Do you shop at Walmart?

[thereisnospoon]

Good luck to him. It's easy to get a job there: fill out an application online and take the online pre-test. Then if he scores sufficiently online, they'll group interview him. If that goes well they make an offer, at a buck or two north of minimum wage, if he's lucky and a stronger than average candidate.

Then just sign off on the privacy waiver, so they can back check criminal history, credit scores and whatever else they wish to look into, while your stepson hightails it over to the clinic to get a drug-test.

Just a few easy steps and removal of all privacy rights for a shit-pay job. Your stepson should be so lucky, and I have my fingers crossed he'll be stocking shelves soon.

Godbless the USA.

I've had to have criminal background checks and drug tests to get a job it ain't no big deal.

If you don't want to submit to the screening then don't apply for the job. Simple right?

Apparently. Funny how what were once requirements for a security position with government or a large corporation, are now shit compared to what folks need to go through to get a near minimum wage job.

But maybe that's me, being older and having not filled out an application nor sent a resume to anyone in over 30 years of an executive-level career. Six figure pay, and they treat you with some trust and respect. Imagine that.

But it ain't all peaches and cream. With more and more of our people being paid shit, or rendered unemployable for even "entry level" job, it's a sonofabitch to find customers to buy the shit we sell, albeit only in the US. Foreign markets are filling the void nicely, so I can still buy $100 ties. Yippee for me. And fuck Americans if they cannot rise from poverty to the board room. Laissez-faire free markets are the cat's fucking pajamas.

Yeah, pal?

I think you have had a meltdown.
Oh, would you mind not posting run on sentences. Thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Before Wal Mart came to town, there were four places a knitter to buy yarn. There were three bicycle shops owned locally. Four different jewlers, I can't count the number of locally owned pharmacies. Today, there are three locally owned pharmacies, but just one place to buy a bicycle and one place to buy yarn.

Wal Mart does not fix bicycles, neither do they sell high end bicycles, nor do they have a great selection of bicycle accessories. They don't sell good yarn either, just the cheapest. They don't have lessons or knitters clubs. Wal Mart absolutely does not permit customer designed jewelry. The businesses that go under when Wal Mart opens cannot stay in business, at all, if they carry the same products at the same level of service and sell them for more money. At the North Redondo Wal Mart there is a collection of small businesses. There is a dry cleaner, Wal Mart has a dry cleaner. There are several fast food joints. Wall mart sells junk food. There is a Michaels! Wal Mart sells craft goods.

How do these businesses stay in business right next to Wal Mart? The businesses that go under when Wal Mart moves in deserve to go out of business. They were overcharging and gave bad customer service before Wal Mart moved in. All the customers needed was an excuse.

Exactly.

The big stores can't do a lot of things very well.

For example, I buy dimension lumber from Lowes or the Depot but they don't carry a selection of high grade woods for projects or finish work. I have a guy who specializes in the most beautiful hardwoods and he's doing great.

In fact I just ordered 2 in thick slab maple that I'm using for a bar top. You can't get that at a box store.

There are plenty of niches in the market to fill

Interesting side note....Home Depot in an attempt to bring Contractor business to their stores, bought some larger plumbing and electrical supply companies. The venture has not gone well. The costs were such that HD could not get back their investment.
So they have sold off some of those. I think HD Corporate has spun off the "HD Supply" portion of their business.
NEWS
Home Depot shares move amid reports of supply sale
August 27, 2007 | Jennifer Waters
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Shares of Home Depot Inc. moved higher in pre-market trading Monday amid published reports that the home-improvement giant will sell its supply division to three private-equity firms. A Home Depot spokeswoman would not comment on the reports that Home Depot Supply will be sold for $8.5 billion, about 18% less that when the deal was first made in June. Shares of Home Depot (US:HD) were moving higher by 2% at $34.68.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do find your type of elitism disgusting. The main difference between target and Wal-Mart is simple .Target uses red in its decor and has slightly higher prices.....Now Why dont you go look you nose down at others..

I'm not an elitist. You're just so hyper-sensitive to elitism that you see it where it doesn't exist. I'm actually not arguing with the Wal Mart model. There is a opportunity cost in its model. To offer cheaper products, they have to pay their workers less. If they pay their workers less, the workers are not going to be as good. It's basic economics, basic reality dude.

You have proof they pay less then Target?

My brother worked for both. I can assure you that, at least in my area, they pay basically the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do find your type of elitism disgusting. The main difference between target and Wal-Mart is simple .Target uses red in its decor and has slightly higher prices.....Now Why dont you go look you nose down at others..

I'm not an elitist. You're just so hyper-sensitive to elitism that you see it where it doesn't exist. I'm actually not arguing with the Wal Mart model. There is a opportunity cost in its model. To offer cheaper products, they have to pay their workers less. If they pay their workers less, the workers are not going to be as good. It's basic economics, basic reality dude.

So you are basically saying that the government workers at the DMV, Social Security office and post office are bad because they are paid less and therefore do not OWE courtesy to the customers.

The low paid workers at Wal Mart are STERLING compared to the DMV.

Perhaps because THEY can be fired for behaving badly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nah; I got it.

The thing is, we all depend on government, none more so than businesses. Schools, largely funded by home owners, educate our work force. Roads and transit bring our workers to and from the jobsite, our products to market, and customer to our doorstep. Food assitance keep folks coming into our grocery stores. Gravy abounds, if you're paying attention, which the more successful companies do, religiously.

You are confusing social contract with government assistance. And I'm not going to take the time to educate you about that because somehow I don't think you would be open to the lesson. But Benjamin Franklin summed up what the core principle should be: we should be focused on leading or driving people out of poverty rather than encouraging it by making people comfortable in it.

And refocusing on Wal-mart, a lot of folks would have a hard time supporting a family on entry level Wal-mart wages. But a job at Wal-mart does pay a wage commensurate with the education and skill level required to do the work and it gives tens of thousands of folks an opportunity to acquire a work ethic, experience, marketable skills, and references for greater things. And tens of thousands enjoy working at Wal-mart enough to stay and make it their career.

Again, I simply don't understand a mentality that finds that something to criticize and attack.

Gotcha. Then I won't waste time trying to help you understand, and beg you helping me understand.

What social contract?

What about Franklin appeals to you beyond well-grounded structures that are not burned down by lightning strikes, discovering the gulf stream, etc.?

What happens when companies who depend on customers with living wages, as Walmart, Home Depot, etc. do, and who employ an increasing percentage of our workforce, pay sub-living wages? Parasites that exploit a market and diminish it? Or something else?

The concept of "living wage" is a myth perpetuated by labor organizations.
Union wages index their wage demands to the minimum wage plus the prevailing market wage. So, if the min wage is increased, unions will demand higher wages for their members. Very slick.
Pay is based on value of the work being performed and the skill level required to do the work in concert with the cost of that labor.
Very simple concept.
If one believes this "living wage" calculator Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Los Angeles County, California, the living wage for a worker in Los Angeles County should be $17 per hour(two adults in one household). Do you believe a convenience store clerk should be paid that hourly wage?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Worry not. Ron Paul is leaving his cushy guvmint job where all he had to do was whine about his employer.

Brighter days ahead.

Thank you for totally missing the point being made.

Nah; I got it.

The thing is, we all depend on government, none more so than businesses. Schools, largely funded by home owners, educate our work force. Roads and transit bring our workers to and from the jobsite, our products to market, and customer to our doorstep. Food assitance keep folks coming into our grocery stores. Gravy abounds, if you're paying attention, which the more successful companies do, religiously.

Labor has always been a commodity.
Not the individual people, but the cost of labor.

 

[Plasmaball]

yup, its where i get all my pinata's.

 

[Koios]

Thank you for totally missing the point being made.

Nah; I got it.

The thing is, we all depend on government, none more so than businesses. Schools, largely funded by home owners, educate our work force. Roads and transit bring our workers to and from the jobsite, our products to market, and customer to our doorstep. Food assitance keep folks coming into our grocery stores. Gravy abounds, if you're paying attention, which the more successful companies do, religiously.

Labor has always been a commodity.
Not the individual people, but the cost of labor.

Nope; it stopped being that when we enacted the Federal Minimum Wage and other labor regs.

 

[Foxfyre]

All minimum wage did was change the cost of labor and add some additional dynamics. Labor is still a commodity as much as any other cost of doing business and any business person who is at all competent must factor in the cost of labor including payroll taxes, labor based insurance costs, costs of training, benefits, and all other costs related to labor when he or she fixes his/her prices. It is a buyers market for the employer when the economy is crappy and unemployment is high and he/she can be much more picky about who gets hired and the workers have much less option about where then can work and what their earnings and benefits will be. It is a sellers market for the worker when the economy is good and there is full employment--he/she has much more option to sell his/her labor the highest bidder.

Wal-mart is no different than the mom and pop store when setting wages and benefits and calculating how to manage these to maximize profits. And do not think the mom and pop store is any more noble or magnanimous in being willing to pay more than it has to in order to follow a business plan and meet goals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't imagine Target is any different than any other big box store that is able to corner a substantial part of the market. Certainly competing with Wal-mart has kept the prices in both stores lower. But I also am aware of many charitable and benevolent activities of Wal-mart that I have not seen from Target. Would Target be any more noble or benevolent or a better neighbor than Wal-mart if it could corner as much of the market, be profitable in as many locations, and do the volume that Wal-mart does? I somehow can't see that it would be.

I sometimes do presentations for groups, including small business classes, and one component of that is situational ethics. As an illustration, I use the concept from the Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan movie "You've Got Mail." It was of course a love story, but the plot of the movie was Fox Books, a big box book store, putting the small neighborhood children's bookstore "Shop Around the Corner" out of business. And most of us who watched the movie found ourselves strongly on the side of "Shop Around the Corner", and yet the character, Joe Fox, (played by Hanks) turned out to be a really decent guy who wasn't at all a devil or ogre even though he knew he was putting the small shop out of business and fully expected to do so.

The former customers of Shop Around the Corner felt guilty about it, but found the allure of a good selection and lower prices too much to resist and abandoned the small shop in favor of the big box store.

So the question then was: Was it ethical for Fox Books to put Shop Around the Corner out of business? I've never worked with a group who didn't really struggle with that question.

Why would anyone struggle with such a question?

Was it ethical to offer a better product at a lower price?

Um, yeah - it sure was.

The reality of life is that an old tyme blacksmith working iron in a coal driven furnace makes us all tingly inside, but for products, a forge with with thousands of workers puts out better quality at a fraction of the cost.

Same thing with retailing, little local retailers are quaint, but aren't efficient in logistics or supply chain management. Economies of scale.

Oh I know, but just as computers and e-mail have displaced the pleasure of actually receiving a hand written letter from a loved one, and Facebook and other modern phenomena have too often replaced getting together with friends just to be together, there are many pleasures that exist only in nostalgia these days. But it is hard to let them go.

I grew up in small towns where you knew every shop owner, and you would visit almost all of them before your Christmas shopping and preparations were done. And it was a pure joy and social experience. There was an intimacy and human touch that will never be matched by an impersonal big box store however much we appreciate the one stop shopping. So shopping isn't the pleasant social experience it once was. And the older I get, the more distant I feel from most of the hundreds of people who live near me. And all that comes with a sense of loss.

But that still isn't Wal-marts fault.

People should consider that that lifestyle isn't dying out because WalMart came along and killed it, but because people rejected it and demanded that there be stores like WalMart instead.

It's like blaming huge suburban supermarkets for killing the A & P, simply because they appeared around the time A & P went out of business. It wasn't their fault; it was the people who wanted to move away from urban areas into the suburbs, and demanded stores that fit with their new lifestyles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've had to have criminal background checks and drug tests to get a job it ain't no big deal.

If you don't want to submit to the screening then don't apply for the job. Simple right?

Apparently. Funny how what were once requirements for a security position with government or a large corporation, are now shit compared to what folks need to go through to get a near minimum wage job.

But maybe that's me, being older and having not filled out an application nor sent a resume to anyone in over 30 years of an executive-level career. Six figure pay, and they treat you with some trust and respect. Imagine that.

But it ain't all peaches and cream. With more and more of our people being paid shit, or rendered unemployable for even "entry level" job, it's a sonofabitch to find customers to buy the shit we sell, albeit only in the US. Foreign markets are filling the void nicely, so I can still buy $100 ties. Yippee for me. And fuck Americans if they cannot rise from poverty to the board room. Laissez-faire free markets are the cat's fucking pajamas.

Yeah, pal?

They have to have a criminal background check cause they might be working with money.....You truly are a paranoid idiot.

Not only that, but no one wants to spend all their time eyeballing their employees to make sure their merchandise isn't walking out the back door. If employees are trusted less these days, don't blame the employers; blame the past employees who proved that people can't be trusted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently. Funny how what were once requirements for a security position with government or a large corporation, are now shit compared to what folks need to go through to get a near minimum wage job.

But maybe that's me, being older and having not filled out an application nor sent a resume to anyone in over 30 years of an executive-level career. Six figure pay, and they treat you with some trust and respect. