Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby dudejcb » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:20 pm

wanapasaki wrote:My store does rotisserie duck... MMMmmMmMMmM :beer:
:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: that's just tits. :lol3: :lol3:
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho


Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:29 am

I LOVE this! 3 months ago the prevalent opinion here was that Wal Mart was the epitome of free-market success. Opinions have shifted a hair I'd say! Gee...never been one to say I told you so, but, I told you so.! :lol3: lets' throw Rush Limbaugh into the fray too. Watch his audience participation in the next 6 months.........told you so! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby assateague » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:44 am

I love Walmart. Not sure whose changing opinion you're referring to.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:51 am

assateague wrote:I love Walmart. Not sure whose changing opinion you're referring to.

I would say from just personal experence that the public perception is ebbing for WalMart. Most every major town that WalMart applies for building permits from is instigating protests and measures that indicate they DON'T want them there.
Now personally, I find it more perceptive what Beretta said a while back. The consumer should dictate the success of an enterprise model. I do realize that the "consumer" nomenclature is not as simple as it first appears, but I see nothing wrong with someone offering an inferior product, at a low price, manufactured by workers from another country laboring in appalling conditions, as long as no existing laws are broken and no new laws address teh issue. The onus of the responsibility for the acceptance of all of these practices relies on the consumer that addresses only the shallowest concept in the whole procedure....the cost to the consumer to purchase the products offered. If that is what you care about, more than any other factor required to manufacture and retail these products, the consumer is the villain, not the supplier. And mark my words, this train of "non-thought" is rapidly becoming a "concern" to the average citizen. If it doesn't reach a point that exposes the inherent "wrongness" of this marketing practice, it will slowly adapt to a more socially acceptable position out of necessity. It is already trying everyday and every message to change its persona, but whether it's too little, too late remains to be seen.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:32 am

I challenge you to go into a "mom and pop" of ANY variety and compare a sample of goods to an identical sample from Walmart. I would astounded if the country of origin is any different.

And while you're there, compare the average salary and benefits package. This whole "hate Walmart" thing is based on demonization, nothing of substance. Next thing you know they'll do a remake of "Reefer Madness" entitled "Walmart Madness", which will be just as much based on fact as the former.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:27 am

assateague wrote:I challenge you to go into a "mom and pop" of ANY variety and compare a sample of goods to an identical sample from Walmart. I would astounded if the country of origin is any different.

And while you're there, compare the average salary and benefits package. This whole "hate Walmart" thing is based on demonization, nothing of substance. Next thing you know they'll do a remake of "Reefer Madness" entitled "Walmart Madness", which will be just as much based on fact as the former.

I don't doubt your challenges in the least, AT. I believe the "demonization" is based upon the size of the enterprise. You are simply not going to galvanize a large group of people to protest conditons that Jody has to face at "Aunt Mays Bacon Syrup Waffle House". It is not a big enough group to focus attention on. It does not represent the actions of the nation's largest retailer. It does not cost the taxpayer, at least significantly, to subsidize that which is not a benefit to the employee. It does not represent a trend. It reminds me of the "No Smoking" in bars and restaurants mandate. The argument against it was always that if the emplyees don't like it, they can always go elsewhere. When the largest retailer in the world has policies detrimental to the economic or physical health of it's employees, it is not so easy to simply go someplace else. WalMart has made many of the other options no longer viable businesses. How far do you feel is far enough for this trend? They could probably reduce their prices even further if they paid their employees 50%, or 25% of what they currently pay, and provide absolutely no benefits so that every WalMart employee is dependent upon governmental subsidization to exist? . Ultimately a positive for society? You tell me. I think if they can balance the pay scale and the price control they can take us right back to "working for the company store". A rather chilling, but prescient, possibility in my mind.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:21 am

Glimmerjim wrote:How far do you feel is far enough for this trend? They could probably reduce their prices even further if they paid their employees 50%, or 25% of what they currently pay, and provide absolutely no benefits so that every WalMart employee is dependent upon governmental subsidization to exist? .
So are you saying Walmart is NOT paying the minimum and actually sacrificing profits for altruistic reasons and paying it's employees more than it has to. :yes: :yes: :yes:

Even with employment, supply and demand cannot be violated in the long run.

If you don't' want to make the local entry level compensation for the rest of your life, you must do something where you gain a skill set that is in higher demand with lower supply of capable workers and then do that job. If you like how easy that entry level job is and keep doing it for 20 years, well what the hell do you expect.

We also keep hearing that people cannot live off of this.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/29/fast-food-retail-workers-stage-one-day-strike-for-higher-wages/
Tyree Johnson said he’s worked at McDonald’s for 21 years, but is still earning minimum wage — $8.25 an hour in Illinois for workers 18 and older; and $7.75 for those under the age of 18, or older employees on the job less than 90 days.

If they can't live off of it, why is Tyree not dead? :huh:

21 years at an entry level position, how would raising the minimum wage and compensation do anything but create more Tyree's that was the most productive years of their life because they are making enough to get by when they are young.

“We’re out here striking for our minimum wage to rise, for respect,” McDonald’s employee Nancy Selgado said.

Respect yourself and take control of your life and don't end up like Tyree. Aggressively pursue a better life, however you define that. Do that, then who cares whether others respect you or not.

The answer is not to over pay for entry level workers because that is where they will get stuck. If we increased entry level jobs to $20k per year, how many people would make $20k for the rest of their life. Raise it to $30k and even more will get stuck in a crap life because they got this job at 16 and thought they were making a massive fortune, at 20 they still had plenty, at 30, well they are not so happy, but what can they do and at 40, they realized they are in a bad spot and had wasted the last 20+ years of their life. And that's the people that get a job and keep it.

Of course, supply and demand cannot be violated in the long run. Price control never increases supply or demand, it just artificially fixes the point on the curves. Artificial increases in price means supply will exceed demand and in this case that means artificially high unemployment. So sure those that have a job make more, but there are a whole lot more people without a job and they make a hell of a lot less, so they go on welfare and then they are even more likely to be stuck badly at the lowest economic point in their life.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:47 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:I challenge you to go into a "mom and pop" of ANY variety and compare a sample of goods to an identical sample from Walmart. I would astounded if the country of origin is any different.

And while you're there, compare the average salary and benefits package. This whole "hate Walmart" thing is based on demonization, nothing of substance. Next thing you know they'll do a remake of "Reefer Madness" entitled "Walmart Madness", which will be just as much based on fact as the former.

I don't doubt your challenges in the least, AT. I believe the "demonization" is based upon the size of the enterprise. You are simply not going to galvanize a large group of people to protest conditons that Jody has to face at "Aunt Mays Bacon Syrup Waffle House". It is not a big enough group to focus attention on. It does not represent the actions of the nation's largest retailer. It does not cost the taxpayer, at least significantly, to subsidize that which is not a benefit to the employee. It does not represent a trend. It reminds me of the "No Smoking" in bars and restaurants mandate. The argument against it was always that if the emplyees don't like it, they can always go elsewhere. When the largest retailer in the world has policies detrimental to the economic or physical health of it's employees, it is not so easy to simply go someplace else. WalMart has made many of the other options no longer viable businesses. How far do you feel is far enough for this trend? They could probably reduce their prices even further if they paid their employees 50%, or 25% of what they currently pay, and provide absolutely no benefits so that every WalMart employee is dependent upon governmental subsidization to exist? . Ultimately a positive for society? You tell me. I think if they can balance the pay scale and the price control they can take us right back to "working for the company store". A rather chilling, but prescient, possibility in my mind.



The biggest "working for the company store" scam going on right now is the United States government. I don't work for 4 months out of the year for Walmart, that's for sure. But by all means, keep worrying about what a private corporation is doing to "violate" its workers. It'd just be nice to occasionally hear a little of the vitriol directed toward those who demand that I labor for them for 120 days a year, or be put in prison. Walmart damn sure doesn't force someone to work for them at the point of a gun as the federal government does.

(Not necessarily from you, but from the "Walmart is evil" crowd in general.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:58 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:I challenge you to go into a "mom and pop" of ANY variety and compare a sample of goods to an identical sample from Walmart. I would astounded if the country of origin is any different.

And while you're there, compare the average salary and benefits package. This whole "hate Walmart" thing is based on demonization, nothing of substance. Next thing you know they'll do a remake of "Reefer Madness" entitled "Walmart Madness", which will be just as much based on fact as the former.

I don't doubt your challenges in the least, AT. I believe the "demonization" is based upon the size of the enterprise. You are simply not going to galvanize a large group of people to protest conditons that Jody has to face at "Aunt Mays Bacon Syrup Waffle House". It is not a big enough group to focus attention on. It does not represent the actions of the nation's largest retailer. It does not cost the taxpayer, at least significantly, to subsidize that which is not a benefit to the employee. It does not represent a trend. It reminds me of the "No Smoking" in bars and restaurants mandate. The argument against it was always that if the emplyees don't like it, they can always go elsewhere. When the largest retailer in the world has policies detrimental to the economic or physical health of it's employees, it is not so easy to simply go someplace else. WalMart has made many of the other options no longer viable businesses. How far do you feel is far enough for this trend? They could probably reduce their prices even further if they paid their employees 50%, or 25% of what they currently pay, and provide absolutely no benefits so that every WalMart employee is dependent upon governmental subsidization to exist? . Ultimately a positive for society? You tell me. I think if they can balance the pay scale and the price control they can take us right back to "working for the company store". A rather chilling, but prescient, possibility in my mind.



The biggest "working for the company store" scam going on right now is the United States government. I don't work for 4 months out of the year for Walmart, that's for sure. But by all means, keep worrying about what a private corporation is doing to "violate" its workers. It'd just be nice to occasionally hear a little of the vitriol directed toward those who demand that I labor for them for 120 days a year, or be put in prison. Walmart damn sure doesn't force someone to work for them at the point of a gun as the federal government does.

(Not necessarily from you, but from the "Walmart is evil" crowd in general.

I agree with you AT. The "government", at almost every level, is the most inefficient, least cost-effective, most self-serving. most manipulated establishment ever gathered to accomplish a goal. The reasons are so myriad as to befuddle me, except that I do know that having (essentially) two competetive entities vying for control of the most influential establishment on the face of the earth, neither is going to capitulate any point easily.
The growing divide between income disparities is going to be the catharsis, I believe. An oligarchic plutocracy can not, in my opinion, have a long life span. Quoting history to provide examples of periods in which they were prevalent and dominating for eons is akin to reciting the history of the horse in making farming practices efficient.
I am not coming to a conclusion here, AT. I just see what I consider as the most detrimental sources to continued success, prosperity, and personal contentment. I suppose it could be said that my point is that I have no confidence in minor alterations and perceptions in the "reigning" "representatives" as really righting any of the wrongs we are facing. It is going to take mind-set changes, and over-whelming majority mind-set is usually accomplished through acrimony, not accord.
Sorry, that really went nowhere, except as an exercise in rambling. :lol3: I need to be of a more decisive mental position than I am right now to propose postulates we can all argue about! :lol3: :thumbsup:
But to at least come full-circle in this mental "walkabout", I think that the business practice exemplified by enterprises such as WalMart contribute completely, whole-heartedly, and overtly to this issue of income disparity.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Walmart didn't learn the lesson from Henry Ford

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:28 pm

Indaswamp wrote:About Ford....
But he was, on the other hand, ruthless in business dealings, responsible for sometimes violent opposition to unions, rabidly anti-Semitic (he was the only American praised in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf), and remarkably cruel to his only son, Edsel.

Naming that car after him was pretty damned cruel! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests