It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The NY Times Trashes Walmart. Walmart Grows a Pair and Eats The Time's Lunch.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: g146541
This is Obama's plan. Look at all the new (no benefit,part-time,low wage) jobs I created!
Close the borders and deport all the illegals, and watch the wages go up as there aren't a million people fighting for the same job. The LAW says it is the governments job to secure the borders and they refuse to do so.
It's not lack of unions killing the American worker, it's the Government.


edit on 24-6-2014 by abe froman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There's a lot of clever trickery there, but Wal-mart is doing the same thing that the guy did. The average wage for a full-time worker was 12.91. Okay, fantastic. Now, how many workers at Walmart are full time?

According to this article, about 1 million, meaning roughly half.

What do the other half make?

Taking the midpoint in estimates, Walmart costs 6.2 billion in taxpayer money a year.

Walmart pays about 7.8 billion in taxes a year.

Okay, so it looks like a net positive from Walmart, right?

Well, I guess it really depends on how you look at it. When you take into account that Walmart gets 18% of the food stamp activity alone, worth an estimated 80 billion a year, I'd say that one can easily argue that a lot of that net profit in tax that we see from Walmart is essentially going right back into Walmart in the form of profits in some kind of cannibalistic poverty loop.

Add in the ongoing economic costs to the community, like here, and I'm not really sure that it's a wash, though these figures can certainly be debated.

In the end, I won't even fault Walmart for how it pays because it looks like it's a wash: I will fault it for how it treats its workers and how it treats customers. When the parking lot is full, I expect there to be more than four or five of their 30 registers open. I expect their employees to be treated with a small modicum of decency instead of hearing constant stories of degradation and hearing about them being run ragged in questionable conditions. 75 cents over minimum wage isn't enough pay for somebody to be running 3 departments by themselves; it's not enough for the amount of labor that they actually do.

The extreme and aggressive anti-union activities of Wal-mart is borderline illegal in many cases as well. If their conditions and pay are so great, why are they so dogged and furiously against being unionized? I mean, there are many examples in the industry of stores being unionized and still very profitable. Kroger and Publix are just two off the top of my head.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Well, you can't really hold Wal Mart accountable for recieving Food Stamp funds in exchange for their products. THey are selling a ware, and that is the method of payment that you and I (via our votes and taxes) have determined works best to provide whatever social service is being provided.

In short: Wal Mart is not culpable for accepting food stamps.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LoverBoy

Perhaps I should have said join for a "College Education". You need no college to join. Just a high school diploma or equivalent. If you want to be an officer, then you need college or you can become an officer after you joined as enlisted by using programs such as the Army's "green to gold". Really the only limiting factor is the ASVAB and you have to do pretty poorly in order to score low enough to "fail".



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
...
The extreme and aggressive anti-union activities of Wal-mart is borderline illegal in many cases as well. If their conditions and pay are so great, why are they so dogged and furiously against being unionized? I mean, there are many examples in the industry of stores being unionized and still very profitable. Kroger and Publix are just two off the top of my head.


Do you honestly believe that all Wal-Mart employees should be making $20.00 per hour? If not, what would be a wage that you would think is right?

To me unions had their place and they have destroyed their own purpose. Now they are nothing more than pyramid schemes that drive up prices for the people who can't really afford to pay more in the first place. I know people that build cars a Chrysler plant that make $28 dollars an hour; for putting part A into slot B. They get ridiculous vacation time and lots of paid time off. Now when you think about that $28 bucks, that's what they take home. It's not their actual pay. What Chrysler actually pays them is about double when you put in workers comp, insurance, wage, etc.

It is just my opinion, but if people don't want to make $20K - $30K per year then they need to find a different job.
$10 dollars/hour is just over 20K/yearly
$14 dollars/hour is just shy of 30K/yearly

Now considering that the average wage is over $12.50, I will again ask what you think is a good wage.
Don't think I am attacking you, I am just generally curious. : )



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You know what we really should have a thread on....selection. Why do these big stores need three brands of milk, four types of each brand, plus all the soy milks and rice milks and organic milks. Each brand means more milk going back that wasn't purchased. It means more coolers. Three to four brands of cottage cheese, both in regular and reduced fat...why not just one good brand of this. We wonder how come the prices keep creeping up, it costs money to stock a store with stuff that doesn't turn over. I'm not going to even start on cereals. Flours are different, different brands have different properties and some recipes require certain brands.

I think people's demands for products is getting outrageous. People want stores to stock everything.

I must be getting old, I remember when there were only about eight types of cereal in a store. Cheerios, Corn flakes, Rice Crispies, frosted flakes, Shredded wheat, and fruit loops were most of them. When I go there now...I get overwhelmed by the choices. Some cereals they tote as healthy can break your teeth. How healthy is that? I bet the dental association is the main investor in those cereals. I lied, I started on cereals.
edit on 24-6-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman
The current president is not the problem, not even close!
The problem is the corporations and politicians working in unison for a bigger piece of our pie.
At least the unions knew how much of a slice was too much.
Now that unions are gone though, things will get exponentially worse until we hit rock bottom.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
You know what we really should have a thread on....selection. Why do these big stores need three brands of milk, four types of each brand, plus all the soy milks and rice milks and organic milks. Each brand means more milk going back that wasn't purchased. It means more coolers. Three to four brands of cottage cheese, both in regular and reduced fat...why not just one good brand of this. We wonder how come the prices keep creeping up, it costs money to stock a store with stuff that doesn't turn over. I'm not going to even start on cereals. Flours are different, different brands have different properties and some recipes require certain brands.

I think people's demands for products is getting outrageous. People want stores to stock everything.

I must be getting old, I remember when there were only about eight types of cereal in a store. Cheerios, Corn flakes, Rice Crispies, frosted flakes, Shredded wheat, and fruit loops were most of them. When I go there now...I get overwhelmed by the choices. Some cereals they tote as healthy can break your teeth. How healthy is that? I bet the dental association is the main investor in those cereals. I lied, I started on cereals.


Because I hate Kemps milk? It's all for me : )

I can agree though there is a lot of the same stuff re-packaged and re-branded by the same companies. It is extremely wasteful in all areas.

EDIT: Oh, and I lost a tooth to GrapeNuts on Christmas Eve moons ago.
edit on 24-6-2014 by rockn82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rockn82

They always had two brands of milk, but four sounds kind of like an overkill. Especially when there are a couple of organic brands in the store.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Dear ATSers,

I can't thank you enough for your responses to this thread. Yes, there were some responses that were completely without any serious thought, but the majority were worthwhile.

I wanted people to point out the bad things, AND the good things. In short, a discussion where we could learn something, instead of just having to put up with mindless slogans projected with all the hate that person had.

Just had a flash! Rickymouse mourned the demise of "Mom and Pop" stores. So do I. But how much of it is caused by Walmart?

I live in a town with a population in the 20,000 -25,000 range. In the last year, at least two small stores shut down, a jeweler and a sporting good shop.

I happen to know that what happened in these cases is the most natural thing in the world. They are "Mom and Pops." Like the rest of the country, Mom and Pop are both getting old or dying. They get tired of the work they've done for forty years, so they turn to their children (or grandchildren in these cases) and ask, "How about it Kiddo? Want your own business?" At which point Kiddo says, "What, and spend the rest of my live in this Godforsaken little dump of a town? Sell it, Gramps, and give me my share, I'm out of here." Gramps does, and Walmart gets blamed.

If you don't mind too much, I think I'll try to comment on each of those posts, earliest first.
--------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm glad Kangaruex4Ewe was up first. I needed a story of goodness and success today. So many people say "Here's what happened to me (or my friend, or my wife). Walmart did something bad so they're obviously a bad company."

