If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Empowered by the Hostess strike, the Black Friday Walmart strike begins early   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 635
    More: Followup, flight attendants  
•       •       •

18440 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



635 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 08:18:07 PM  
The only way I could shop less at Wal*Fart is if I took stuff I didn't buy there in and had them give me money for it.
 
2012-11-18 08:18:14 PM  

ronaprhys: The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.


True, but we can't all be above average. The world needs ditchdiggers too. And they still get angry, depressed, and resentful just like the rest of us. The trick is to keep them happy and healthy enough not to start thinking Second Amendment solutions.
 
2012-11-18 08:18:51 PM  

ronaprhys: most make poor choices.


no one should be relegated to depending on welfare while working any substantial amount of hours a week because of poor choices. We're better than telling people "You farked up, now suffer while I mock you". Or at least I am.
 
2012-11-18 08:19:11 PM  

WhyteRaven74: interestingly they don't, yet when you compare prices there's no real difference. A huge swimming pool sized jar of mayo costs as much at Costco as at Sam's Club, so it's not the prices doing it. It's the image of the stores. And part of that goes back to how Costco treats employees.


But it also could be that people with more money buy more, and purchase more of the products that make the store more money. Tubs of mayo may not be where the cash is. They could sell more higher end products with higher profit margins.
 
2012-11-18 08:19:17 PM  

Ed_Severson: grossmont: Still, I'm missing something here. Full time, earning $14,000 a year. That's like $7 an hour.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For 52 weeks at 40 hours per week, that's $15080 annually.

I'm not sure about Wal-Mart but it's common practice now in retail that 32 hours per week is full-time. Factor that into the same annual take-home and her hourly wage would be $9.06. In all likelihood she makes about $9.00/hour, works around 35 hours per week, and nets about $14000 after taxes, etc.


That makes a lot more sense. Thanks.
 
2012-11-18 08:19:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: The poor keep doing the things that make them poor. The rich keep doing the things that make then rich.


if only it were true.
 
2012-11-18 08:20:49 PM  

WhyteRaven74: no one should be relegated to depending on welfare while working any substantial amount of hours a week because of poor choices. We're better than telling people "You farked up, now suffer while I mock you". Or at least I am


I don't think he was ruling out the option of wising up and making better choices to get your life back on track.
 
2012-11-18 08:21:05 PM  

Fista-Phobia: chiett: If you don't like working at Walmart (or any place) then don't.

No one should have the right to tell someone (except by law) how to run their business.

If you don't like it start your own!

Fascinating.


Fascinating indeed! That is exactly what I did a few years back. I didn't like the crappy jobs I'd taken, and one by one I left them all, but I left them with an ever expanding set of skills. Eventually, I started an appliance repair business with $800. The first two years were terrifying, but I toughed it out and it is now pretty solid, so I can finally take care of my family. So in essence, yeah, "if you don't like it start your own!" Turned out to be "Fascinating". You both win.
 
2012-11-18 08:22:12 PM  

freewill: I don't think he was ruling out the option of wising up and making better choices to get your life back on track.


It's a lot easier to make good decisions when you're not worried about a roof over your head or food on the table.
 
2012-11-18 08:22:28 PM  

freewill: liam76: They have skills, very low skills, but still skills.

You say paying them a "living wage" is charity, but I disagree. If a company needs someone 40 hours a week, be it scrubbing toilets, or saying "hello" to people walking in the door they should be willing to pay them enough to live.

While I don't inherently disagree with this, three things:

1) What if they don't need you 40 hours a week?
2) I routinely work 50-60 hours at my job, as do most other people in positions that pay well that I know. What if the pay worked out to "enough to live" at that point?
3) How are you defining "enough to live"? I had no problem living on $20,000/year when I was 21. I would have had a problem raising a family on it, so, you know, I didn't, but still. How are we defining this?


1- That is the standard full time work week in the US. I can see having some part time help to fill in busy seasons, or for weekends in small companies, but when that is the majority of your workforce, you are most likely trying to skirt labor laws.
2- I would say that is BS. I have a pretty sweet job and normally do 40 hrs, more than that gets overtime. My previous job I often pulled down 50-90 hour work weeks, now way Iwoudl have put up with that if I wasn't raking in the cash. Anyway my point is if you are working more than 40hours a week you should be getting more than a living wage.
3- Enough to support a wife and raise a kid, with no real frills.
 
2012-11-18 08:23:27 PM  

WhyteRaven74: no one should be relegated to depending on welfare while working any substantial amount of hours a week because of poor choices. We're better than telling people "You farked up, now suffer while I mock you". Or at least I am.


So what's your solution, raising the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour?
 
2012-11-18 08:25:17 PM  

red5ish: BarkingUnicorn: Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?

Are you trying to make the argument that Walmart's profit margin is so small that they cannot afford to pay their employees living wages? Because that sounds to me like the description of a business model that must fail in the free market.


I'm laying out the fact of what Walmart's net profit is. What it "sounds" or "feels" like to you doesn't matter. Answer the question or you're not helping.

Walmart's profit margin, BTW, has hit a high of only 4.17% in the past two years. But people can't eat profit margin points, so stick to dollars.
 
2012-11-18 08:25:46 PM  

People_are_Idiots: andrewagill: clowncar on fire: coco ebert: Awesome. Go for it, workers!

Remember- wages go up, the increase is passed onto the consumer. Win!

[arch.413chan.net image 379x214]

If it means that those workers have a better life and perhaps even make enough to afford things at places other than WAL*MART, I'm all for it.

Remember, just because you fap to Ayn Rand doesn't mean that everyone does.

Remember the main success of Wal-mart: keeping prices lower than the competitors (even Target). What most likely will happen is it'll encourage Walmart to cut back and become more automated, and/or perhaps limit hours (converting from 24-hour to limited). That screws with the "graveyard" crowd, and also adds more people to the unemployment line.


By "it" I'm assuming you mean getting the better wages which means the ability to spend more but not necessarily guaranteed to improve the quality of life. For some, the extra $15 a week means getting more party money, for others "now we can afford to have a baby". Purportionately- any raise on minimum won't amount to much. To reach $10 an hour- still not enough to meet the cost of living-- would require a 30% raise for minimum wage earners. Not much of a gain for the minimum wage worker but because of the numbers of employees on the payroll, a big enough of a hit for the employer to go into recovery mode by cutting back employee numbers, raise the price on goods, cutting back shifts, etc.
 
2012-11-18 08:28:08 PM  

red5ish: Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.


Like I said, they will pay what they can get away with in the labor market. The majority of workers benefit from some sort of government assistance or tax credits in some manner.
 
2012-11-18 08:30:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Lucky for me is that my family emphasized hard work, education, and smart choices. I've not been a paragon of those choices, but I'm certainly not doing poorly. In fact, I managed to do what most people here consider impossible - move up a few levels in the social strata. Honestly, it wasn't all that difficult. Good choices, sometimes very hard choices, a bit of luck (mostly defined as being ready when opportunity strikes), and not being an idiot.

THIS^^^^

The poor keep doing the things that make them poor. The rich keep doing the things that make then rich


Most of the things that make people poor happen before they are 18. Dropping out, doing drugs, having kids, etc. If you don't think your environment is a huge factor in those things, you got some growing up to do.

There are almost no choices you can make that will make you rich if you are born poor.
 
2012-11-18 08:32:37 PM  

robohobo: I'm interested in what everyone currently biatching in this thread(both sides) thinks of shopping online instead of going to brick and mortar. Being that one can often find anything one wants online, and cheaper than at a physical store, with the added benefit of not having to employ some mouthbreathing baby factory. I mean, aside from groceries, which I have delivered, 90% of my purchases are online, and I have to assume most people buy a goodly amount of things online.

/also buy my smokes online
//tax free, sent to a p.o. box


I lol'd.
img4.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-18 08:33:52 PM  

WhyteRaven74: It's a lot easier to make good decisions when you're not worried about a roof over your head or food on the table.


Personally, I've found the opposite to be true, but I guess that's just me and my zany antics.
 
2012-11-18 08:36:37 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: We're getting closer and closer to taking the most impoverished out of the economic cycle entirely. I can't wait to live in Snow Crash.

Make-work will be here any day.


Uncle Enzo's is totally hiring.
 
2012-11-18 08:36:41 PM  
They're bribing workers with an extra 10% off of one transaction if they work Black Friday. Totaling 20% anything except gas, alcohol, or tabacco.
 
2012-11-18 08:36:59 PM  

liam76: freewill: liam76: They have skills, very low skills, but still skills.

You say paying them a "living wage" is charity, but I disagree. If a company needs someone 40 hours a week, be it scrubbing toilets, or saying "hello" to people walking in the door they should be willing to pay them enough to live.

While I don't inherently disagree with this, three things:

1) What if they don't need you 40 hours a week?
2) I routinely work 50-60 hours at my job, as do most other people in positions that pay well that I know. What if the pay worked out to "enough to live" at that point?
3) How are you defining "enough to live"? I had no problem living on $20,000/year when I was 21. I would have had a problem raising a family on it, so, you know, I didn't, but still. How are we defining this?

1- That is the standard full time work week in the US. I can see having some part time help to fill in busy seasons, or for weekends in small companies, but when that is the majority of your workforce, you are most likely trying to skirt labor laws.
2- I would say that is BS. I have a pretty sweet job and normally do 40 hrs, more than that gets overtime. My previous job I often pulled down 50-90 hour work weeks, now way Iwoudl have put up with that if I wasn't raking in the cash. Anyway my point is if you are working more than 40hours a week you should be getting more than a living wage.
3- Enough to support a wife and raise a kid, with no real frills.


"they should be willing to pay them enough to live"- It would be nice but pay is damand based rather than need based. We all want more money- we all don't necessarily possess the skills that are in demand enough that perspective employers are willing to compete for those skills.

Is she working or not? Makes a difference.
 
2012-11-18 08:37:46 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So what's your solution, raising the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour?


Well if the min wage represented the same percentage of median income that it did back in the early days, it would be $15/hr now. So while as a number it's more than it's ever been, as far as what it is in terms relative to median income it's pretty far down.
 
2012-11-18 08:38:49 PM  
Wal-Mart has a business model that depends on people who have no choice: people in rural areas that would love to go elsewhere but can't because they don't have time to travel or simply can't afford anywhere else. And they've started to bring their act to cities as well: for example in Milwaukee they got quick approval to anchor a new shopping center that was being built atop a center that died years before. And the people who live in the neighborhoods south and east of this store? Their only options really are "stores" with almost no selection to speak of and someone who's third language is English behind the Plexiglass that serves as the checkout.

And since Wal-Mart pays so little, we have no choice but to subsidize their employees through food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, utility assistance, emergency rooms, and free clinics. How this helps the economy I don't know; we've been subsidizing these assholes and their cheap Chinese shiat long enough.

You have to go to the Yukon to get away from Wal-Mart-oh wait, they have one there too. But chains like Montgomery Ward and Woolworth's were powerful too. And Wal-Mart will go their way as well.
 
2012-11-18 08:39:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Bippal: Once you do start working somewhere like Walmart, maybe you do feel like you deserve treated better. Maybe you do realize that they do need you and your coworkers. They can't just fill every job with random warm bodies. Maybe most, but not all.

If Walmart couldn't get qualified employees at the wages they're paying, they'd be forced to raise the pay. Since that's not the case, they won't. It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.


Oh I'm not blaming Walmart. I'm saying it goes both ways. Walmart is doing what they want, and so are the employees. The company pays a wage and does the benefit thing, the employees fight back. Companies win, but im saying it's not as cut and dry as some people make it out to be. Not everyone lives in a huge town with choices. It's not always a case of them signing up for a pay wage and then deciding they don't like it later. Sometimes they blatantly get lied to. And there is no recourse. Not much they can do. I just don't think it's as easy as you'd like to state it is because it isn't either of our lives.
 
2012-11-18 08:41:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: So you actually DO believe that?

Here's what Hormel did during the depression. First thing they did when they saw the economy was going into the shiatter was to institute a 52 week lay off notice policy. No one could be laid off without being given 52 weeks notice first. So even with demand cratering they were keeping people on the payroll. At some of their facilities there were times when people showed up and basically spent their shifts talking, there wasn't enough demand for Hormel products to give them much to do. But that wasn't all, Hormel decided to also update and expand their facilities. Easy to update a facility when it's sitting almost idle. And sure things are bad today, doesn't mean they'll stay this way and may as well be well prepared for the future. So Hormel spent a ton on improving existing facilities and building new ones, new ones it had no demand for. Eventually the depression ended and things started getting better and better. Then WW2 came around and Hormel could produce food on a scale that allowed them to get tons of government contracts and then came the baby boom and Hormel was able to meet that demand easily. Oh yeah, the number of people they laid off during the depression? Zero.

I fail to see what this has to do with present day Wal*Mart.


Plenty. It proves that companies can treat-and pay- their workers well while turning a profit. Costco is a good example as well.
 
2012-11-18 08:41:55 PM  

SuperDuper28: They're bribing workers with an extra 10% off of one transaction if they work Black Friday. Totaling 20% anything except gas, alcohol, or tabacco.


I believe when an employer makes an offer like this we refer to the offer as an "incentive" or as a "benefit" not as a "bribe".
 
2012-11-18 08:42:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: The poor keep doing the things that make them poor.



Well that and Obama of course.
 
2012-11-18 08:43:58 PM  

liam76: 1- That is the standard full time work week in the US. I can see having some part time help to fill in busy seasons, or for weekends in small companies, but when that is the majority of your workforce, you are most likely trying to skirt labor laws.


Very reasonable.

2- I would say that is BS. I have a pretty sweet job and normally do 40 hrs, more than that gets overtime. My previous job I often pulled down 50-90 hour work weeks, now way Iwoudl have put up with that if I wasn't raking in the cash. Anyway my point is if you are working more than 40hours a week you should be getting more than a living wage.

I'm not so sure that I agree with this, because while I understand that many jobs definitely call for a 40-hour-workweek and in those cases it's absolutely true, I'm not sure it's a reasonable assumption that a "living wage" (depending on what, exactly, that is) will always come from working 40 hours a week. The job may just not work that way, because not everybody is doing shift work that they can drop at a fixed time and pick up at another fixed time.

Mine doesn't, and as for it being BS, I literally don't know anyone in a skilled position who can expect to walk away clean at 5 every day. There are weekend emergencies, late night ideas, working late to finish something up, surprise deadlines, and while sometimes it can be the result of mismanagement, it's also a natural part of any growing business. That's part of the different between a skilled worker and somebody working the cash register for minimum wage.

3- Enough to support a wife and raise a kid, with no real frills.

I think the idea that an unskilled laborer (and here, we're often talking about employees who, in a pinch, could be replaced by touch screens) should be able to provide food and shelter for 3 people by working 40 hours a week is fabulously optimistic.
 
2012-11-18 08:45:30 PM  

freewill: I think the idea that an unskilled laborer (and here, we're often talking about employees who, in a pinch, could be replaced by touch screens) should be able to provide food and shelter for 3 people by working 40 hours a week is fabulously optimistic.


...and I should rephrase that, because the idea of "supporting a wife and raising a kid without frills" covers a lot more expenses than just food and shelter.
 
2012-11-18 08:51:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit. Taxpayers subsidize their business model. I don't see how anybody who dislikes taxes could argue in favor of Walmart's business practices.

Walmart's net profit for the past four quarters was $15.7 billion. Divide that by 2.2 million employees and you get about $7100 each. What percentage of that should go to employees?


It's obvious that it should all go to four people. They did thier time in the company by being related to the company's founder. Their hardwork helped hit a home run
 
2012-11-18 08:53:02 PM  

WhyteRaven74: We're better than telling people "You farked up, now suffer while I mock you". Or at least I am.


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-18 08:55:38 PM  

WhyteRaven74:

BTW the more Walmart pays their employees the more money Walmart will make.


I pay you an extra dollar. You spend it in my store. I get 4 cents profit (that's Walmart's profit margin). Lovely.

Except you won't spend the whole dollar in my store. You'll spend much of it on rent and health care and other things that I don't sell and the government will no longer provide. So this lovely little balloon leaks.

If you're smart, you won't spend any of your extra wages in my store. You're probably already buying all of the essentials from me because I'm Walmart, I'm cheap as hell, and I'm very convenient (you work here, remember). You really shouldn't be buying that 50 inch TV from me or anyone else. Save your money, or invest in education.
 
2012-11-18 08:56:14 PM  

tbhouston: People choose to work at Walmart for what ever reason..no one is forcing them...


And people choose to strike and/or boycott wally mart for what ever reason...no one is forcing them...
 
2012-11-18 09:04:51 PM  

jst3p: red5ish: jst3p: Semi-relevant.

Wasn't he working as a janitor in that movie. Yeah, he was.

I was just going for a small lul, Please tell me you aren't citing a work of fiction to make your point. That would be as dumb as pointing to Atlas Shrugged as a valid source of information.


I wasn't trying to make a point. I was getting my own lulz out of your post.
 
2012-11-18 09:06:08 PM  

dickfreckle: I'm not trying to pull a hipster dislike of the store; I genuinely despise going there and feel like I'm at the cusp of a heart attack each minute I'm there. Crotchfruit everywhere, muffin-tops, women beating their children...


Glad I'm not the only one. The only time I ever go to WalMart is if I am in an unfamiliar town, or absolutely nothing else is open.
And if I do enter a WalMart it is with a very specific purpose to get in, find a certain item, and get back out again.
Seriously, it feels distressing, like a panic attack.
My nephew wanted a certain toy for Christmas, as his Mom let me know that WalMart had them for $43. I did not mind paying $50 for the same item at a smaller local store. Seven bucks to avoid having to enter WalMart? Done! Super cheap!
 
2012-11-18 09:08:04 PM  

GoldDude: My nephew wanted a certain toy for Christmas, as his Mom let me know that WalMart had them for $43. I did not mind paying $50 for the same item at a smaller local store. Seven bucks to avoid having to enter WalMart? Done! Super cheap!


This.
 
2012-11-18 09:10:02 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.


Your analogy only works a little bit. Walmart employees who quit will not be thrown violently into a freezing ocean of salty death. It would be more analogous to saying that if you choose to disembark from a cruise ship in a foreign port, you might be able to find passage on a better liner, but might only find passage on a tramp steamer. You are not going to die either way, but the choice you made will have consequences which you can only partially control.

Additionally, being nerdy tonight, I suggest that to compare employment at Wal*Mart to riding on the Titanic is a bit of a stretch. Wal*Mart is not generally viewed as first class.

Popcorn Johnny is partially correct in that many people with few skills and low education will have a damned hard time making it in this world. It is not always a chosen, as he suggests, but it often could have been prevented if handled in the school years. Many of us develop habits in the formative years which help us to succeed, and many develop habits which impede us and at times, ruin us. So if we are going to blame Wal*Mart for hiring the poor, unskilled and uneducated people and then dare to not pay them awesome wages, we should additionally lay blame on the public school system, poor parenting, and a host of other individuals and organizations which did not properly instruct and mold the young people who will be tomorrows, um, er, Wal*Mart quality employees.

But I do laud your comment for being civil. You are a good man.
 
2012-11-18 09:14:22 PM  

GoldDude: My nephew wanted a certain toy for Christmas, as his Mom let me know that WalMart had them for $43. I did not mind paying $50 for the same item at a smaller local store. Seven bucks to avoid having to enter WalMart? Done! Super cheap!


Are you on food stamps? Is $7 the difference between a few extra, cheap spaghetti dinners for you and your children?
 
2012-11-18 09:15:56 PM  

fredklein: red5ish: Walmart is profitable enough to pay living wages to its employees, keeping them off the dole, but instead choose to pay less and to pocket the extra profit.

I'm pretty sure you are rich enough to feed hundreds of starving African kids, keep them from dying.
But instead, you choose to own a computer and pay for Internet access so you can make posts about how other people should give away their money....


You are extra specially far off the point. I am impressed. How is the air over there?
 
2012-11-18 09:17:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: ronaprhys: WhyteRaven74: Popcorn Johnny: It's mind boggling to me that you're trying to put the blame on Walmart instead of the people who have chosen to tread water through life as an unskilled worker.

they've chosen it the same way a passenger on the Titanic chose to hit an iceberg.

From what I've seen of poor people (and note that I grew up on military bases, the son of an enlisted man. Later in life, I managed to live in two different trailer parks, so to say I've no experience would be demonstrably false), most make poor choices. I could save some money and get ahead or I could buy an ATV. I could purchase an economical and reliable used car or an American pick-em-up truck and put expensive as hell tires on it, then let them get to bald. I could take classes and try to get ahead in life or just get drunk each night. I could buy condoms or have a passel of children.

The fact is that many poor people make very poor choices in life. This puts them in a position where they have limited options.

Lucky for me is that my family emphasized hard work, education, and smart choices. I've not been a paragon of those choices, but I'm certainly not doing poorly. In fact, I managed to do what most people here consider impossible - move up a few levels in the social strata. Honestly, it wasn't all that difficult. Good choices, sometimes very hard choices, a bit of luck (mostly defined as being ready when opportunity strikes), and not being an idiot.

THIS^^^^

The poor keep doing the things that make them poor. The rich keep doing the things that make then rich.


And the poor excuse for human beings keep posting the crap that makes them poor excuses of human beings.
 
2012-11-18 09:19:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: red5ish: DrewCurtisJr: I'm saying it is irrelevant because even if the government didn't subsidize the healthcare and food stamps of its employees the wages would be the same, the employees would just be more miserable. The wages are more of a reflection of the conditions of the labor market, when a Walmart opens 5k people apply for 400 positions. Without any leverage wages aren't going to improve.

Would they be more miserable or would they be homeless and/or starving? That aside, it is relevant because a business model which depends on their workforce receiving public assistance is not a viable business model in a free market.

It's not? Have you seen their profits?


I'm saying that they are not operating in a free market; they are being subsidized. You and I, as taxpayers, are subsidizing Walmart. Those profits you mention are, in part, thanks to your hard work.
 
2012-11-18 09:22:24 PM  

clowncar on fire: By "it" I'm assuming you mean getting the better wages which means the ability to spend more but not necessarily guaranteed to improve the quality of life. For some, the extra $15 a week means getting more party money, for others "now we can afford to have a baby". Purportionately- any raise on minimum won't amount to much. To reach $10 an hour- still not enough to meet the cost of living-- would require a 30% raise for minimum wage earners. Not much of a gain for the minimum wage worker but because of the numbers of employees on the payroll, a big enough of a hit for the employer to go into recovery mode by cutting back employee numbers, raise the price on goods, cutting back shifts, etc.


i158.photobucket.com


It may be a small victory at first, but showing that workers actually can make a large company take notice and respond to their reasonable requests for living wages will embolden their employees to actually ask for decent wages and good working conditions. And the company will have to come around to a completely different way of thinking about their employees.
 
2012-11-18 09:22:38 PM  

red5ish: jst3p: red5ish: jst3p: Semi-relevant.

Wasn't he working as a janitor in that movie. Yeah, he was.

I was just going for a small lul, Please tell me you aren't citing a work of fiction to make your point. That would be as dumb as pointing to Atlas Shrugged as a valid source of information.

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was getting my own lulz out of your post.


Fair enough, hard to tell who is derp and who is serious sometimes.
 
2012-11-18 09:25:22 PM  

dickfreckle: Bontesla: Good for you employees.
/Will not be doing any Christmas shopping at Walmart anyway

I had to go there recently because it was the only store open that late, and I desperately needed something.

I'm not trying to pull a hipster dislike of the store; I genuinely despise going there and feel like I'm at the cusp of a heart attack each minute I'm there. Crotchfruit everywhere, muffin-tops, women beating their children...

Anyway, I'm proud of the workers for even planning a walk-out, but at the same time, they have to work or starve. Wal-Mart knows they have this leverage, unless all the employees planning to walk out have spouses that can support them.


awe, poor little hipster, being so earnest, that's so cute
 
2012-11-18 09:25:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: red5ish: Silly Jesus: Have you given thought to the fact that your real problem may be with our welfare system rather than Wal*Mart?

Yes, I did think about that. I came to the conclusion, and so will you, that without government assistance Walmart's employees would be so impoverished they would be homeless or starving or both, so the problem goes back to Walmart's business practices.

So no personal responsibility whatsoever on the part of the person with no skills or discernible value other than breathing?


Lets say you are correct and they have no skills or value, your solution is what? Let them starve? There will always be a segment of the population that can not provide for themselves. How do you propose we deal with them?
 
2012-11-18 09:26:23 PM  
Thanks Grover
 
2012-11-18 09:26:48 PM  

liam76: Silly Jesus: But they ARE particularly successful..

By outright breaking labor laws in many cases, and skirting it through the use of contractors for things like cleaning and their sorting/shipping facilities.

Silly Jesus: No, you're right, companies should pay employees more than their labor is worth just to be charitable

The only reason people will work at those wages is that the govt is subsidizing them.


So, if we can just get the govenment to stop subsidizing the Wal*Mart employees, they will all finally just up and quit and go get real jobs? Just, cool man! What a boon that would be, huh? Millions of unhappy, unappreciated and underpaid folks would finally become motivated to go do something better. Humanity would be enhanced, the sun would shine more brightly and universal happiness might ensue.

But the evil government keeps holding down the pitiable Wal*Marters, making life slightly tolerable for them, lulling them to sleep with wads of free cash. Damn them to hell! I say (based on the sentence above) that government assistance should be withheld from the oppressed Wal*Mart employees. The term "Starving the out" never had a more correct application.
 
2012-11-18 09:28:00 PM  

brantgoose: I predict that it will soon be even harder to spot a helpful employee in a WalMart store.

In my experience, in addition to occupying the locations of old K-mart stores, WalMart stores have this in common with the aged chain: if you look at an employee, they disappear.

They will happly stock shelves or stand around or whatever it is that employees do when they are not working, but the moment you have a question or have made a decision and need help getting something down from twenty feet over your head, they are nowhere to be found.

Soon they will not be waiting for you to decide to buy something. They will be gone.

There is something seriously quantum mechanical going on in the giant box retail trade. Is that an employee? Look and they will either disappear or turn out to be an employee who is serving somebody else and won't be free until they are done--at which time you will look again and they will be gone or else serving another employee.

It is impossible to get servce in a service economy. I can see why some nutters want to go back to a gold-based economy, but then it would be impossible to find any gold. Gold is too useful to sit around in vaults, so I favour a fiat currency which lets it get out and do something once in a while.


dafuq...dafuq did i just read?
 
2012-11-18 09:30:14 PM  

hbk72777: Monday's headline "Walmart training 30 new employees"

/Every Walmart I've shopped in regularly, has had the same people there for years.

/Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. Maybe the Jews, Muslims, Jehovahs, etc WANT THE WORK


-5/10
Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.
 
2012-11-18 09:35:26 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: So, if we can just get the govenment to stop subsidizing the Wal*Mart employees, they will all finally just up and quit and go get real jobs? Just, cool man! What a boon that would be, huh? Millions of unhappy, unappreciated and underpaid folks would finally become motivated to go do something better. Humanity would be enhanced, the sun would shine more brightly and universal happiness might ensue.


I think it's more likely that they would resort to violence until they were paid more.

It's happened before.
 
2012-11-18 09:36:16 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.


If only that were true.
 
Displayed 50 of 635 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report