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.
King Leonidas opined that there is nothing wrong with the profit motive. I disagree. The profit motive is inherently amoral at best, immoral when it leads a person to cross a line into cruelty or irresponsibility, as it often does. Certainly there is nothing noble, inspiring, or admirable about wanting to acquire lots of material gain, and it's a motive that can -- and, under competitive pressure, all too often does -- lead to actions that are themselves contemptible.
Wal-Mart is a particularly striking example of this principle in action. But it is not unique. It is simply one of the worst of an inherently bad breed.
Supposing that a competitor came along with ten times your capital resources (or more), started hiring people at a fraction of what you pay but in larger quantities, maybe not getting people who are as good as yours, but getting the job done, and offering whatever you offer at a fraction of the price you have to charge. Could you compete?
Now, in some businesses the above scenario isn't possible. Some businesses require labor of such skill and scarcity that trying to cut corners on labor costs is self-defeating. Maybe yours is in that category. You didn't say what business you're in, so I don't know.
The idea that business can, or should be allowed to, police itself is a myth.
Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Did I miss some legislation that required everyone to work only at walmart?
No, you haven't missed that legislation. However you have missed the point. Wal-Mart in some small towns may be the only place to gain employment since they have driven all the small businesses out.
Your line of thinking is in line with typical management style of today. That is why there are over 40,000,000 uninsured workers today.
Have you checked on your health care system? Have you checked on the relationship between the insurance industry and the health care system.
Do some homework. If you are a compassionate person you will come away shocked. If not you will just think you are saving a $1 while actually costing yourself $1,000s.
Originally posted by Toelint
Would someone PLEASE tell me exactly what it is Walmart sells which is driving other business out of the picture?? I live in Sacramento ( a midsized town by California standards).
Originally posted by junglejake
Again, this is not about Wal-Mart being unfair to its employees. This is all about Wal-Mart not catering to the unions.
Originally posted by junglejake
First, we live in a free market, and Wal-Mart has the right to do what it will. You have the right not to shop there because of that.
That having been said, I have a few questions for you.
1) What is the nation's minimum wage law?
2) What is the average Wal-Mart employee paid, not including benefits, per hour?
3) What is the nation's minimum benefit law?
4) What benefits do employees of Wal-Mart get? (Hint)
5) Why do you still fly if flight attendants are paid slave wages yet forced to live in cities with the highest priced housing in the nation?
Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Yes, Jake it is a "free country". However, many Americans lose their "freedoms" daily due to their inability to get health problems fixed.
Honest question deserves honest answer. As a Christian do you not feel that all are entitled to quality health care no matter of rank, status, income, race, religion, or any other matter?
No one truly understands the problem until they run into it themselves. Then an amazing transformation takes place.
Do you not feel it is immoral for some to make fortunes, I'm not saying a reasonable income, I'm saying fortunes off of people's bad health? One segment of society wants to keep it the way it is-let the businesses insure. Yet, the options for such become more and more limited. Businesses don't want to insure because of the high cost. Yet, one can buy a home cervical unit for $450 which the insurance industry will cover over $1600 when prescribed and billed thru insurance. Are you ready to take a stand on this as badly as wanting "Christmas Trees" sold at Wal-Mart?
The health care fiasco is what Christians truly should be fighting for and about. That is a real moral issue. If Rev. Falwell and other churches can spend millions on lawyers about "Christmas Trees" then surely millions can be spent fighting the health care/ insurance fiasco in this country. That is a true moral issue to fight.
This is the core difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. You see a need in society, a valid and urgent need, and believe it is the government's responsibility to do something about it. I believe it is my own responsibility to do something about it by investing in companies that try to help, giving to charities, etc. I believe in individual responsibility.
Now, you started with the statement that, "Honest question deserves honest answer." I answered your questions...Now, since those other questions were rather rhetorical, I'll ask another. Would you prefer we live in a socialist nation[
Originally posted by junglejake
First, we live in a free market, and Wal-Mart has the right to do what it will.
That having been said, I have a few questions for you.
1) What is the nation's minimum wage law?
2) What is the average Wal-Mart employee paid, not including benefits, per hour?
3) What is the nation's minimum benefit law?
4) What benefits do employees of Wal-Mart get?
5) Why do you still fly if flight attendants are paid slave wages yet forced to live in cities with the highest priced housing in the nation?
I would define socialism not as the corrupted Soviet Communism, but rather a communal country where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else regardless of talent or performance.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I would define socialism not as the corrupted Soviet Communism, but rather a communal country where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else regardless of talent or performance.
Wow. You do realize, don't you, Jake, that by that definition there has never been a socialist country anywhere in the world? That's a pretty extreme sort of levelling, more like Marx's true communism than socialism.
Though there haven't been any countries that were truly socialist, there have been several communes that started trying to be socialist in nature. It's interesting to note they all fell apart, so far as I'm aware.
So...is the claim, then, that all conservatives on this thread, or rather all those who disagree with you, are just speaking off of talking points without really understanding the issue while the enlightened liberals, or rather those who agree with you, are fully educated on this issue and are the only intellectual ones participating in the conversation?