Bleeding heart liberals and latte-drinking East Coast elitists, please do not feel sorry for Walmart workers this Thursday as you enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday and try to think of ways to boycott a store you wouldn't be caught dead in. You see, even though Walmart workers
1-I agree with you in theory and concept 2- agree with you in theory and concept 3- agree with you in theory and concept
My statement is:
Please come into disadvantage urban areas(I'm not saying that you are elitist and have no idea what is going on in poor neighborhoods). When I see a company willing to invest in a community that no o e else is willing to invest in, I see it as positive. Would I like to see an increase in minimum wage? HE'LL FUKK YES, but at the end of the day it is our legislators that need to push this!
Weird, isn't it? If you're not careful you leave a link to the page you're on, no doubt causing people to sneer and point at you. I'm relieved to know it's not just happening to me; I was getting seriously paranoid. I'm afraid it may be as inexplicable as the tides.
The threshold question for me when it comes to choosing to locate in run-down neighborhoods is, are they providing enough input to the local area to bring it up, or are they simply exploiting cheap land and available cheap labor?
Also, while I&#039;d certainly agree that the minimum wage <em>should</em> be raised (there isn&#039;t a state in the country where 40 hours/wk at minimum wage pays the average rent for a 2-bed apartment), that&#039;s no excuse for paying below the sector average.
And yes, single payer would eliminate a <em>lot</em> of evils, but we don&#039;t have it, and there&#039;s no realistic prospect of getting it soon, whereas anywhere that doesn&#039;t already have a nearby Wal-Mart probably isn&#039;t far off getting one.
Wal-Mart isn&#039;t just exploiting the system, they&#039;ve waged a vigorous, long term, occasionally illegal campaign preventing their workers from taking advantage of the means the system provides for fighting back (namely, unions)
...in general, poor areas are always going to be cheap to develop. That being said why isn&#039;t Bloomingdales and Nordstrom rushing in to take advantage of cheap property value, low wages and tax abatements?! I have lived in the &quot;ghetto&quot; and have seen how the lack of development can erode a neighborhood. My opinion is, any development is better than no development! Not to say that slave wages are the answer, however the oppurtunity mean a lot to these communities. If you gave me the option of allowing a Wal-Mart to move into a blighted neighborhood or not, I would opt to have them do so. The overall oppurtunites(that I have seen) are more than the risk
It&#039;s pretty obvious that Bloomingdales and Nordstrom don&#039;t go there because their customers don&#039;t live there and don&#039;t want to go there. Wal-Mart&#039;s customers <em>do</em> live there.
The fallacy here is to assume that a new Wal-Mart job is simply a new job. The truth is in fact <a href="http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm\?abstract_id=958704" target="_blank">the opposite</a> - every new Wal-Mart job displaces 1.4 jobs from other local retails, causing a net decline in local payrolls. Similarly, the development of the new Wal-Mart building is going to be offset by the decay of the buildings vacated by the retailers Wal-Mart drives out of business.
28 hr/wk, at $12/hr, for 50 weeks, is $16,800. What kind of life does that buy you, even in Floriduh?
Building in low-income areas is building where the land is cheap, and so is the labor, and the customers are plentiful -- and with Wal-Mart jobs, the place is going to <i>remain</i> low-income.
Someone should do the math, and figure out how many fewer billions the Walton clan would be raking in if they paid a living wage. I suspect they&#039;d make a lot less, but still have more money than any human being could possibly need.
...lol, errrr no! Once again I am speaking for my area(Miami). I was well compensated as manager. If the argument is around hourly associate pay, then we have an argument.
...excellent points! And please do not take me as the Wal-Mart shill and NO MY ACCOUNT was not hacked.
My experience within the company was that most employees had another individual contributing to the bills. Not to say that the current wage is right, however the fact they are willing go into areas wear no one else willing to go is something positive
According to some Wal Mart workers with whom I struck up a conversation, they don&#039;t &quot;write up&quot; or &quot;chastise&quot; employees who do something wrong. They &quot;coach&quot;. But the coaching is the same thing as any chastizing measure anywhere else. I have to admit, that blew my mind. We are not only going to control you but we are going to bastardize terms normally thought positive in order to do so.
...God I hate this argument! Because:
1-I agree with you in theory and concept 2- agree with you in theory and concept 3- agree with you in theory and concept
My statement is:
Please come into disadvantage urban areas(I&#039;m not saying that you are elitist and have no idea what is going on in poor neighborhoods). When I see a company willing to invest in a community that no o e else is willing to invest in, I see it as positive. Would I like to see an increase in minimum wage? HE&#039;LL FUKK YES, but at the end of the day it is our legislators that need to push this!
Oh, you wanna cart? I got yer cart right heah!
They were wearing their blouses by Sept. 21 when I saw The Boss at MetLife. The Missus was most freaked out by them.
I&#039;d be willing to bet it&#039;s biweekly or semimonthly, if it was monthly he probably would&#039;ve said $17 a month.
Weird, isn&#039;t it? If you&#039;re not careful you leave a link to the page you&#039;re on, no doubt causing people to sneer and point at you. I&#039;m relieved to know it&#039;s not just happening to me; I was getting seriously paranoid. I&#039;m afraid it may be as inexplicable as the tides.
The threshold question for me when it comes to choosing to locate in run-down neighborhoods is, are they providing enough input to the local area to bring it up, or are they simply exploiting cheap land and available cheap labor?
Also, while I&#039;d certainly agree that the minimum wage <em>should</em> be raised (there isn&#039;t a state in the country where 40 hours/wk at minimum wage pays the average rent for a 2-bed apartment), that&#039;s no excuse for paying below the sector average.
And yes, single payer would eliminate a <em>lot</em> of evils, but we don&#039;t have it, and there&#039;s no realistic prospect of getting it soon, whereas anywhere that doesn&#039;t already have a nearby Wal-Mart probably isn&#039;t far off getting one.
Wal-Mart isn&#039;t just exploiting the system, they&#039;ve waged a vigorous, long term, occasionally illegal campaign preventing their workers from taking advantage of the means the system provides for fighting back (namely, unions)
...in general, poor areas are always going to be cheap to develop. That being said why isn&#039;t Bloomingdales and Nordstrom rushing in to take advantage of cheap property value, low wages and tax abatements?! I have lived in the &quot;ghetto&quot; and have seen how the lack of development can erode a neighborhood. My opinion is, any development is better than no development! Not to say that slave wages are the answer, however the oppurtunity mean a lot to these communities. If you gave me the option of allowing a Wal-Mart to move into a blighted neighborhood or not, I would opt to have them do so. The overall oppurtunites(that I have seen) are more than the risk
Profits are private. Costs are public.
Yay corporate hegemony.
It&#039;s pretty obvious that Bloomingdales and Nordstrom don&#039;t go there because their customers don&#039;t live there and don&#039;t want to go there. Wal-Mart&#039;s customers <em>do</em> live there.
The fallacy here is to assume that a new Wal-Mart job is simply a new job. The truth is in fact <a href="http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm\?abstract_id=958704" target="_blank">the opposite</a> - every new Wal-Mart job displaces 1.4 jobs from other local retails, causing a net decline in local payrolls. Similarly, the development of the new Wal-Mart building is going to be offset by the decay of the buildings vacated by the retailers Wal-Mart drives out of business.
Hey, Happy Thanksgiving, ttommy. And what you said.
...Wal-Mart vs. Israel! That sounds like a UFC fight that I would watch!
28 hr/wk, at $12/hr, for 50 weeks, is $16,800. What kind of life does that buy you, even in Floriduh?
Building in low-income areas is building where the land is cheap, and so is the labor, and the customers are plentiful -- and with Wal-Mart jobs, the place is going to <i>remain</i> low-income.
Someone should do the math, and figure out how many fewer billions the Walton clan would be raking in if they paid a living wage. I suspect they&#039;d make a lot less, but still have more money than any human being could possibly need.
...lol, errrr no! Once again I am speaking for my area(Miami). I was well compensated as manager. If the argument is around hourly associate pay, then we have an argument.
But regular customers no longer get the free flavored syrups! I think that sucks.
...excellent points! And please do not take me as the Wal-Mart shill and NO MY ACCOUNT was not hacked.
My experience within the company was that most employees had another individual contributing to the bills. Not to say that the current wage is right, however the fact they are willing go into areas wear no one else willing to go is something positive
According to some Wal Mart workers with whom I struck up a conversation, they don&#039;t &quot;write up&quot; or &quot;chastise&quot; employees who do something wrong. They &quot;coach&quot;. But the coaching is the same thing as any chastizing measure anywhere else. I have to admit, that blew my mind. We are not only going to control you but we are going to bastardize terms normally thought positive in order to do so.