- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
To Union labor? Those earning minimum wage are unskilled, they are hardly in competition for Union jobs.
To Union labor? Those earning minimum wage are unskilled, they are hardly in competition for Union jobs.The minimum wage reduces competition from lower cost labor.
A nonsequitur, again, if you have no job by being displaced from a walmart, what price they offer is pointless.Minimum wage earners often shop at down scale department stores, Walmart being a good example.
How is that unethical? Company officers would be derelict in their fiduciary duty if they did not take advantage of available benefits.
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.Wal-Mart bears only miniscule responsibility for job losses, when set in the context of the entire economy,
I consider it unethical to take advanatge of government subsidies that allow the business to underpay their employees. It is screwing the general public over for the benefit of the business owners.
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.
This, in combination with the negative effect WM has on US manufacturing, again shows that these tiny, marginal "price savings" have a very great cost.
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Funny, I would think the standard would be WM own internal ethical standards. Not to mention that since what is not known cannot be compared to what is known, the idea that I could prove something without evidence is a pointless exercise.When you present statistical evidence that felonies are more common among Wal-Mart managers than among other retailers' officers then you can proceed with that argument.
Funny, I would think the standard would be WM own internal ethical standards. Not to mention that since what is not known cannot be compared to what is known, the idea that I could prove something without evidence is a pointless exercise.
But again, something tells me you don't know the issue I am referring to....it wasn't "managers" that were bribing.
The area grocery store did that here in Ohio. They yanked their normal name stored and replaced it with the bargain version, drove the competition out, and the brought back their normal name.
I think everyone learned that trick from the Japanese import dump of the 50s.
The claim from you has continually been that they benefit the poor, which included arguments on employment. As I showed, WM has a negative effect on ALL employment within the community.Regarding retail employment, there's nothing to concede; I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
You are just going in circles, I already documented the effect WM has on manufacturing, I documented the effect WM has on employment.An effect on manufacturing, however, is fantasy. Wal-Mart is a symptom of manufacturing's departure, not a cause. Wal-Mart's price and choice benefits are significant and widely felt. Like all drivers of increased efficiency and productivity, Wal-Mart enriches the whole society.eace
Why should any community pay to subsidize Walmart's underpaid employees? Currently it is happening in many places with Walmart employees getting food stamps and other subsidies.
I suppose it makes sense if one lacks interest in context.makes perfect sense. Can't tax or sell something to someone with no money.
A big box has multiple advantages over small business, it is able to gain tax advantages, it has the ability to have large infrastructure supplied at cost to the community. If the object is to gain maximum employment with tiny, marginal increases in prices, having many small businesses is the better way for retail planning for a community.
Well, they will never make sense to a Randitarian....however for the rest of us with over 77 years of experience on the issue, it make perfect sense.
The argument was how have they gained advantage, I answered with bribery, you respond that "everyone does it" and plce the burden of proof upon me to show evidence of other bribery....which is documented in the case of WM....but not of "others".I actually don't care to what you were referring. I'm confident there have been episodes of Wal-Mart misbehavior. I'm confident there have been episodes of misbehavior in all companies. Unless you can demonstrate that Wal-Mart is a statistical outlier, the appropriate response is to ask: "So what?":roll:
How is that unethical? Company officers would be derelict in their fiduciary duty if they did not take advantage of available benefits.
I consider it unethical to take advanatge of government subsidies that allow the business to underpay their employees. It is screwing the general public over for the benefit of the business owners.
You can change the goal posts as much as you like, the point you are conceding is that WM has a negative effect on retail employment.
This, in combination with the negative effect WM has on US manufacturing, again shows that these tiny, marginal "price savings" have a very great cost.
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Practical question: What will they do with the buildings should they decide to not open the stores?What great way to kept them out of your town, just increase the minimum wage.
View attachment 67150149
Walmart says it will cancel its plans to build three new stores in D.C. if local lawmakers approve a bill that would force the retailer to pay its employees at least $12.50 an hour.
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Walmart U.S., writes in an op-ed published in the Washington Post Tuesday that the company feels the D.C. Council's proposed "living wage" legislation “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”
Walmart currently has three other new stores under construction in the area, and Barron says those stores will also be jeopardized if the bill passes.
Read more: Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes | Fox News
I already documented how WM shrinks the job market, it is not due to their efforts to increase min wage.It does make perfect sense if shrinking the job pool doesn't bother you.
It's not my argument, merely what I assume their logic to be. You would have to ask them that question.Does your argument then become nothing more than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
I know, overall employment....is a minor detail!Isn't the principal advantage of a big-box enterprise the economy of scale? Wal*Mart has over decades proven its ability to exploit that advantage to the max. Those other things are minor details.
Yes, since retail employment would be higher with higher wages, decreasing SNAP dependency.Would those food stamp costs decrease if Wal*Mart disappeared?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?