samclemens Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...06/walmart.html im sure ten people will jump on here to call wal-mart satan incarnate, but i dont see anything wrong with this. they are one of if not the biggest employers in the country- they should be able to encourage positions favorable to them. therefore i must be a facist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 FASCIST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Unions do this in every election cycle, I see no problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 OK by me. I think the long run, this will only hurt Walmart, for a number of reasons. But they are welcome to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 09:45 AM) OK by me. I think the long run, this will only hurt Walmart, for a number of reasons. But they are welcome to do so. Out of curiousity why do you think it would hurt them? They pretty much have just been a sitting duck for everyone with a labor agenda for the longest time. WMT has been made to be the face of all that is corporate and evil in this country, and pretty much not said a word to counter all of the negative PR, even with states, unions, and congressmen lead a personal charge to try to take them down. How could it get worse? I mean you would pretty much need to catch Sam Walton with plans for his puppy killing/slave making machine to get WMT any worse of an image than people are portraying them with now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) Out of curiousity why do you think it would hurt them? They pretty much have just been a sitting duck for everyone with a labor agenda for the longest time. WMT has been made to be the face of all that is corporate and evil in this country, and pretty much not said a word to counter all of the negative PR, even with states, unions, and congressmen lead a personal charge to try to take them down. How could it get worse? I mean you would pretty much need to catch Sam Walton with plans for his puppy killing/slave making machine to get WMT any worse of an image than people are portraying them with now. I think the PR effort might work internally, though as all spin efforts are at the corporate level, they will also cause some backlash among others. The net effect, if the program is done right, could be positive. But here is the thing with politicization of corporations. Ultimately, it usually ends up hurting them. Why? The same reason why a company would be stupid to hire only from a pool of a certain political party, or race, or any other classification. The net effect is negative in two ways. One, you repel a certain segment of the population from giving you their business (admitedly, this is already underway against Walmart, but it can always get worse). Two, you limit your pool of potential employees, thus guaranteeing that on a large scale, their staff will be less skilled. Now, in Walmart's case, both those effects are less than they might be for other companies. As you said, their image is already tarnished for many. And as for the skill pool, well... most jobs at Walmart require little in the way of skills anyway. But even if each of those dynamics results in a small negative effect, then you have defeated the purpose you are trying to serve. This is the business me talking here, not the political one. For most corporations, its just best to stay as far away from political affiliation as possible. It can only hurt. If you can get away with making some relatively small donations, then those can probably be neatly covered up. But anything beyong that, and it reaches your public profile, and that is when the negatives begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I believe what makes this country strong is that Walmart is free to take those actions. What is ironic is that Walmart does the best job at matching their employees to government programs that are available for the working poor. Those programs are generally the pet projects of the Dems and not the GOP. I also applaud Walmart in their ability to compete and win. That is what a free market can bring. People will take the convienence and low prices of a Walmart and allow their local merchants to perish. The Dems are short sighted in trying to prop up an aging and innefficient system against the efficiencies of Walmart. There are some downsides to a Walmart economy. They do employ a lot of people, usually as part time and at the low end of the wage scale. Society is picking up some of that tab in the way of government support services to those working poor. The Dems seem to believe they can fix that by forcing Walmart to higher wages. That will not work. What will work is a better educated work force that is not forced into those jobs, combined with government incentives that distinguishes the quality of the jobs, not just the number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) That will not work. What will work is a better educated work force that is not forced into those jobs, combined with government incentives that distinguishes the quality of the jobs, not just the number. Tex: Someone will always have to have these jobs. There will always be the poor, heck if everyone in the country had a BA it would just mean that someone with a college degree is going to be bagging groceries. I'm not trying to down play the importance of education but not everyone should be in college. Not everyone is capable or receiving a college degree. Should those people be relegated to the the role of societal minions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) Tex: Someone will always have to have these jobs. There will always be the poor, heck if everyone in the country had a BA it would just mean that someone with a college degree is going to be bagging groceries. I'm not trying to down play the importance of education but not everyone should be in college. Not everyone is capable or receiving a college degree. Should those people be relegated to the the role of societal minions? When there aren't 1,000 applicants for 150 jobs, then Walmart will have to raise wages to attract the candidates they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) When there aren't 1,000 applicants for 150 jobs, then Walmart will have to raise wages to attract the candidates they need. But I thought unemployment was at historic lows and the economy was rolling along great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) When there aren't 1,000 applicants for 150 jobs, then Walmart will have to raise wages to attract the candidates they need. My point was more that I can't imagine that ever happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) My point was more that I can't imagine that ever happening. And that is the challenge. With manufacturing fleeing the country, and other careers that lead to solid middle class lives disappearing, that leaves these low end jobs for the masses. As a society we need to figure out a way to regain momentum in the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) But I thought unemployment was at historic lows and the economy was rolling along great? It is. What's your issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) It is. What's your issue? Man, this is too easy. Real wages falling, income disparity widening (even compared to medieval ages by The Economist of all publications), negative public savings, foreign trade deficits, do I have to go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 07:52 AM) Man, this is too easy. Real wages falling, income disparity widening (even compared to medieval ages by The Economist of all publications), negative public savings, foreign trade deficits, do I have to go on? Income Disparity: Irrelevant Negative Public Savings: Irrelevant Foregin Trade Defecits: Irrelevant How is any of that related to unemployment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) Income Disparity: Irrelevant Negative Public Savings: Irrelevant Foregin Trade Defecits: Irrelevant How is any of that related to unemployment? So as long as we have an UER that is low, the other factors are pointless? Come on, you know UER isn't a good barometer for how well the economy is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 07:56 AM) So as long as we have an UER that is low, the other factors are pointless? Come on, you know UER isn't a good barometer for how well the economy is doing. Was this a talk about unemployment or the economy as a whole? I was talking about unemployment only since someone else brought it up. You may have a point about declining real wages but the economy, as a whole, is still in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) Was this a talk about unemployment or the economy as a whole? I was talking about unemployment only since someone else brought it up. You may have a point about declining real wages but the economy, as a whole, is still in good shape. except in Michigan. Vote DeVos for the love of God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts