Oh fair Wal-Mart, transparent motive much? Wal-Mart hands out ass-load of compensation to employees:

[originalpckelly]

http://www.clickorlando.com/money/18973265/detail.html#-

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Retail giant Wal-Mart will hand out its largest annual award -- $2 billion -- which includes bonuses to every part-time and full-time hourly employee.

The $2 billion includes 401k contributions, about $1 billion in profit-sharing, millions of dollars in merchandise discounts and $933 million in bonuses. The average cash bonus for employees will be $667.

"I think it's a very good thing. They're helping out people," a Wal-Mart shopper said.

"If you're doing a good job, give them a reward," another shopper said.

The move comes amid the controversy surrounding hefty bonuses paid out to workers at AIG, which received billions of dollars in bailout money from the federal government.

I think we all see this as a transparent attempt by Wal-Mart to maintain a non-union environment. It should be noted THIS WAS THEIR MONEY IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE! God, I hate fucking Wal-Mart.

At least the employees received their money back.

[tuvor]

1. How is it "their money in the first place"?

You're saying these bonuses aren't really bonuses?

[originalpckelly]

6. Yes, if they were paid more in the first place, including receiving direct compensation...

they would be making far more money per year than any of their bonuses would include.

[Obamanaut]

24. Every one who works at our local wal mart is a volunteer. Not one

single person was ever forced to come inside, complete an application, go take a pee test, then don a little blue vest. Not one!

And some actually need the job. My neighbor works full time for the school board, and 20 hours per week at wal mart. I just don't know which one to despise - school board, or wal mart. Or my neighbor for taking up so many jobs.

[anigbrowl]

61. That's not the same it being 'their money'

You're talking as if they had pay witheld and got less than the advertised wage. You might as well say that when a sale is on somewhere the discount is made up of your money anyway, since you've shopped there before.

[originalpckelly]

71. Actually, you're quite right about discounts.

My bank gives away "free" dum-dums, popcorn, and I even received a bottle of water "free" when I signed up. None of that was free, I paid for every bit of it, where did they get the money to buy that shit? They have to overcharge me the price of all the free shit, or else they wouldn't be making a profit.

[DrDan]

2. this is not a one-time thing - they have been doing this for years

I think they should be given credit for giving some bonuses to the hourly workers based on their store profits. How many other corporations can claim to do that.

[emilyg]

5. Good for Wal-Mart.

[originalpckelly]

12. The story says they increased the bonuses by 46% from last year.

That's a big growth, and it probably means Wal-Mart is afraid it's employees will unionize and realize how much they're getting fucked. They're doing this to ingratiate themselves with the employees, the employees had an inalienable right to the money in the first place. Why should they have to wait until the end of the year to receive their compensation? The people at the bottom made the money, the investors/management stole the money by the inherent structure of a corporation, by the fact that a corporation receives all the money first, then gives the employees back money.

[merh]

38. But isn't that the purpose of a union, to try to get the best

wages, comp packages, retirement, bonuses, etc for the employees?

So, this action by Walmart seems to reflect that fear of unions results in what a union would do for the employees minus the union fees.

When we had Krogers here, I knew people that worked for Krogers and after union dues their paychecks were less than the Walmart employee checks.

I do understand the need for unions and their benefits and import - I also see the negative.

It would appear that unions did benefit the Walmart employees in this instance, even if the action was caused by fear of unions. And Walmart does provide jobs.

[originalpckelly]

49. How much are they still not getting?

And by the way, I only think of unions as a stop gap. It's actually a bad idea to have collectivism, but Wal-Mart is, itself a collective, so it's like fighting fire with fire.

The obvious downsides of a union are the strikes and union dues. Unions are not perfect, but inside a corporation, it is necessary to form a monopoly to counter the monopsony of labor buying that is the corporation. This is all free market stuff, not commie BS.

Here's the idea of a monopsony in more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

A monopsony is sort of like a monopoly, but instead of one seller as it is for a monopoly, a monopsony is one buyer. One buyer can manipulate prices to its advantage. This is why unions have evolved.

I must also add that unions today are much weaker than they should be, unions have an interest in keeping the corporatist system, so that they can continue to pull in union dues. They do not want the corporatist system to be overturned.

[anigbrowl]

64. That makes little sense

It's not a monopsony unless you're forced to work there. You could choose another company to work for. I imagine you're referring to the fact that Walmart is so big it tends to swamp small retail operators in the same geographic area, but I still don't think this counts as a full-on monopsony. Nor do I think the only way to respond to that is with a monopoly.

[originalpckelly]

70. Wal-Mark is a market. Ever heard of the term supermarket?

Remember those little markets where people sell their wares? Supermarkets are an evolution of that, but instead of many sellers, it's one seller.

Well, Wal-Mart is a market, and in that market it is the only buyer of labor, rather than the only seller of goods.

In the larger retail space, it is an oligopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

It is an oligopsony, because most of the retail space is dominated by big companies like Wal-Mart, Target, etc. big box stores.

[Bill McBlueState]

53. "what a union would do for the employees minus the union fees"

So your claim is that a union would do nothing more than get crappily-paid employees an annual bonus averaging $667?

That *could* be the extent of union gains, but it would have to be a pretty weak union.

[originalpckelly]

59. And in reality, many modern unions are weak due to laws.

And when it comes down to it, they are indeed interested in collecting due and not interested in producing a system that free people from corporate ownership/control.

[Touchdown]

83. Whoa. Short sighted.

"So, this action by Walmart seems to reflect that fear of unions results in what a union would do for the employees minus the union fees."

And minus the exhorbidant health care buy in/co-pays.
minus the arbitrary firings because a manager doesn't like your face.
minus the overnight store lock ins
minus the working on breaks
minus the removal of pay for overtime already worked
minus the company denying any culpability for injuries on the job

Those Kroger's Employees have a lot more than WM's employees than just a couple of bucks less on a paycheck.

[Omaha Steve]

129. We have non union Krogers (Bakers) in Omaha

Well union members have deductions like pension, medical, flex, community chest, ... Yes dues too.

It comes up to a lot. Most Walmart store workers don't have deductions like these because they can't afford them.

Walmart just closed out local Sears in Bellevue after over 40 years btw.

[merh]

131. Walmart didn't close it - the lack of customers did.

[DrDan]

73. how do the employees have an inalienable right to the money? It's a bonus - paid at

the discretion of the emplyer.

And you are upset that they are trying to make their employees happy? ("they're doing this to ingratiate themseves with the employees")

"The investors/management stole the money" ???????? How did they "steal" the money?

They have been paying bonuses for years, they increase the bonus, and you think we should be upset with Walmart?

I am baffled by your post.

[originalpckelly]

80. If the people did the work, they have the right to keep the fruits of their labor.

A corporation takes the money first rather than the employee being directly compensated by the person they are providing a service for. The price of an employee's labor is built into the product, you pay that, and then then company takes that and gives it to the employee. There is not a direct relationship between the person serving you and your payment, because of this it cannot efficiently self-regulate, and it also means that a middleman exists between you and the person working for you: the corporation's managers and investors. They take their cut of the pay you provide to the worker, reducing how much compensation the person gets in the long run.

On the other hand, if at the checkout for example, at Wal-Mart, you paid a percentage of the amount of money of your purchase, or a small fee, directly to the worker, there would be no way for a corporation to take the employees money without them really knowing how much is being lost. Or you could choose to go to one of the self-checkouts, and pay less to get the near same result, because a machine can do something for you cheaper than a person.

The problem with our system is that the benefits of technological progress are reaped by the owners of this country, instead of employees. Since the first factory machine, workers and technology have been enemies, because machines presented themselves as ways to lose money.

Well, in this system of direct compensation with no corporation, when a technological development occurs, the profits of that are distributed evenly around the economy, rather than ending up in the hands of the managers and ultimately, the owners of a company.

I sincerely think that this corporate system is holding us back. The profit motive to increase efficiency, and thus decrease the amount of work to receive the same benefits, is being reduced.

The profit motive behind inventions and other intellectual property is also being reduced, because if it is created in a corporate environment, the profits from that development or creative work do not go to the people actually doing it, but to the people own/manage a corporation. This acts as a moderator, reducing the profit motive behind creating, and thus reducing one's motive to create.

[DrDan]

110. it works both ways - should the product not bring in enough revenue to

cover the built-in cost of labor, the corporation still needs to pay the employee for the service they provide. And the investor loses.

Are you suggesting that if I hire a painter who spruces up my place of business and that increases revenue, that he should be rewarded accordingly, rather than by some set fee we agree to?

[originalpckelly]

117. You've hit got it. This system is really inefficient, mis-allocation of labor is inherent.

In a free market, if there is a surplus of labor, the price one can charge for labor goes down, and people each leave the market according to their own threshold. "Fuck this shit, I'm only able to pull in $3 bucks per hour, I'm not working for that. Time for me to get a new job."

Yet, in a corporation, this natural response to the feedback is not there. So, it's possible for a corporation to have too many employees.

Now they're going to lose their jobs anyway, but instead of being able to choose to stay or be laid off, they are forcefully terminated.

Agreeing upon a set fee is OK for the transaction. Unless you're hiring someone to paint your house for an indefinite period of time at a set wage, they've become your employee for 8 hours a day, with no other possibility of clients, then you're good. Self-employment is the idea here. Self-employment inherently requires a person to buy the services, and you're working there for that person for a period of time, but there's a whole slew of customers to choose from while self-employed. In a corporation, there is only a single customer for one's service, with little possibility (except working multiple part time jobs) of other customers for the labor.

It's this idea, that a corporation is a monopsony for labor that is behind part of my criticism of them.

Monopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

Oligopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

[Touchdown]

76. How many? Hundreds.

Companies give bonuses/profit sharing annual checks all the time.

As a union member, my annual "service award" is at least $400 if we meet our goals or not, and can be as much as $1800. We don't call them bonuses because they're negotiated into the contract...Just like AIG.

[DrDan]

77. these are not negotiated into any contract or condition of employment

a company that pays them outside a contract should be given some credit for it.

[Touchdown]

85. And I've heard of very few that don't do this.

WM is the only halo wearing wage slave factory in town.

[acmavm]

3. So fucking what? I bet those people took that money and were

damn grateful. I would too.

[originalpckelly]

16. That's precisely what Wal-Mart wants, they want to ingratiate themselves.

If you sit down and think about it, you'll realize just exactly why this is so fucked up.

It's like someone stealing a watch in secret, giving back to the person who lost the watch, to ingratiate oneself with that person.

Wal-Mart is a system of stealing employee's productivity, like any corporation. People who actually work make the money, and the people who manage labor and invest in a company steal that money, because all the money goes to the company first, THEN to the employees.

These people could be making a lot more money if they were directly compensated by the people they interact with in the store, in much the same way a self-employed person is directly compensated by their customers. In this case the service is helping to find a good TV, or checking someone out. Instead of being directly compensated by their customers for providing their services, the customers pay the company, which then decides how much to give an employee. This is non-market system, and it is causing massive inefficiencies in our economy.

[acmavm]

36. If these people have any brains, they'll know what's going on. If

they don't, then they're probably not employable anywhere else.

I know why they're doing it. They want to look good right now. And they do. They gave these people money that they might need desperately.

Right now a job is a job is a job and even if it's frigging Walmart, lucky are those that have those jobs. I bet there are a lot of people out there who would kill to have 'em.

Why anyone takes issue with these bonuses is beyond me. Why don't people stay on track? Walmart has decimated small town America. They ran all the Mom and Pop hardware, clothing, variety, and grocery stores out of business. They've left empty storefronts in town all across the country. They driven people into bankruptcy. THIS IS THE ISSUE.

[originalpckelly]

52. I'm not opposing the bonuses, but I'm pointing out the transparent motive behind giving them.

And I'm saying that these people shouldn't have to wait until the end of the year to get their own money back.

[bighart]

130. THIS HAS BEEN STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THEM FOR YEARS

I was a manager for many years and this goes back as far as I remember I do not work for them now and haven't for 6 plus years and I was management. There has always been a poster in the break room that charts store profits and computes "average bonus" per employee (associate in WM lingo) based on the profit level of the store. It used to be based on "shrink", unaccounted for inventory dollars, being at or below a set level, but several years ago they changed it to a profit based bonus. I was trained on union avoidance by Wal-Mart and while pointing to bonuses as an incentive that may be lost was always a benefit we were to point out, it was never intentionally meant as an anti union thing. If you think this has to do with EFCA you are delusional.

[originalpckelly]

133. If you do not work there now, you do not know why they increased it so greatly.

"I was trained on union avoidance by Wal-Mart and while pointing to bonuses as an incentive that may be lost was always a benefit we were to point out, it was never intentionally meant as an anti union thing."

You directly contradicted yourself, or just exposed why it is this is being done. So it wasn't an anti-union thing, but you were told to avoid unions by telling people they'd lose their bonuses if they started/joined one? Um, hello, don't you see the obvious contradiction here? Perhaps they didn't tell you guys that, but logic seems to indicate otherwise.

I do not dispute this is a standard practice, it would stand to reason they have always been against unions.

[bighart]

163. i still have many friends that work for WM in managment.

Bonus structure has not changed since I left. The bonus numbers they report are for all hourly, this includes office hourly, as well as the amount people "saved" with the 10% discount. I have talked to a number of my friends and dollar payout per person in actual bonus has not increased that drastically. Since the bonus is figured based on STORE profit, it goes up and down yearly. When things are tight economically people tend to shop WM more leading to increased sales and, hopefully, profit.

As far as your point about union avoidance, the point was to tell them that ALL benefits would be on the table for negotiation and it may or may not be kept as part of a union contract.

I am not a WM defender by the way. Part of the reason I left was the frustration of having to cut a single mother or fathers hours and having to schedule them such odd and changing hours they are unable to get a second job

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. Sitting and thinking about it merely burnishes your post as ridiculous

These people could be making a lot more money if they were directly compensated by the people they interact with in the store, in much the same way a self-employed person is directly compensated by their customers. In this case the service is helping to find a good TV, or checking someone out. Instead of being directly compensated by their customers for providing their services, the customers pay the company, which then decides how much to give an employee. This is non-market system, and it is causing massive inefficiencies in our economy.


Yeah, let's make that payment structure voluntary, and see how much you'd make by pointing someone to the hardware aisle.

What you're advocating is tantamount to a return to the double coincidence of wants, eg, barter. WalMart exists in part because it puts things that people want to buy in one convenient place, and it pays people to coordinate sales. THAT is ridiculously efficient. A wholly decentralized resource allocation mechanism by which one man is one market is wickedly inefficient, and would be scuttled immediately.

[originalpckelly]

74. Gee, that's why they have so much problem over in Europe with their markets?

A supermarket is just an old fashioned market, but will only one seller of goods, rather than multiple sellers. I propose a system in which people sell their services in a market inside one of these stores, instead of using a corporation as an agent between them taking a massive cut of the profit of the transaction.

The coincidence of wants problem is solved by money and markets.

It is voluntary, and that's how it should be. Are you saying there shouldn't be voluntary commercial transactions?

[Touchdown]

90. You never heard of employee owned companies?

They're basically socialist. Employees are stakeholders in said corporation. There is a management structure, but as in all democracies, the employees vote on their leaders. There are no bonuses, because everybody gets profit sharing.

[Hannah Bell]

96. Walmart exists as it does because of political graft.

Putting lots of things people want to buy in one place is a concept going back further than medieval market fairs.

[originalpckelly]

100. I know, what this person is saying that people can't do this.

Trust me, for greedy ass reasons, people will organize shit to make money.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. I have no problem with them getting the bonuses

I do have a problem with them not getting paid enough to live on, thus making it necessary to get the bonuses just to get by.

[originalpckelly]

10. That's what I SAID!

What the hell is it with you people, most DUers don't read anything in these posts, just the title and a little of the text.

"I think we all see this as a transparent attempt by Wal-Mart to maintain a non-union environment. It should be noted THIS WAS THEIR MONEY IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE! God, I hate fucking Wal-Mart.

At least the employees received their money back."

The idea that it was their money in the first place is the truth. It was their money, the workers did the work the profits went to the corporation first, then was handed back to the people working there, to make the management/investors/corporation look good. It's like stealing something secretly, then giving it back to someone, to ingratiate oneself with the person.

Even normal wages are the same thing, employees whom interact with customers should be directly paid by customers, and most of these workers outside of Wal-Mart's supply chain interact with people on a daily basis.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. Dude. Calm. I'm agreeing with you.

[Touchdown]

92. Actually they kept the money in the bank for a year, earning interest.

... which I guarantee isn't part of this bonus package.

[originalpckelly]

101. Aw shit, you're right!

Those evil motherfuckers!

Screwing us all in so many different ways.

[GoCubsGo]

7. I would rather see them give their employees health insurance...

...and full-time jobs. Enough of the game-playing.

[rucky]

8. Maybe they're realizing they need their workers, after all?

[originalpckelly]

13. Yes, and they don't want to the workers to catch wise as to how much money they are not getting.

[rucky]

46. I guess we'll see if they bow down to their great employers...

or realize what you pointed out - they've been entitled to this all along.

[Touchdown]

93. And it's sad at how cheaply some can be bought off.

See? You don't need a union. We're giving you $650 out of the goodness of our kittens and puppies loving hearts. We're Wal-Mart. We love you!

:puke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Oh God Are You Kidding? Is There Anything They Can Do That Won't Be Ranted About?

Jesus christ. They're doing the right thing and giving their employees bonuses, in an environment where most people aren't getting any. They should be applauded. Yet of course some zealots will always find something to attack. How silly.

[originalpckelly]

11. The workers made the money in the first place.

It was stolen through coercion by the investors/management of the corporation, then given back to the employees to make the corporation look good.

As I said in a reply above, it's like secretly stealing a watch, only to "find it" and give it back to the person from whom it was stolen, in an effort to ingratiate oneself with the person.

That's precisely what Wal-Mart is doing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Stolen? ROFLMAO!

How silly.

They didn't have to give bonuses. They did. They did a good thing. Good on them.

I find your premise to be irrational and absurd.

[originalpckelly]

17. Do investors make money for a company? Do managers?

NO! Unless an investor walks into a store and starts working a checkout line, or a manager does (which in that case either one would be a worker.)

Workers should be directly compensated by their customers for the services they provide, rather than indirectly compensated by a company which collects the money from a customer, then decides how much to hand out to an employee. A self-employed person doesn't need a manager, and therefore the inefficiency of this corporate planned economy would be gone.

Workers are being taxed by the owners/managers of companies, and even customers are taxed, because they must pay more for their goods than they would have to, since there are so many unproductive employees (the managers) in this system.

I'm talking about a worker oriented free market criticism of America's corporate economy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry, but that has to be one of the absolutely most ridiculous damn concepts I've ever friggin heard on here. Holy cow! :wow:

:crazy:

[originalpckelly]

26. In what way is it ridiculous?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

28. You are talking about living on a socialist commune...

You should go live here and be happy :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh wait, they even need capitalism(such an evil fucking word isn't it?) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




"Keeping a fractious socialist commune running in Tecumseh, Missouri, takes good old-fashioned capitalism.

If most meetings at the East Wind commune typically draw about 10 people, why did more than 50 come out of the woodwork for this one?

"Well," says Kara Jo, an East Wind resident for nine years, "people always show up for a lynching." She's kidding (mostly). Yet when a majority of the commune's 75 free-spirited residents appear in one place at one time, something clearly is at stake: Yarrow, 26, has been getting drunk again. He's failing to meet his labor quota; he's smashed up a communal car; and he's ticking people off. After posting complaints on the bulletin board, members scheduled a meeting to find a cure for this chronic pain.

Every community has its problems, of course, but it's hard to visit East Wind without high expectations. Nestled in the Ozark Mountains on 1,000 acres of land, this commune bills itself as an "intentional community" that strives to be egalitarian, noncompetitive, nonviolent, and "an ally of our bioregion and planet." Members use first names only—often ones they've made up, like Pilgrim and Simple. They eat organic fruits and vegetables from their garden, where some labor in the nude. And they run a business making nut butters—peanut, almond, cashew, macadamia—that annually generates $500,000 in profits. The money is pooled and pays for everything the residents share, including food, clothing, child care, and transportation. If this sounds like hippie heaven, East Winders are quick to set you straight: This is not utopia."



http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature7/?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com

[originalpckelly]

40. What the fuck are you smoking? I'm not a communist...

In fact, I think Wal-Mart is very similar to a communist system, because in communism that exists beyond small communities where people can get to know one another, it turns into a system that's impersonal and cold, and Wal-Mart is the epitome of that.

[Hannah Bell]

86. walmart is more feudal.

[originalpckelly]

88. No, it's a collectivist system, and it stands as an indictment of collectivism.

In reality, outside of small communes where people give a damn about each other and have a higher probability of not wanting to fuck one another over, collectivism degenerates into an oligarchy, as planning bureau must decide where shit ends up. Total strangers may care about one another, but to rely on that as a motivating force is to open the system up for bad actors who will fuck one another over.

[Hannah Bell]

84. um, since they live inside a capitalist society & have to pay taxes & buy

anything they can't produce from their land with money, they have to sell something to get it.

but - the business itself is organized *cooperatively,* the commune's been there for 36 years, & everyone has dental care on an income of less than $7000/person.

Despite NatGeo's stupid reportage, that's better than the society at large does. & better than walmart does for its employees.

[anigbrowl]

75. Yes, of course they do. What are you smoking?

Investors put up capital to build a company, open new stores and so on. You could, of course do that out of profits...but it would take forever. Let's pretend you are an eager competitor to Wal-Mart and do some simple math.

a. Let's imagine you are called BetterMart and have 1 store, which is 100% paid for and profitable.
b. we'll imagine it costs $10m to build a new BetterMart store;
c. and that each store makes $1m a year in profit after you've paid all your suppliers, workers, and taxes;
d. and that you are able to borrow money at an effective APR of 5% (by selling bonds or issuing shares).

OK, so you are doing well with your #1 store. And you'd like to build another. but to save the $10 million required to do so, you'll need 10 years. Hmm.

Alternatively, you can raise $10 million of investment capital and build the store now. Whoopee! But you have $10 million of debt. Bad idea, right? Wrong. At the example rate, it costs $500,000 per year to service the debt. But now you have 2 stores and you are making $2m a year. Actually, you could pay it off in 5 years if you chose, and your investors would think you're a genius. In fact, they would probably ask to lend you more money because you could make more and pay it back even faster.

Of course, there are limits to this. You can over-expand and either saturate your market or dilute your profits - Starbucks did that, as did some other chains. It's a common problem with franchise businesses. But as long as you don't get carried away, this is the sensible way to expand. Which creates jobs and provides a worthwhile service to your customers...and that's how investors make money for a company, by extending them the credit they need to grow and adapt to change.

As for managers...do I really need to explain this? Of course, there are a lot of managers who are assholes. Those kinds of people suck to work for. but there are assholes everywhere, it's just that it sucks if you happen to be stuck underneath one of them. But managers do a fundamentally important job, which is to organize things and make decisions. If you grab 500 workers and put them in a parking lot, economic productivity isn't going to magically appear.

You think managers do nothing while 'workers' (ie everyone else) slave all day, and would be able to do their jobs just fine without the manager being around. OK. So everything should just get decided collectively, right? Good luck with that. The reality is that if you get any significant group of people together with the intention of doing something, before long they'll put someone in charge who seems to know what they're doing. Managing people is a job just like any other, it's just a job involving the mind rather than the body.

I've been both a blue-collar and white-collar worker, and I've both managed people and been at the bottom of the pecking order. I reject this idea that physical work is the only type that counts for anything.

[originalpckelly]

87. 1. "Investors put up capital to build a company"

Where did their capital come from in the first place? In many cases, you'll be able to trace the capital back to the exploitation of other workers.

2. "But managers do a fundamentally important job, which is to organize things and make decisions."

I think they call that a planned economy. Odd how people used to be able to sell in a market all by themselves, and still do to this day in many countries around the world.

3. People organize themselves because of profit motive, the same motive behind the investor creating an organization that makes money for them.

4. What you're saying is the same kind of argument a typical aristocracy makes against the people overthrowing it. "You don't know how to do for yourselves." Well, we do. And I'm willing to bet I care a hell of a lot more about MY welfare in life than an investor who has never met me does.

In fact, I think it's pretty fucking obvious on its face that an investor would have only their best interests at heart, just like any other individual.

5. If you any Goddamn attention to what I said, you'd know that I'm completely against collectivism.

[anigbrowl]

99. Very simple

1. Capital is saved. It may have come from past exploitation, or it may not. Unless you're a Native American, you're probably sharing in the fruits of past exploitation to some degree. Meantime, It's possible to work, save money, and invest it, even if you're only investing a small amount like a couple of hundred per year. Wealth in and of itself is neutral - it may come from exploitation, but it may just as easily come from honest productivity.

2. There's nothing wrong with planning and organizing if you're doing something involving a large group of people. being a sole trader or small family business is fine for some things, but not for others. Some tasks require hundreds or thousands of people with many different skills. The more people, the more need for organization.

3. People are not that great at organizing themselves, because doing everything by committee is impractical. this is why people nominate leaders, even within unions.

4. Wrong. In an aristocracy, you have to be born to it (or get seriously lucky, by either marrying someone or slaying a dragon). In a meritocracy you can learn to do something for yourself and either specialize in one thing or learn a lot of jobs well enough to direct others. Not everyone is equally skilled at every task at any given moment. Knowing how to coordinate and direct a diversely skilled group of people towards a common goal is a useful skill in itself.

5. So you're against collectivism, but you seem blind or hostile to anything beyond basic individualism. I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Have you ever been in charge of a group of people?

[Touchdown]

103. Interesting you say about having to be born into an aristocracy

Like the Walton children, perhaps?

[anigbrowl]

107. There's a difference between inheriting wealth and inheriting legal privilege

Sam walton (who founded Walmart) grew up in a family of modest means during the depression and did OK for himself. So his heirs benefit, I can live with that. In a true aristocracy, what happens is that people inherit not just wealth (indeed, sometimes they don't inherit wealth) but hey do inherit legal privilege which gives them rights not available to the people at large. If you can't see the difference then I suggest you go hit the history books.

[Hannah Bell]

144. um, his father was not "of modest means". that's PR.

His father was a mortgage banker. Solid upper-middle for his time & location.

Father-in-law was a banker, large landowner, & rancher, who made Sam a personal loan equivalent to about $300K for his first store.

and btw, having done the genealogical research, the related families come from money, too.

[Touchdown]

151. Uncle Sam wasn't the hard working stiff the mythology pretends he is.

Let's hop even further back, to the year the first Wal-Mart store was built, in 1962. Sam Walton took advantage of a law that allowed small businesses to pay their employees less than minimum wage. So, while the federal minimum wage was $1.50, Sam Walton paid his employees as little as 50 cents an hour.

In comparison, if Sam had his way and could pay his employees a third of federal minium wage, that would mean that Wal-Mart employees would earn just $1.72 an hour today.

Later, when this loophole was closed he argued that his company should be exempt from the law. But don't dispair Sam! Your legacy lives on - Wal-Mart employees are currently paid nearly $2 an hour less than the industry average, even though Wal-Mart generates more revenue than another other company on earth.

http://viewfromearth.wordpress.com/2005/10/10/why-admire-sam-walton/

[Hannah Bell]

106. Historically, capital wasn't saved, it was stolen or extorted.

That applies to most of the great fortunes in existence today.

You yourself in your example said it takes too long to save substantial capital for reinvestment - thus the necessity to sweat workers.

[anigbrowl]

109. Ahem...

That is not what I said. One can save capital, and if one is enterprising one can also solicit capital from others. It is not an either/or situation. I work in film and TV, and part of my job is talking to people and asking them to invest money on the understanding that there is profit to be made but that it involves risk of losing their investment. It's like a business cycle in miniature. I've worked on projects which have budgets in the millions of dollars, and also on projects made for just a couple of thousand. The process is fundamentally the same.

I'd like to have enough money to just write checks for every cool idea that I have which I'd like to see on screen, but short of winning the lottery or hitting the commercial bullseye one of these days, I can't do so. In the meantime I work with other people; I bring certain skills and knowledge, they have money or access to it, and we both risk something (time and money) in hopes of mutual benefit. At present I'm happy when things do a bit better than breaking even, and the better I get at it the better the rewards for everyone involved.

[Hannah Bell]

111. in your example re walmart, you set up the premise that it would take

10 years to save the capital to build a new store if workers got better pay. I realize the example was hypothetical, but it was offered to justify walmart's wage structure.

But in this instance, when it suits a different line of thought, you say one doesn't have to save.

So there goes the justification for walmart wages.

[anigbrowl]

122. No, I did not say that at all. I have no idea how you got that from my post.

You can accumulate money, or forgo immediate financial gain in order to accumulate skill or create intellectual capital or whatever. For best results (in life) it usually takes a blend. Since money is easily exchangeable it offers a particularly high degree of flexibility.

I am not replying to any more of your messages. You either don't understand what I'm saying or you're deliberately distorting it; my hypothetical example of building a store had absolutely nothing to do with whether workers got better pay or not. It was about why you might want to borrow money (for a fee) in some cases rather than waiting for it to accumulate - just as many small businesses are started with the aid of a government loan.

[Hannah Bell]

127. Looking back at it, i don't either. i must have confused yours with someone else's -

but i can't figure out whose!

my error, sorry.

[anigbrowl]

139. OK, fair enough.

[originalpckelly]

113. And on the matter of business cycles.

People, all of us, make mistake in life. But investors make mistakes with other people's lives. The homes of other people, the places of work for other people, not only the investors "property" but the property of other people, which they have gained through improper and coercive means.

Too big to fail demonstrates this so clearly. Why the hell can't a business fail and only hurt the people who owned it? It's because the people who really owned the business, were not the investors at the top, but the people at the bottom. Underneath the face values of everything there is a real value. Underneath the ownership of everything is real ownership. This system decouples real ownership, and eventually real value, from face ownership and face value.

This, ironically, on its face, contributes to the boom and then subsequent recession that we all face.

[anigbrowl]

124. That's how life is

I quite agree that companies which are 'too big to fail' are bad for the economy, but overshoot is a problem for all forms of life. while we should seek to avoid it, often one doesn't realize one is an overshoot situation until after the fact. In political terms you could say that the Soviet Union fell because it had overshot the threshold for concentration of political power in the state. I'm sure they didn't intend for it to turn out like that, but as they say predictions are hard, especially ones about the future.

I don't think investment as such is fundamentally improper or coercive, as long as the balance of risk is clear and equally shared. I'm fine with regulating investment in order to require equitable contracts.

[originalpckelly]

108. 1. Agreed, but I would suggest that one cannot save a billion dollars aside from one's paycheck.

2. I point out the origination of wealth to demonstrate that most of the wealthiest people could not have possibly obtained that through honest work, it is absolutely necessary to exact a tribute from workers to get it.

3. It is possible to save aside money from one's paycheck and from that start a small business. As soon as you have one subordinate participant in the business, it's unjust, unless they are paid directly by the people they service. It becomes wrong when all the profits of the business go to the owner first, then are re-distributed from a position of power to the employees. Ask a little kid who's been the victim of a game of keep away about this power.

4. I would agree, to one degree, and even go so far to state that all activities in an economy involve a plan. The issue is how often the plan is updated, and what cost that exacts on the economy. A larger organization must have a larger division devoted to planning, as it must gather more information and make decisions based upon that information. That's what managers are inside a corporation, planners. They are not productive, as they do nothing that employees can't do for themselves. I do not need to be told to work, I know that I need money, scarcity is the manager of a self-employed individual, and a self-employed individual has more motivation to work to eliminate scarcity as it concerns them. More so than a manager/planner/bureaucrat they've never met off in company headquarters.

In a large organization, things don't always go according to plan, so a plan must be updated to react to new information. If a plan does not update fast enough, mis-allocation of resources/labor can occur.

5. You're argument, however, that people cannot plan themselves (as individuals or in groups of familiar people) is disproved by the existence of investors, on its face. If people cannot organize themselves, then how can investors organize people and their business? How can managers? Don't the people themselves have more motivation to organize themselves in an efficient way? Don't the employees suffer first if they're not organized properly? Don't they see the inefficiencies of an inaccurate plan? They are the first line of contact, and therefore cost less to the system to change a plan, than does a massive bureaucracy.

6. You assume that a ton of the people at the top of this system aren't born into it, but they are. Yes, the people who are lucky to be intelligent due to a random combination of events/experiences can rise to the top, but the system is replete with examples of people who didn't obtain their wealth on the basis of their merits (and every investor doesn't gain it on their merits, but the merits of the people in the company they own. No less than Warren Buffet admitted in a recent interview to this.) I think Paris Hilton and all her bratty, snobby little skank friends demonstrate it. They have been rewarded for being born into the right family.

7. Business plans are a form of intellectual property, when revolutionary, but most are not. There are many businesses that operate "me too" plans that have no striking difference between one another, they're just the same business over and over and over again. There is a difference between planning on a daily basis, and figuring out new ways that people can work. I think that business plans that are truly innovative and are not prior art, should be patentable, but only for the purposes of licensing them to self-employed individuals.

This way there is a continuous profit motive to develop new business plan, and variation is the way progress happens.

8. No, I have not, but it sounds like you have been, and you're damn stuck up about it. You think we, the little people, can't be in charge of ourselves, but there are tons of self-employed people out there in this nation. They prove you wrong everyday, and your elitist arguments reveal your sick and undemocratic thinking.

[anigbrowl]

121. So much snark, so little time....

1. Of course you can't save a billion dollars from your paycheck. Nobody gets seriously rich unless they work for themselves. But great fortunes can and do come from small beginnings. We need less inequality in our society, but there will always be some. If you hit the reset button and started everyone in the world out with exactly the same level of wealth it would still end up with a lopsided distribution after a while. It's a law of nature, which you can see in everything from the relative sizes of cities to the grains of sand on a beach.

2. I disagree with the phrase 'exact a tribute from workers', which suggests legal sanction. This seems to be the same as the next point...

3. "As soon as you have one subordinate participant in the business, it's unjust, unless they are paid directly by the people they service." Whaaaaat? Give me a break. What's unjust about it? You think the knowledge and effort that goes into starting and running a business of any scale isn't worth anything? Profit is the reward that goes to the person with the game plan at that specific time and place. Even if they're running a cookie-cutter business if they succeed it's because they're filling a need that wasn't being catered to as well before.

4. Well quite, without a plan one will probably not make any money, whether one is self-employed or part of a large organization. Sure, you might get startlingly lucky but then you might also win the lottery or call the winner of the superbowl before football season begins.

5. I did not say that people can't plan for themselves. I'm saying that organizational ability is a skill that some people have, and that in a large group of people it's not likely that everyone has all the same skills at the same time. So if you get a group of people and give them something that needs doing, they'll nominate or hire people to organize and direct things, and that this work is a worthwhile occupation in and of itself.

6. So some people are born lucky and start out with access to great wealth and not much of a clue. So what? I'm going to a basketball game this evening, but I'll be sitting in the audience because I'm only 5'8" and I suck at basketball. Oh noes, life is so unfair. Why couldn't I have been born tall and athletic so I could shoot hoops and sleep with the cheerleaders, waaaah. Life is what you make it, and I've spent more than enough time flat broke and sitting around feeling sorry for myself that I think blaming others for your situation is a dead end. I'm not wealthy but at least I don't feel like a victim and I like what I do most of the time.

7. Personally, I'm not in favor of patenting business methods. Although I'm strongly in favor of innovation (my work is often pretty technical) there's nothing wrong with matching your product or service to a group of customers and just trying to tailor it for their needs, whether that's in design, delivery, pricing, or whatever. I'm in the entertainment business. If you look at movies, a lot of them are formulaic because there are only so many different plots out there, so they keep getting recycled with minor variations. But just because I think 'The Maltese Falcon' is the best detective movie ever doesn't mean i won' enjoy another in the same genre. Or take cookery shows. How simple are they? Someone comes on screen and shows you how to put a bunch of ingredients together in order to end up with a tasty meal. Every presenter and show has their own style but all cooking shows are basically the same: 'how to make this meal'. Is that bad? No. People like having a variety of food selections, cooking techniques and presentational styles to choose from.

8. Yes, I have been in charge of other people, and no I don't think I'm stuck up about it. Maybe you should try it. I am self-employed and work on a project basis - sometimes I manage other people, sometimes I do technical stuff, almost all of the time I am still working under someone else. The only reason I am able to manage other people is because I developed my own skills, looked for ways to understand the jobs of my co-workers in order to assist them better or help out when someone else was unavailable, and because I paid attention to both good and bad supervisors and managers that I worked for, to understand how they did their jobs.

Like I said before, management is a skill like anything else - you can go to college for it, or you can learn it the hard way, which is what I did. I'm not ashamed of having skill in this area, and I quite enjoy it sharing it with anyone else who wants to learn it. Depending on what I'm doing, sometimes I like to manage and sometimes I prefer someone else to take that responsibility and let me concentrate on a more specific task. When I manage people my job is to help them be most productive at their particular task. This is not a Bad Thing.

[originalpckelly]

132. 1a. "Nobody gets seriously rich unless they work for themselves."

:rofl:

What a crock of crap, they have other people work for them, and they set up a system of collecting money first, then giving out a fixed wage, keeping the surplus. Yes, the investors also take the first losses, but they seem to be doing quite well.

1b. "But great fortunes can and do come from small beginnings." True, very true, but most fortunes are built from unjustly setting up a system to tax the labor of other people, however just the capital used to create them was earned. Starting an empire can be such terribly hard work, but it does pay dividends in the end.

1c. I know a tad bit more about physics than you do, and I base my argument around entropy, which means that the equilibrium state (where there is relatively homogeneous distribution of wealth in the economy) is the most probable state in any system. It's sort of like a die, but instead of numbers there are different states on each side. More sides of the die of the universe are equilibrium states than ones in which there is not equilibrium (states in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.) The economy being a part of the universe, it too must follow these laws. The systems set up by the rich to outrun the laws of physics will eventually collapse under their own weight, for all of the reasons I have mentioned in this thread. I have only addressed corporations in depth in this thread, but property ownership by the rich, debt obligations, and the improper distribution of property tax burden is the full system of control in the economy.

2. I don't doubt you do, you're part of the oligarchy in this country, life is working out for you. It's really easy to think this is a great nation, even when one has gone through hardship, as things worked out. For most of us in this nation, that will not happen, there can only be so many managers in an oligarchy. The game has been rigged against the vast majority of people in this country.

3. And the knowledge of starting and running a dictatorship on any scale isn't worth anything? We don't tend to value knowledge of screwing people over, at least openly. Of course, ask any defense contractor about that, and they'll have a different perspective. I think, however, the knowledge should be known by everyone. Everyone should study management as a part of elementary education. A business is just a system of making money for the people who own it, the ideal business would just produce profits with no expenses for materials or labor. All this other stuff is a bunch of high minded bullshit. It's all about money.

4. We agree on this.

5. It's odd how people can have markets without having any single person manage it in places all around the world. Do you think that your ability at management was a special gift given to you? Is it, in your opinion, a matter of genetics or experiences in life? If it is a matter of experience, should not everyone learn such a valuable skill? Should it not be as universal throughout American education as being able to read and write?

The problem here, is that those in the possession of this particular knowledge have the ability to manipulate other people. However much you might think that you shit diamonds, you almost certainly do morally questionable things as a part of your job.

6. So what? Would you tolerate hereditary political rule? Then why should we tolerate economic hereditary rule? Life is unfair as it concerns genetics, but the organization of people is something that's knowledge, not an inherited genetic trait. That is, unless, you believe the answer to one the questions above is yes, it is a genetic trait. In that case, well, we'll just have to see the answer to that.

7. As it is with a more traditional invention, it is possible to patent improvements on prior inventions. I'm not opposed to that, only the profiting from prior art by making it something that someone can be compensated for.

8. I would suggest that you don't feel stuck up, because you believe deep down you're superior somehow to the people you manage. Management is something that one can do oneself. You sound like you think it's a service, well, I think people will tend to care about themselves more than someone else. In some cases, like drug addiction or mental illness, one's capacity for self-interest is hurt, but the vast majority of people are capable of motivating themselves. If that was not true, I would ask how you could be self-employed. You want money, and you know you have to work to get it, or steal it. Most people don't want to take the associated risks of stealing, so they'll work for it.

9. A lot of the blame for this horrible system does lie on the people who willingly participate in it, including the employees. But they would not participate if they knew in what ways they were being screwed and they knew they could change it. It is clear that the people who reap the greatest rewards from this model, investors and managers, would as you do, bend over backward to maintain it.

[anigbrowl]

140. That's an impressive amount of BS

1. "They have other people work for them, and they set up a system of collecting money first, then giving out a fixed wage, keeping the surplus." And this is bad, why? You don't think setting up a system to make profit (form anything) involves work? Seems you just think profit is bad. OS if I set up, say, a fast-food restaurant and hire people and train them how to buy, store, cook and sell the food, I shouldn't get anything out of it. O...k.

1b. I can see how you'd think that.

1c. Oh, so you know about physics than i do? And you base this conclusion on...what, exactly? I'm not very impressed with your argument. Entropy offers a certain kind equilibrium, but on in which there is no energy available to do any work. In economic terms that would mean no economic activity. Additionally, if you'd thought a bit more about it, you'd have realized that this only holds true in a closed system. We do not live in such, as we have inputs (in the form of energy from sunlight, which is not insignificant - ask a farmer) and also innovation, which offsets entropy. Your argument is tantamount to saying one might as well lie down and die since the heat death of the universe is inevitable.

2. It's news to me that I'm part of any oligarchy. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform my bank manager.

3. Sorry, organization and planning ability is not the same thing as 'screwing people over'. Indeed, a business is a system of making money for the people who own it. What a hideous concept! How dare someone apply their skills systematically!

4. -

5. Certainly people have markets all over the world, but usually there is some degree of organization involved. Even in historical times people would establish markets at the convergence of travel routes or at fixed times. Yes, I do think management is a skill that anyone can learn, and indeed people are taught the basics of this in school already. Some people are better at it than others.

'You almost certainly do morally questionable things as part of your job.' Whaaaat? Talk about paranoid. It's quite possible to manage effectively without disrespecting or abusing the people you're supervising, you know. You seem to think anyone who's in charge of anything spends all their time trying to make other people's lives miserable.

6. We don't have hereditary economic rule, because you can make your own financial choices and accrue your own money. Sure, that's plenty difficult sometimes.

7 . -

8. You think that deep down I believe I'm superior to the people I manage? Why? Where do you get such an idea? People just do different jobs at different times. It's not so unusual for me be working under someone at one stage and then be managing them on another project, or vice versa. Yes, I do think it's a service. You seem to think management is all about discipline and bullying people, which is nonsense. Some people try to manage like that and yell at everyone to do whatever it is they do faster and faster, but that approach usually won't take someone very far. In fact I've fired people for it, at the request of their staff.

The skill of management is in knowing all the different tasks that need to get done and how they all fit together so you can keep on schedule for your goal. If you have any job involving more than a few people then communication gets to be a problem because it's hard for people to both do their particular specialty and to keep up with what everyone else is doing at the same time, and the more people there are the more time-consuming that becomes. So a manager's job is to be the person who keeps up with everything that's going on and communicates that information around to whoever needs to know it. Otherwise you can end up with (say) 50 different people doing 20 different jobs and they get in each others' way, a lot, which is inefficient and slows everyone down. It's a lot less stressful for everyone if someone is dedicated to the task of coordinating what's going on.

9. Oh, most people only participate in this system of getting things done because they're too ignorant to know any better. but not you, you Jedi. And you accuse ME of feeling superior? Sorry bub, management is just a job like any other which some people do well and some do badly, depending on their ability and integrity. The only system I'm interested in protecting anywhere I work is the one that gets things done on time so we can all get paid and have a beer afterwards.

[originalpckelly]

141. Homeostatic equilibrium.

No system is truly closed in the universe, except the universe itself. Profit is not the problem, so long as one does actual work to receive it. Planning is work, but not productive work. No matter how much you debate me, we have arrived at the truth, and you simply seem incapable of accepting it.

It's obviously because you want to justify what you do for a living. You also work in a sheltered artistic profession. There's a lot more pie to go around, as intellectual property is capable of providing value to a greater number of people than conventional goods.

Enjoy your stay in the USSA.

[Hannah Bell]

95. Walmart

13.59 billion in profit

2.1 million employees (including management) worldwide

6,200 stores worldwide

2.265 million profit/store

$53 profit/sq.ft of store space

$6471 profit/employee

controls 20% of US retail groceries & consumables market

Four Waltons on "Top Ten" world's richest list


2001 average wage for a Wal-Mart Sales Clerk: $8.23/hour ($13,861) (Business Week 2003)



They could pay $4000 more/yr & still have plenty to reinvest in new stores.

Plus, building new stores = tax writeoff, as is a lot of the cost of capital you say is so onerous.

[Touchdown]

97. Not quite as simple.

See the investors only have to put in 4% of the cost of the investment with their own money. They mortgage the other 96% of that investment against future earnings, or until the stock price increases enough for said investor sell and take all 100% of the money and then some.

To build a store, one must look for a location. It's better to get locations that are right on well built public roads. If one doesn't exist, then the investors/retailers lobby the city council to build such road, electrical lines, sewage systems, water mains, access roads... all at taxpayer expense.

Then comes the land itself. With a good lobbyist and a kick ass argument, they usually also convince the city to fund the construction of the store itself, as well as the parking lot, since their arguments for a massive influx of sales tax revenue will more than compensate for any up front cost the taxpayers are investing in now.

Those investors final risk taking investment? 4% of the original stock investment, and 0% for the store itself or the supporting infrastructure.

[Rage for Order]

142. There's a simple solution, really

The workers who are not pleased with the amount of money they make by working for someone else can start their own business - you know, risk their own capital, deal with the headaches of accounting, establish lines of credit, line up vendors, find a good location, market the new business and open their own store. There's nothing to stop them. Ain't America grand that way? :)

[originalpckelly]

143. If only it were that easy.

1. An employee has to make enough money to have a profit in the business of their life. Many people, at least 40% of the population, lives paycheck to paycheck. This forbids saving aside money to get out of the system.

2. This lack of savings can be traced in part to the higher prices of all goods and services due to investor profit margins and the supporting of non-productive workers, like managers. This builds into the prices of everything, sucking the money of workers on the bottom, adding to the amount of money that goes to the top of the system. All consumers are getting fucked by the system too.

3. Cars are well within the range of an outright purchase, but are made more expensive because of the same investor/manager tax. They are, however, purchased in many cases with a car loan. This debt obligation forces people to work to repay the owner of the loan, and the car.

4. If the prior was not enough, on top of that, most people who are low net worth, do not own property, and rent their dwellings. Renting is a method of extracting money from people, and it's usually the biggest bill in life. All money spent on a rent is lost, and goes into the hands of a property owner.

5. Even when one buys a dwelling, the vast majority of the time, it is with a loan. Depending on the structure of the loan, within the first few years, a property owner may or may not retain part their payments to the mortgage owner in the form of equity. The problem is that the vast majority of the house is not owned by the person, they are bound in a debt obligation, and if they default, their entire lives can be upended. The owner of the mortgage can sell a house, and there is NO requirement that the house be purchased at auction for anything more than the amount of the loan that's defaulted, and even that is the choice of the lender. If the house sells for less than market value, or the market value doesn't reflect their equity, the "owner" of the house is completely out the equity.

Dwellings should be fully owned by their occupants. The stuff that makes the lives of most Americans should be self-owned by the people. It is not possible now, within a reasonable time frame, with the expenses most Americans have, to save up money to buy a house outright. The prices of houses are more expensive than what it costs to buy materials and pay workers to make the house, or someone to design the house.

People in this country are in a hole, and they get can't out, except through luck in many cases. The vast majority of America will never, ever, get to the top. Half of all new small businesses fail within short order, so even if they try self-ownership or small scale ownership of other people's labor, then they still fail. They fail for all kinds of reasons, but some of it is certainly due to anti-competitive tactics on the part of oligopolies.

Oligopoly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

[Rage for Order]

159. I didn't say doing it would be easy

Just that the answer is easy. Undoubtedly starting your own business is very hard work, but how do you think the majority of businesses get started? Sam Walton started with $5,000 he saved from being in the Army, got a loan for $20,000 more and bought his first store. What if he didn't succeed and lost everything, including his initial $5,000 (in 1945 dollars)? Would you think someone should bail him out? He could have been ruined, but his risk paid off. It doesn't necessarily take tens of thousands of dollars to start a business, so anybody can do it. If you don't like working for someone else, find another job or open your own business.

Rather than griping about Wal Mart not paying their workers enough money, why don't you start a business and pay your employees according to the ideals you've espoused in this thread, all while not taking any profit for yourself? Remember, the revenue your store generates is the workers' money, so you can't skim any off the top, not even for utilities or rent. Unless, of course, you happen to be the only employee at your business. Go ahead - lead by example.

[stklurker]

147. workers should be......

"Workers should be directly compensated by their customers for the services they provide, rather than indirectly compensated by a company which collects the money from a customer, then decides how much to hand out to an employee. A self-employed person doesn't need a manager, and therefore the inefficiency of this corporate planned economy would be gone."


Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda.. you are playing with the facts here.. How you "think" it should work and how it does work are entirely a separate issue.. The facts are, the people agreed to the wages that Wal-Mart offered for the service they would perform, and the bonus money was NOT part of that normal compensation. Therefore it was 'not' their money.. that you feel it should be there money, again, is a different conversation.

[EstimatedProphet]

45. Sure it's a good thing. It's a better thing if they didn't drive wages down

Saying the one negates the other is what I don't agree with. I would be happier with Wal-Mart paying a living wage and not giving bonuses, rather than them not paying living wages, then paying a bonus which will never be more than part of the wage they should be paying and people claiming that it makes up for things.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Fair Enough.

They most definitely should treat their workers better and pay some of them more. But that's a completely different fight really. They still wouldn't have had to have given bonuses, especially in today's economy. But they did, and I say good on them for it. I still say boo to them on some of the ways they treat employees on other issues though.

[originalpckelly]

51. If I steal something from you and then give it back to you...

especially in a time when other people are losing it, you're going to be even more grateful than ever. That's what's going on here. This is good for the employees in part, as I said in my OP, but it's nothing they shouldn't have received in the first place.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Stolen How?

Do the workers NOT agree to their wages prior to hiring? Are the workers imprisoned and unable to quit even if they wanted to?

Your premise, regardless of its honorable intent, is still downright ridiculous.

[originalpckelly]

65. If I cull the kinds of choices you have, then I can control you...

all while making you think you're in control.

You can work for any company, but the vast majority of business operates like this. Even small businesses operate like this, but on a smaller scale than big corporations like Wal-Mart.

One can be self-employed, but not in areas that these companies "compete" and the vast majority of America is not self-employed.

It's the power of monopsonies and oligopolies, they can dictate what price they will pay for labor. And even a small business is in a position of greater power than a single person. Can you imagine the immense power of Wal-Mart compared to one little itty bitty person?

I refer you to monopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

For the market that comprises all economic activity inside Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is the sole buyer of labor. For that reason the employees must form a monopoly on the selling of labor within that market to sell their labor.

In the larger sector of retail, Wal-Mart is an oligopsony. I refer you to this about oligopsonies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

Because there are only so many big retail companies, there is little competition to counter act the power of the businesses buying labor.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EstimatedProphet]

66. This assumes that they have a choice on their salaries

One of the problems with Wal-Mart is that they have a tendency to come into small towns, drive other businesses to bankruptcy, and are left as the sole business in the area. In cases where they shut down other businesses, there may not be a choice for workers to go somewhere else, because there may not be somewhere else left. What then?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. But It's Not Just Walmart.

They get paid 8-9 dollars per hour. That is not really a low rate for the mindless jobs they have.

Where I fault walmart is in relation to their having made employees work off the clock, through their breaks without pay, and their shitty benefits/short work weeks etc. But I find the hourly rate to be pretty standard for that type of job. (and most of the employees I've seen in walmarts are dumb as rocks for the most part, though obviously not all of them).

[EstimatedProphet]

81. It isn't just Wal-Mart. It's corporate America as a whole

Wal-Mart however drives corporate America. They've been the business ideal of the corporate world for 25 years. That's a big part of why $8-9/hr is standard for unskilled labor, when a comparison of the monetary value of minimum wages at the start of the minimum wage law would more realistically show a comparative wage of around $15/hr. Wages are suppressed in relation to buying power.

The things you list are illegal BTW, and should constitute more than a criticism of the business. Revoking their corporate charter is proabaly more appropriate.

[originalpckelly]

89. YES! It's nice to see someone else get this shit.

It's because there is little real competition in the labor buying market, because there are oligopsonies outside these companies, and inside them they act as a monopsony for their market.

Monopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

Oligopsony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

[Touchdown]

94. If they were union, they would if it's in the contract.

And no self respecting union of a profit making venture doesn't negotiate an annual profit sharing package for their members. AIG had their executives bonuses written into the exec's contracts. Why can't regular employees have a contract too?

I need to say this, actually yell it.... THOSE DUES YOU ARE ALL BITCHING ABOUT ACTUALLY WORK FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Are You Kidding?

Most unions have fixed wages with no profit sharing.

As far as the dues go, it depends on the union. For many people in many individual unions, the union does nothing more than keep them down, take money from their paycheck (dues), and give them pressure to not over perform. That's why some people hate unions and don't want to work in one. But for many people in many individual unions the dues are more than worth it and the union more than welcome and necessary. All depends on the person, the company and the specific union. That's why blanket statements relating to unions are never accurate.

[Touchdown]

148. You are not a union member, obviously.

Fine. Keep believing that we are tied to the mob, and have no use other than to fool the workers into giving us shake down money. The corporations are beautiful and pure as the driven snow. They treat their employees like soft bunnies, and lavish them with undeserved gifts such as a 40 hour work week, vacation time, and all of the beauty of marshmallow clouds and pastel gardens.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. Wrong.

I was a union member, and saw them for what they were. But that was my company. All unions are different. Some could be good for the workforce, some might totally suck for the workforce. All depends on the union and company.

And your little spin spin you put in your post is laughable, since it was purely made in a deceitful way and falsely contrived on me as if such a statement would be accurate. Not only don't I ascribe myself to the statement, but the statement itself is quite short sighted, ignorant and downright silly on its face. Try harder in your responses next time. You can do better than such silliness.

[Touchdown]

158. My intention was to make you laugh.

How involved with this "bad union" were you? Did you see the inner workings, or just make judgements from the sidelines, as if the dues are paying for a service so you don't have to get involved? How long ago? Before or after Reagan fired the ATCs and made our power weaker in one stroke?

Solutions for disgruntled union members? Get involved and change things from the inside. They ARE democracies. Anything less is arrogant customer-servant mentality, which isn't the relationship a union has with it's member.

[jmowreader]

54. How does Walmart differ from a lot of other employers, then?

If you want to get right down to it, any employer's business could be described exactly as you described Walmart.

Walmart is a bunch of evil thugs. So are all other businesses. Yes, including Costco, Whole Foods, Target and all the other companies so beloved here.

[originalpckelly]

68. I concur, all employers do this, so long as employees are not directly compensated...

the workplace is unjust. It's just that Wal-Mart and other big companies are much more powerful than a single person. A small business is still more powerful than a single person, but not as much as Wal-Mart. What's absolutely horrible, is that Wal-Mart's immense power comes from the very people it is exploiting.

I'm posting this about Wal-Mart, in a continuing series of posts about all corporations, all companies, debt obligations, rentals and disproportionate property taxes, attempting to demonstrate with hopefully logical arguments how unjust America is. It's like a gigantic company town.

[Touchdown]

102. half of Costco's stores are union.

Don't know about whole foods, but the Kroger chain, Safeway chain, Publix, and numerous others are union as well. When they are not union, but still ok is when commission is paid on top of an hourly wage, such as Sears, JC Penney, Dillard's, Macy's, Nordstrom's, etc.

Best Buy and Circuit City used to pay commission. They both did away with it, and I see nothing but complaints about how clueless the sales drones are in Best Buy. The sales drones in the other are collecting unemployment.

Target want's to be Wal-Mart. If they ever get the chance, they'll pull the same shit WM does.

[jmowreader]

125. The "commission" stores are ALL commission

It's not commission plus wage, it's commission instead of wage.

[Touchdown]

153. Not the places I worked in.

Sears, Kmart and Best Buy. I had a base salary and commission both... until Best Buy went non-commission 6 months after I was hired.

And mall people talk. Those on commission all got paid a base salary in dept. stores. We weren't selling vinyl siding. We were selling shoes, VCRs and table saws.

[originalpckelly]

135. My system is sort of like working on commission, but not for the company...

for the people the company serves. People who work on commission are notoriously annoying as fuck, because they just want to help the company make more money. We can undo that motivation, but directly compensating people who provide a service, as they will be more interested in helping customers.

[Lucian]

32. Good god.

You're sticking up for Walmart. Imagine my surprise. :sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Bzzzzzzzzt.

I'm simply taking the RIGHT side of the argument, the logical and rational side, as I always do. This time Walmart was on the right side. It isn't the subject that's important in my logical decision of which side is right, but the details themselves.

Blasting walmart for this is irrational; period. :hi:

[Lucian]

50. You don't work at Walmart like I do.

If you knew how unfairly they treated their employees, there's no way in hell you'd stick up for the corporation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Irrelevant.

Working there is irrelevant as it relates to the right side of this argument.

Saying good on them for giving the bonuses, when they don't have to, does not mean that they are a perfect company that doesn't in ways treat some employees like shit.

As it relates to this incident and this specific argument, there not a thing objectionable about their giving out bonuses. In fact, it is really nice to see them do so, considering how badly in other ways they treat some of their employees.

[originalpckelly]

91. I'm not pissed at the bonuses from perspective of employees,

just the motives behind the bonuses. I think it's great they finally gave them some of their own money, but it was the employee's own money, and it was done for pretty fucked up reasons.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

123. Yep, that's what you are doing, all right.

Only it's in the OTHER sense of the word, not "correct." And not geometrical either.

[U4ikLefty]

146. He's gotta drive his SUV somewhere to buy his smokes.

I predicted he would be here defending his favorite retailer before I even clicked on this thread...I wasn't disappionted.

I also predicted he would use at least 10 ROFL smileys...again, I was correct.

[Javaman]

14. throwing the masses a bone so they don't support the employee free choice act.

nothing more than buying beer for the voters.

[originalpckelly]

18. Thank god someone else is not dense and gets it.

One day I was in a Wal-Mart, as a part of a family outing, and I recall hearing the most anti-union rhetoric coming from a discussion between employees. They are all fucking brainwashed.

It profoundly changed the way I think about this company.

[tangent90]

21. Well, I think they're not dumb enough to fall for that, but if they are, well...

tuffshit

[originalpckelly]

23. They are, I cite my own ears and what they heard while in Wal-Mart.

It's like the Borg thinking as one, they are so fucking propagandized. They must have some kind of meetings about this telling them how bad unions.

[tangent90]

31. Well, you call it propaganda, they call it motivation. I just think people who work there

are probably happy to have a job and likely can handle their affairs without your personal crusade. I could be wrong.

[Z_I_Peevey]

44. They do.

My son works there. He's been altered by their methods. Now says "MSNBC" with a sneer.

[tangent90]

19. I shudder to imagine what you'd say about them if they did NOT give out any bonuses.

:scared:

[Dr.Phool]

20. I still refuse to buy anything there.

Ever.

[originalpckelly]

22. It doesn't matter where you shop, if one part is unjust it all is.

The money you're spending, even if it's for 100% worker friendly stuff, probably went through the hands of someone who didn't, and the money is tainted. You're helping, but the truth is that your little contribution will not solve the problem. What needs to happen is an overturning of the apple cart.

[Dr.Phool]

115. Well. let's turn it over!

I'm all for it.

Shopping is kind of like elections. We get to choose between the lesser of evils. I say get rid of the evil.

[originalpckelly]

119. That's what I'm trying to do here.

I'm almost finished developing my theory of what we the people will fight for, and I'm already exploring methods of obtaining it. That will take some time though, as I approach everything as a science to be studied, I think everything through as best I can, and then I come to a conclusion.

It may seem impossible to overturn the apple cart, but it can happen. The state of the apple cart standing is actually the least likely one. Apple carts want to collapse and dissolve into equilibrium.

[AllentownJake]

29. If Wal-Mart starts treating their employees fair without a union

based on the threat of a union isn't that mission accomplished

[originalpckelly]

33. How much are they still not getting?

How much harder do they have to work at their jobs, especially the checkers, because of the supply/demand imbalance which most people observe while waiting in Wal-Mart's long ass lines?

And this is temporary, as soon as the threat goes away, they're going to get fucked again.

[AllentownJake]

41. If EFCA passes

Than its not temporary.

Than people actually have a choice.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. Why don't you answer that question?

You seem to know that whatever they're getting is less than they "should," so what should that be?

If the answer is "everything, divided by the number of people working in stores," then you're sort of dense
and should learn how retail works.

If the answer is "whatever they make now, plus the bonus, plus some other amount less than the total EBITDA of
WalMart," then we can talk.

[originalpckelly]

98. No, it should be what the person they serve is willing to pay for their services.

If the asking price for a service is too high, just like in any other market, the customer will move on to someone who charges less.

If there is a scarcity of labor, the price of labor goes up. I suggest that instead of help wanted ads, there should be an index of wages earned at a supermarket, much like an index of a stock market, and people would go to that and read up to see where they can make money. If a store has a shortage of labor, the price of labor will rise, causing the index of that stores labor prices to rise, sending a price signal to the person looking for employment in that industry to take up work in that market.

To replace old fashioned employee training, participants in the market would have to receive a certification to operate in the market, just like there are already certifications required to operate in certain industries. Someone would sell their labor to the employee seeking work in that market, to train the employ and certify them to operate in the market. Then they (the new employee) can take up work.

If the price of labor in the market falls, the price of the index will fall, showing people that labor is too plentiful, and not to seek work in the market, unless they're willing to work for less. For people operating in the market, they will all have different thresholds at which they abandon the market to work in another. This basically causes the system to become more efficient with time.

To create schedules, there would be a special futures market for labor. I'm currently working on the math behind this so, I'll get back to you on a layman's terminology on how a futures market of this type would work. I know it's possible, but there's a difference between generally knowing something to be true, and actually working out the math of it, but I'm pretty damn close right now.

[Lucian]

30. I only got $150.

And a Christmas tree ornament. Given to me with my check yesterday. I kid you not. A fucking Christmas tree ornament. In March! And everyone I talked to only got a $150 bonus. Who's receiving $667????

On the first day on the job, they show every new employee an anti-union video. If I didn't need the job and the money, I would've walked out of the room.

[tangent90]

34. Some people would call you a scab. I sure wouldn't, but...well...

That's really the point, isn't it?...you got a job you needed and didn't let your feelings interfere with feeding your family. To me that's eminently honorable.
:toast:

[Lucian]

43. It pains me to go work for them every day...

but thank the gods I'll be getting out of there in August. I'm going back to college. :)

But seriously, the first thing we did after making our name badges was watch a six to seven minute anti-union video. It boiled my blood right there.

[originalpckelly]

57. Even if you don't work there, it's not going to bring Wal-Mart down.

To Wal-Mart's big wigs and investors, you're nothing. You're just one ant in a million, easily replaceable if you get uppity.

To do something in physical reality by yourself is useless, you must try to change people's minds. The only reason Wal-Mart exists is the propaganda of the company and the crazy ideas it plants in the heads of the people who work for it, as you've observed, and you haven't been there that long. And you're a progressive Democrat. That means you're not like most of the people there. In a way you're kind of working under cover...:P

You wouldn't be cool with doing Wal-Mart for the rest of your life, but the people who stay there are, and they are because they've been brainwashed/simply don't have any choice in the matter.

The power of ideas is what Wal-Mart's executives are using against you and the rest of the employees. They can't really control so many people any other way.

We must use the power of an idea to impact millions of people to change the minds of the people. Not you in particular, you could get your ass canned, and you need that job.

Wal-Mart is but one company out of many, to one degree or another, they are all violators of employees rights.

[Lucian]

78. Oh I let other employees know my views about unions...

I let them know the benefits of unions. But for some, it's too late to change their minds.

But I swear to all that is holy, the moment I quit working for Walmart, I'll never step foot in one again.

[originalpckelly]

120. Don't be obvious, you're not going to do it all alone in one Wal-Mart.

You'll just get yourself fired and the individual crushing machine will only continue on, and we're unfortunately in a downturn because the people at the top made some pretty shitty decisions with our lives.

[Touchdown]

105. That's bullshit, and the EFCA can put a stop to that.

In the legislation, it makes it a crime to propagandize and hold employees hostage for anti-union talks, arguments, intimidation, etc.

I worked at Best Buy in the early 90 for about 4 years. Now, I've seen some bullshit, but to their credit, I've NEVER seen an anti-union video or any such talk at our "required meetings" early on Friday Mornings in any of those 4 years. Seeing what you've been through, I guess I've been a little too harsh on BB. I still don't forgive them for making me wear that GAWD AWFUL royal blue shirt... that they made me pay for.:grr:

[Naturyl]

152. To me, it's the opposite.

More evil has been done in the name of "feeding the family" than any other cause.

Just calling it like I see it, nothing personal intended.

[originalpckelly]

35. I knew it! I heard these employees talking in Wal-Mart about how bad unions are...

it was over by the bikes, and they were just gabbing it up talking about this. It was all complete bullshit.

[Lucian]

47. Another bad thing Walmart does to its employees...

is that if/when an employee works overtime, they have to take a longer lunch break another day so they don't go over 40 hours that week. Walmart higher-ups get really pissed if we go even .02 hours over 40 in a week. I put in 2.5 hours of OT on Tuesday, but thank god my supervisor is sticking up for us and said she doesn't give a shit if we go over 40 because we deserve it.

[originalpckelly]

114. That's awful...

but what's sad is that even if you get OT, it means you're working more time in each week to get the money you had coming to you in the first place.

[Hannah Bell]

104. higher-paid employees got more than $667. The magic of "averages".

I'd bet management bonuses are much nicer. Rank & file got $150?

That means management got their $517.


So, e.g., if there were 100 employees, 10% mgt, 90% rank & file:

Total bonuses = $66,700, average $667

Mgt bonuses = $53,200, average $5320

Worker bonuses = $13,500, average $150

[originalpckelly]

138. Amazing isn't it?

One can see the manipulation of the truth so clearly, especially when it's a matter of math.

[serrano2008]

39. Walmart will continue to be criminals until they...

pay everyone who works there the exact same amount from the owners to the greeters. Those scoundrels!! (sarcasm)

[Bill McBlueState]

55. why not?

I doubt the owners work any harder than the greeters.

[serrano2008]

62. Then why don't the greeters open up their own store?

Oh yeah...cause all they know how to do is be a greeter.

[EstimatedProphet]

69. That's bullshit

You don't know that at all. A lot of greeters work there because they have retired from their own business but can't make it on their retirement.

[serrano2008]

79. Then what do they have to complain about?

Sounds like a good gig for someone who doesn't want to work anywhere else or start their own store.

[EstimatedProphet]

82. If you like it so much, you're welcome to do it.

[Hannah Bell]

116. they hire retirees because 65-yr-old plus workers aren't in high demand by employers & work cheap.

and there are plenty of 65-yr-old-plus workers whose retirement/ss doesn't provide enough to live on, even modestly, therefore, they work.

but you knew that.

your angle is pasting a happy face on it.

[ColbertWatcher]

118. A one-time pay-off of less than $700 (max)?

How much healthcare does that buy?

[Hannah Bell]

126. $150 for associates, per the employee on the thread.

it buys one doctor's office visit.

[ColbertWatcher]

136. So Wal-Mart squirts out $150 per employee and in return gets free publicity.

I think they deserve much more attention that what they're currently getting.

[originalpckelly]

137. And check out this person who used to be in management at Wal-Mart:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5294981&mesg_id=5297743

They don't do this to keep out unions, but they tell the employees they'll lose their bonuses if they join a union. The moron actually tried to say this isn't an anti-union method. Good God, either he's just really fucking stupid, or selectively stupid. Perhaps they hire useful idiots to manage people.

[Touchdown]

156. Not really. FICA and Medicare come out.

The check would be around $82. Enough for a therapeutic massage.

[WI_DEM]

128. Well for once I will give them a pat on the back, because they have been doing this for years

BUT I still won't shop there.

[originalpckelly]

134. As I've just about typed my hands off throughout this thread...

I agree...yes bonus good. Bonus also good for propaganda value, employees should have received higher pay throughout year, instead of having to wait until end of year. Read thread if you want to see more...:P

[Nye Bevan]

145. So if they were paying NO bonuses

You would be praising them for NOT making a "transparent attempt to maintain a non-union environment"? Right?

[Naturyl]

149. This ploy will work.

The small one-time payoff will cause any union sentiment to fizzle.

Same tactic Bush used to buy millions of supporters with those silly $300 tax cut checks.

[No.23]

150. What a crew we have here.

Pay bonuses to undeserving CEOs, and we declare war.

Pay monies directly to the workers, and we question the motive.

Yikes!

Cynicism I like. But jadedness is another matter.

[originalpckelly]

154. Where did the money for the bonuses come from? EOM.

[No.23]

157. Glad you asked.

The bonuses for the CEOs came directly from our taxes (present and future).

Whereas the added monies for some Walmart employees came from their profits.

Did I pass?

[Hannah Bell]

160. where did the profits come from? from the employees' work. did i pass?

[No.23]

164. You'll have to grade yourself, since you both:

1) raised the question; and 2) answered it .

Give yourself whatever grade will make you feel good.

There is a big distinction between the two scenarios for me, however.

The banks are being "bailed out" with my current and future tax monies.

I don't have a choice re. whether to pay taxes or not.

So they are greasing their palms with monies that they are forcibly extracting from our pockets.

Whereas Walmart's employees are being paid bonuses from Walmart's profits... which are created by the productivity of Walmart's employees... who are choosing to work for Walmart.

Are you getting the picture now?

The bailouts are being paid with funds that are forced from us. Walmart's bonuses are being paid by people who choose to work there.

[DatManFromNawlins]

161. 2 billion in AWARDS? Really?

Since when did benefits like 401(k) and profit sharing become awards or rewards?

And let me guess how the discounts work...

Jimbob works at Wal-Mart and gets a 10% discount because they're so generous. Because of the discount he's able to buy a $20 pair of work shoes for $18, but the shoes only cost $8 to manufacture and ship over here from a Wal-Mart factory in China. Wal-Mart still makes a larger profit than the size of the discount, they get Jimbob's business because he makes jack squat and needs to save any money he can, and he'll end up wearing out that pair of work shoes just like the others, simply to earn a living.

Oh, and cash bonuses? How much of those bonuses went to corporate VPs and store and district managers?

When I worked for Winn-Dixie, I started out working part-time for a store in complete disarray. I turned them completely around almost single-handedly when I steadfastly refused to let anyone else order or manage inventory as a full time employee. They went from losing $40K in inventory a quarter before I got there to actually posting a profit under my watch (cases that were partially damaged at the warehouse were periodically shipped to stores at no cost so they could sort through the product). All of my managers got bonuses as a direct result of my efforts, ranging from 12K for the store manager to $1500 for the assistant managers.

They were so happy, they threw a few dollars together to buy me a 6 pack of beer.

After I graduated from college, I quit the job, and within 3 years the entire management staff at that store was shitcanned because inventory had gotten so bad once again.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.