmart has an obligation to it's shareholders and to produce a profit.. but thier obligation does not end there. They have an obligation to the society of which they are a member.

No they dont. Corporations offer a job with a list of benefits. If you take the job, you have no right to bitch about them not giving you more benefits.

Why should any retail store pay benefits ? Are they that desperate to get good workers at Walmart, sears, target, etc that they have to compete by offering the best stock options company car...

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No they dont. Corporations offer a job with a list of benefits. If you take the job, you have no right to bitch about them not giving you more benefits.

Why should any retail store pay benefits ? Are they that desperate to get good workers at Walmart, sears, target, etc that they have to compete by offering the best stock options company car...

Well that much is a matter of opinion. Not everyone has high moral standards when it comes to business. It seems many people believe that profit is a justification for all things in business. I am not one of those people.
To your point, yes the business does have to make a profit or they can't stay in business. if they aren't in business the idea of being socially reponsible is irelavent. I am not talking about a company that simply gives all of it's money away. BUt is it really that important for a company's profit margin to be 20% vs 19% ? At what cost will that extra 1 or 2% margin come from? If earning an extra 2% margin means doing something that is not socially reponsible.. then perhaps it is not worth doing. The fact that many companies believe in being socially responsible and that there are investment services that will only invest in socially responsible companies speaks to the value of it.

[lew]

Businesses don't have any obligation to society.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Businesses don't have any obligation to society.

Everyone has a obligation to society.

Not that there is any punishment if they don't follow it, but they do.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Everyone has a obligation to society.

Not that there is any punishment if they don't follow it, but they do.

No we don't. "Obligations" are the language of socialism. None of us have any obligation to society.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

No we don't. "Obligations" are the language of socialism. None of us have any obligation to society.

Ok, try and make me seem like a socialist all you like. You have many obligations in your life and this is one of them.

You also have an obligation to raise your children in a good home and give them a good education. You have an obligation to take care of your parents when they get old. You have an obligation to do the right thing. If you want to go ahead and ignore your obligations, fine. But don't act as if they don't exist.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Ok, try and make me seem like a socialist all you like. You have many obligations in your life and this is one of them.

You also have an obligation to raise your childrem in a good home. You have an obligation to take care of your parents when they get old. You have an obligation to do the right thing. If you want to go ahead and ignore your obligations, fine. But don't act as if they don't exist.

No, we DO NOT have those obligations. It is right and good if we do, but we are not bound to do these things. The ONLY way we are bound and obligated to do these things, is if we enter into a contractual agreement with them. If we do not, we are not obligated.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's good that parents raise their children in a good home, and that corporations take care of their employees, etc, etc, etc. But we are not obligated. We are not bound to do these things.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

No, we DO NOT have those obligations. It is right and good if we do, but we are not bound to do these things. The ONLY way we are bound and obligated to do these things, is if we enter into a contractual agreement with them. If we do not, we are not obligated.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's good that parents raise their children in a good home, and that corporations take care of their employees, etc, etc, etc. But we are not obligated. We are not bound to do these things.

We are bound. Not legally through a contract. Not everything works that way. I'm sorry that you don't see that. It's one of the problem with the world.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We are bound. Not legally through a contract. Not everything works that way. I'm sorry that you don't see that. It's one of the problem with the world.

If there is no contract, how are we bound?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

If there is no contract, how are we bound?

There is no obligation to anything if you haven't signed a contract?

Do you believe you have a moral obligation to anything, especially being a christian?