Apply that same logic here and you have to conclude Walmart is a good company.

When your head is finished exploding, calm down, admit there is good and bad, and rejoin the discussion, a better, more thoughtful person.
---------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Dear skunkape23, you're absolutely right. Maybe it's a PR move, but having the greeters is a kindness I don't see other companies offering.

And feel free to criticize their business model. The more reasonable exploration we have of this company, the quicker we can think rationally about it.
----------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Dear abe froman, I'm surprised at your surprise. No one should plan on getting wisdom from school anymore. If one is really lucky, one will obtain several facts which can be relied upon. As has been noted, the more education received, the more likely one is to achieve stupidity.

And if a person receives a degree in "Fill in the Blank Studies" from a major university, that person might as well hire a full time nurse to remind him to open his mouth and swallow the food when he's hungry.

You might be right about unions, I don't know enough to condemn them all so strongly. SEIU does seem to fit into your description, however.
-----------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Dear nrd101, do what you want, of course, but I think your argument would be more appreciated in a different thread. And just some friendly suggestions to help your future posting:

All caps tend to make people look psychotic.

Management frowns on minimal posts with absolutely no content.
The word "Walmart" was in the headline. If you wanted to be spared, why did you even look at the thread?

Learn to spell "drivel," or turn on your spell checker. Many people judge the quality of the thought, in part, on the presentation. Seems unfair, I know, but there you are.
------------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks, rickymouse, I actually agree with you, although I might phrase it a little differently.

I think it's the huge popularity of Walmart which makes it hard for the little stores to survive. I suspect that many would say that people are so poor now, that they have little choice but to patronize Walmart, or Dollar Tree, or similar stores.

I have a couple of suits (and a tux for that matter) from the best tailor in the state. That was a long time ago. My last jacket was from Men's Wearhouse (which might be considered the Walmart or Target of clothes). You just do the best you can. Right now, Walmart is the best that many can do.
-------------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Antipathy17, Personally, I'd prefer it if every returning veteran had a job anywhere, but many don't. There are even published reports of veterans being turned down for jobs because they had seen combat, and the real world. Management was, in short, afraid of them and afraid that they wouldn't fit well with their customers.

I suspect you didn't read the article. Had you read it, you'd have seen how Michelle Obama praised Walmart publicly for their veteran hiring initiative, and said that Walmart was setting an example for the rest of corporate America.
--------------------------
Dear g146541, you've come up with some interesting statements which bear no relationship to anything I've been able to discover. May I ask for some sources?

You claim we had strong unions 20 years ago? Nobody I have found believes that. That was 1994. Union membership has been in a steady decline since about 1950-1955. Membership peaked a long time ago.

Corporate union busting? I don't see it as the controlling factor. (Actually, almost no one does.) Consider Smoot-Hawley, passed in 1947. Think about Reagan firing the union members who were engaging in illegal strikes. Think about the government taking over the roles unions used to have. There's almost no need to negotiate for better safety rules with OSHA and everybody else promulgating thousands of pages of safety rules. Think about unions demanding total benefit packages large enough to get companies (and cities) to declare bankruptcy, cut back severely, or just cut their ties and leave.

If you're really interested in knowing some of the causes for the decline of unions, here's a good place to start.

www.shmoop.com...

You talk about quality of life. Unions were last strong in the 1950s. Please show me some serious evidence that the quality of life in America has been falling steadily for half of a century, as union membership has been.

You can't. The evidence you need to support your position doesn't exist. If you said anything that can be shown to be true, I'd be pleased to know about it.


Time for some coffee. Again, thank you all for the generally high quality of your responses. I'm really honored that you're sharing them.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Walmart is almost single handedly responsible for the decline in American manufacturing and good paying jobs with health insurance. I can say they may be responsible for the fall of America as well as the rise of China's growing middle class. If they were trying to defeat hard working Americans and improve lives over there in China, well they deserve to be congratulated.They have succeeded in doing just that. Old Sam Walton has probably reached some sort of idol status among the Chinese. Good for him and his business. I am sure the Waltons et al have more than a pair to gouge hunks out of this country, hand them to China, and then still call themselves American.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Walmart is almost single handedly responsible for the decline in American manufacturing and good paying jobs with health insurance. I can say they may be responsible for the fall of America as well as the rise of China's growing middle class. If they were trying to defeat hard working Americans and improve lives over there in China, well they deserve to be congratulated.They have succeeded in doing just that. Old Sam Walton has probably reached some sort of idol status among the Chinese. Good for him and his business. I am sure the Waltons et al have more than a pair to gouge hunks out of this country, hand them to China, and then still call themselves American.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe
I read your posts and I must say that if you hadn't mentioned it, no one would have ever guessed that you didn't have a HSD, you are wise beyond whats on paper.


Unions are dirty criminal orginizations for the most part, their thug tactics aren't much removed from their mafia days. They want a cut of the pie.



I appreciate that more than you know. Many years ago as an unwise, unable to see the future 17 year old, I started skipping school. My father eventually had enough, got angry and signed me out in my 12th grade year. My assistant principle and guidance counselor made a home visit, offered to pay for my books, even paper and pencils if I would come back. Angry and again unable to see the future, I declined.

I suppose we all have regrets. That is one of mine. It's definitely nothing to brag about and I didn't even think about putting it in the post. Had I realized it, I probably would have edited it out. Even at 37 I still have days where I think... I could've been a contender.


And on topic - I couldn't agree more about the unions. What started out as good, became not so good when it got so huge as do many things. It became corrupt and self serving more than for the people.
edit on 6/24/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
A few more responses, as you deserve them for the effort you've put in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Sorry, I don't get your point at all. When you say that most of the military is not educated, do you mean that most of the military does not have a college degree?

You must, since members of the military are much more likely to have at least a High School Diploma or GED than the average American.
www.civmilblog.com...

And does Walmart have many "College necessary jobs?" I know employers ask for college degrees, but they are rarely necessary unless one is looking for a professional career, or work in one of the sciences.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
---------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What, again?

There used to be laws against monopolies here in the US, but I guess wallyworld has no monopoly, we still have Amazon!
As you say in the next sentence, this was not a serious comment. Yes, we have laws against monopolies. No, Walmart is not a monopoly.

The number 2 retailer in the world is the French firm Carrefour. Their revenue is about 30% of Walmart's

The Kroger Company is Walmart's closest American competition with revenues a litlle over 20% of Walmart's.

Looking at the retailers in spots #2-6 in the international list, you'll find that their combined revenue is larger than Walmart's

(Please note, that's just revenue. America has the highest corporate taxes in the world, so Walmart's profits will take a bigger bite than those of retailers in other countries. That also doesn't consider that Walmart donates money hand over fist. I don't know what the other corporations do.)

And no, I have no idea why you're bringing in free speech and corporate personhood. First, you are wrong if that is your understanding of Citizens United, and second, that has nothing to do with the OP (at least as far as I can see. Please explain its importance to this discussion.)
---------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Forgive me, kosmicjack. I appreciate your post, you obviously put a lot of thought into it. It is, however, the most self-contradictory and confusing post I've seen so far. I'd be grateful if you took another shot at expressing your ideas.

"It matters little what Wal Mart, Tovar, the Daily Caller or The New York Times says. I come to my facts and opinions based on my own experiences." OK. That's pretty bizarre, but I'll accept it. Was there Elizabethan England? You didn't experience it, you had to take some writer's word for it. How about textbooks? Almost nobody has experienced the things that are reported therein. But those are objections you can easily clear up by explaining what you really meant to say.

Where I have to get off, however, is right here:
"It matters little what Wal Mart, Tovar, the Daily Caller or The New York Times says. I come to my facts and opinions based on my own experiences." AND YET, you are able to say, with what I assume is a straight face, "And state after state reports that Wal Mart employees are on their welfare rolls. The internet is rife with documented tales of Wal Mart workers.

In fact you can spend all day reading tales of woe recounting how some employee or supplier or merchant or town was screwed by Wal Mart."

The only conclusion I can draw is that if the story is positive about Walmart, you'll only accept it if you've experienced it. If it's negative, you'll accept anything from anywhere, whether or not you've experienced it.

As far as your other points, it seems you are proof of the concept of the "Liberal Bubble." When you say that none of your acquaintances like Walmart, you may think that's a criticism of Walmart, but actually it's a sign that you need to get a wider circle of friends, perhaps some who more accurately reflect the country. Are your friends all union members? All liberals? I suspect, that's your problem.

The first survey that came up in my very quick search was five years old. It showed that 64% of Americans approved of Walmart, 33% disapproved. It seems as though you have to expand your circle of friends.
www.rasmussenreports.com...
"Fact: Even if you do not patronize Wal Mart, it still dictates your shopping habits. The price and selection of most staple goods is determined by Wal Mart simply because they are the single largest buyer, world wide. Manufacturers yield to Wal Mart's quality and packaging standards. For instance, toilet paper or paper towel producers. "

As you're so big on experiences, I should tell you that that is not the case in my experience. I can get bizarrely shaped and colored pasta, fruits and vegetables of which I've never heard, the most bizarre of luxurious items. Walmart hasn't shut down any of those things. I can't accept your claim that it is a "fact" that Walmart controls the selection and packaging of staple goods. You might have had a stronger case had you said "generic" items, but even still ....
-----------------------
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Dear bigfatfurrytexan, I completely agree with you. (That should not be surprising, as i am a reasonable person.)

I don't know for myself, but I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that Walmart products are of lower quality. Why should it surprise anyone that some stores have lower quality products, and some have higher?

I suppose, if I wanted to, I could find organic non-GMO Arugula which had been raised with an orchestra playing soothing music, was harvested by naked Swedish virgins, and which had each leaf signed by Michelle Obama.

On my budget, I get lettuce raked off the ground by some 50 year-old wino, addicted to spitting chewing tobacco on the lettuce being harvested.

I agree that if you can afford to choose, it almost always makes more sense to bypass the discount stores and get the best.

Here's another example. When I was in school (probably Grade 6 or younger) we had to purchase a torture device called a "Flutophone" (Sp?) to learn the basics of music. I suppose my parents could have gone shopping for a teak wood, hand-crafted recorder, but they knew I was probably going to lose interest in it and throw it away at some point. "Lowest possible quality" made a lot of sense for them.

Thank you for mentioning the Walmart shoppers. Timing is everything. Go there on a Saturday and you'll wish you were in a heavily armored military vehicle hidden in some far corner.

However the internet is full of photos of some of the truly bizarre people who show up at such stores. Nearly naked people, strange costumes and tattoos, but surely you've seen them. All I can do is shake my head.

Time for another break. I am still mightily impressed, thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
How wonderful! G146541, has come up with a theory which supports Walmart completely and sets a bomb under his own position. G146541, I salute you for your mental flexibility. I don't know why politicians call it "flip-flopping," that sounds like a negative term.

G146541 is concerned that Tim Egan could be just anyone and there is no particular reason to see him as a serious journalist. After all, as g146541 points out, Egan didn't write the story that g146541 thinks should have been written. So, maybe, it's worthwhile to look at Egan.

At least, I thought it was worthwhile to look. G146541 apparently didn't care to. Egan's in Wikipedia, for crying out loud. He's 60 years old, spent 18 years with The New York Times, has written seven books including one which won a National Book Award. He also contributed to a series in The Times which won a Pulitzer.

So now, perhaps, g146541 can give up the idea that:

I do not know who the writer is who wrote the walmart "hit piece" or if he has a reputation to keep up.
My guess being a journalist nowadays, maybe not. we have readers, not reporters anymore for the greatest part. . . . If this reporter was in fact a journalist, why did he not dig into the real dirt surrounding Walmart and find the real bodies??
What in the world is g146541 saying? "If this reporter was in fact a journalist." Why was the "if" put in? Is g146541 going to argue that he wasn't a journalist? Fine then, let's see his argument.

True, g146541, this is a conspiracy website, It is not, however, a conspiracy thread. My first impression (as well as my second and third) is that g146541 is trying to change the subject. That's not necessary, we haven't finished this one yet. But if it's essential to g146541 to change the subject, let's go with it for a while.


Walmart profits are down and they need some publicity, Someone sets up an easily refutable article in a MAJOR paper.
Look at the assumptions. Walmart needs publicity? Walmart?? I wish g146541 would present any serious analysis saying that Walmart's problems are the result of insufficient publicity and that more publicity will solve it. It's just not true.

CEO comes along and sprinkles sunshine and rainbows on the bad dark article and makes it sparkle!
Public being addicted to remote conflict as evidenced by the sheer mass number of "reality shows", eats up the counter hit piece and says, "What a great bunch of guys that Walmart is"!!!
People eating it up? The only place I can find the story in anywhere near a mainstream source is FOX online. G146541's claim is that Walmart was hoping for masses of free publicity from the mainstream media, who would cover Walmart's attack on a Times reporter. That idea makes no sense whatsoever. Of course it's not being covered. Of course, Walmart isn't getting mountains of free publicity. Of course, that part of the conspiracy theory is too far-fetched for serious belief. (By the way, it wasn't the CEO. Small point.)


For instance where Walmart pays off politicians to ...umm... "expedite" new store sites..
That's a vague, meaningless kind of smear. G146541 should show us where it has been proved that several politicians have taken bribes from Walmart to do illegal things about new store sites. (it would be nice if they were American politicians, by the way, for several reasons including culture, legal systems, etc.

This entire thread has been about getting facts out, not vague smears and claims with high emotional content but no factual support.

But setting all of the above aside, it's probably time to set off the bomb showing that g146541 really agrees with Walmart and thinks the charges made against them are false. You've probably seen where he did that.

Walmart profits are down and they need some publicity, Someone sets up an easily refutable article in a MAJOR paper.

Leave aside for the moment, the entirely unsupported smear "Someone sets up. . . " I'm getting used to entirely unsupported smears. Of course, there's no evidence for that, the evidence points the other way.


Someone sets up an easily refutable article in a MAJOR paper.
There we go. Game over, g146541 becomes an unapologetic fan of Walmart.

Of course, it's an easily refutable article. A distinguished journalist prints statements that ATSers often believe, and that most liberals and union members believe. It's also misleading at best, and false and dishonest at worst. The article is wrong. G146541 points out how easy it is to refute it.

if you really want a conspiracy, consider that one. G146541 takes Walmart's side in claiming that the article is easily refutable. Does that mean g146541 is actually working undercover for Walmart? What do we really know about "G," as he may be known around Walmart headquarters?

I wonder if I'm experiencing schadenfreude? A topic for a different thread perhaps.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I'm working through the posts one at a time, and I've come to another one from g146541. If nothing else, g146541 is entertaining.

I'm sure he'd be the first to say that corporations are not people. I also expect he would agree with the statement (as does almost the entire world does) that neither a rock, a tree, an insect, nor an animal can be evil. Being good or evil is something that can only be assigned to humans.

G146541 has one of two choices. Either say, "Yes, Walmart is evil and they are a person in the full sense of the word," or, "No, Walmart is not a person, therefore they can't be evil in the full sense of the word."

I'm willing to say that an organization can have evil people as it's leaders, but that doesn't mean the organization is evil. It means that evil people are using the power they've obtained to do evil things. If you need a more everyday example, consider the US and it's current president.


Walmart is not evil

Aaaaand, you lost me right there!!
So, apparently, g146541 believes that corporations are persons, because they can be evil. (I'm beginning to wonder about g146541. He keeps taking pro-corporate positions.)


A child entering the first grade can see that ANY and EVERY corporation at the heart HAS to be a psychopathic, sociopathic entity to survive, the truly evil ones THRIVE.
Here, g146541 leaves normal conversation behind to engage in what seems to be angry hyperbole. No first grader knows what a corporation is, of course, and their sense of morality rarely goes beyond "Naughty and Nice."

But, we have a statement which g146541 sounds as though he'd be willing to repeat on his deathbed. A successful corporation is psychopathic, sociopathic, and much worse than that, they're evil.

For the benefit of ATSers who want to avoid evil, thriving corporations, here are some to watch out for.

Home Depot
Proctor and Gamble
CVS
Kroger
Costco
State Farm Insurance
Dell
Johnson % Johnson
Walgreen
United Parcel Service (UPS)
Caterpillar
Safeway
SuperValu
All State
FedEx
Pepsi
Coke
Macy's

And many more incredibly, vicious psychopathic corporations. (Which have been in the Forbes top 100 corporations.)


Are you trying to tell me the quality of life is up from 20-30 years ago here in the US???
Now go ahead and tell me how benevolent corporations are...
What? How about this one?
Are you trying to tell me the quality of life is up from five years ago? Now go ahead and tell me how benevolent government by the Democrats is?
See, I can do total non-sequiturs just as well as g146541 can.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

Dear Gazrok,

(I have to get back to civility and handle posts one at a time.)

My personal issue with Walmart is that these days (within the past few years), they've adopted the now common practice . . .
that sounds a lot like "I'm upset with Walmart because they're doing what everyone else is doing."

If everyone else is doing it, doesn't "Why?" seem like a reasonable question? And what has become an increasingly widely accepted answer is that it is being done to adjust to the government's changed definition of what a full time employee is, and what benefits must be provided for them.

As you say so wisely, "It's Obamacare, and that system is completely jacked."

If you would maintain that the federal government is imposing distortions on a normal market and causing serious disruption, I will join you in merry song and ale until the wee hours of the morning. I can take quite a bit of that kind of talk.

You're also absolutely right about the shopping experience. Now, if you happened to be a scientist studying American public social behavior, you'd have materials for several theses.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
A few more responses, as you deserve them for the effort you've put in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Sorry, I don't get your point at all. When you say that most of the military is not educated, do you mean that most of the military does not have a college degree?

You must, since members of the military are much more likely to have at least a High School Diploma or GED than the average American.
www.civmilblog.com...

And does Walmart have many "College necessary jobs?" I know employers ask for college degrees, but they are rarely necessary unless one is looking for a professional career, or work in one of the sciences.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
---------------------
...


My response was to Antipathy17. He said he didn't like the idea of soldiers coming home to a $9.00 per hour job. My reasoning is this:
Lets be real. Most soldiers join the armed forces out of high school. Some with GED's join sooner or later but the usual age through basic training is 19. We did have a few 30 year old people but they didn't make it. With that said just coming out of high school or around that age soldiers haven't gotten a college education. After they get out is when they really attempt to further their education. If they stay in for another enlistment it's likely they will stay in for their 20. It's true there are courses available to take while in the service but it's really difficult with deployments and such. That leads us to the part about the military not being educated. I corrected that in a later post by saying "college educated". There are a few fields that you could go into in the military which would apply to a job in real life but there really aren't that many. Add to that actually GETTING the job after you get out is more difficult than it sounds.

I really hope that clarifies things a bit.

People join the military for lots of reasons but I'd venture a guess that education benefits and free citizenship are at the top of the list.

Back to Wal-Mart. I think it's great that they are willing to give jobs to people coming back to civilian life. It can be a really daunting change. Going from absolute structure to total independence is very difficult. Not to mention trying to find good work now days. That led to my latest post about how much Wal-Mart pays and such.

If you have any other questions, I'd love the conversation material. ^_^



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: g146541a reply to: Gazrok

Dear g146541,

I like ATS. It introduces me to people who think differently than I think. Let's see what we've got.

You're talking about companies offering $12 an hour. Your example involves a company that has decided to tell the world they have a half-time position to fill, and announced the terms. Someone thinks that's a good enough deal and accepts the half-time job. You seem to think that's a bad thing.

What if the person accepting half-time is elderly and thinks that's about all they're able to do? Do you frown on that? Or a busy college student who has only a few hours a day available for work? Or an 18 year-old who is told to get some pants on, get out of the basement, and find some way to start making at least some money? Or someone who is uncertain on their career choice and so works 20 hours at retail, and 20 as a veterinary assistant?

Twenty hours a week is not always a terrible thing, and the final word is the applicant's when he decides whether or not to accept the offer. Or are you saying people aren't bright enough to come to that conclusion on their own?

We agree that the economy is not strong enough to hire as many full-time employees as we would like. But pointing out that Obama and his policies are responsible for the weakest, slowest, recovery in over, well, who knows, maybe in forever, may be beside the point. The New York Times published a piece two weeks ago which maintained that, based on expert opinion, it will be decades before we get back to a standard growth rate. They're looking at 2.1% into the future, when the Great Depression recovery was at 3%. The Obama recovery may be the worst economic event in the nation's history.

People can't even find part-time jobs. That's not the fault of corporations. (And even if it was, Walmart is one of the biggest employers in the country. People can almost always find some work at a Walmart.)


Sure, the pay rate may average $12 an hour, but when you're only getting 20 hours a week, you're still going to be forced to have another job, etc. And that other job will also be part time, so even though you work over 40 hours a week, no benefits for you.
You're upset that a person is hired for $12 an hour, works 40 hours a week and gets paid $12 an hour?

Best of all, between the 2 companies they can work you 79 hours a week for the slave wage and NEVER have to pay out any overtime!
Actually, they could have worked you 80 hours. Either way, you'd be eligible for benefits twice over. Uhhh? Are you saying that $12 an hour is slave wage? Really? Do you live in the United States? Back in 2010, 45% of Americans over 15 had incomes under $25,000 a year. ($12.50 an hour, full time)


I don't think corporations would have engineered this intentionally, it must just be an unfortunate coincidence, right?
If by unfortunate coincidence, you mean the election of our president in 2008 and 2012, I couldn't agree more. But you have absolutely nothing but an underhanded assertion that the corporations did this. I am anxious to see what proof you have for that statement. No, wait. I'm not anxious to see your "proof," just as I am not anxious to see the tooth fairy. Neither exists.


Gotta have that second job to pay the MANDATORY health care.
Really? At 20 hours a week, and $12 an hour, a single person meets the income requirements for Medicaid in just about every state in the country. (At 11.50 an hour, it is every state in the country.) If you qualify for Medicaid, there is no mandatory health care payment. What are you talking about?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952
I stand by what I said and you sure have a wonderful way of twisting ones words.
If you are not a politician or lawyer, you have sold yourself short.
Bravo sir for casting twisted doubt.
Bottom line, more people agree with my belief that walmart is evil rather than your idea of a benevolent corporation.
Cheers!
Oh I forgot to add..
Chuck
Chuck
Chuck
Chuck
Chuck
I just wanted to see what it was like to put ones handle into a reply too.

(Edit)
And how cool is that, I must thank you for the OP as I have gotten 2 applause on this thread alone.
Nothing like a little validation to remind you that the right path is directly under your feet.
Maybe I'll spend my applause at walmart?!



edit on 24-6-2014 by g146541 because: validation.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join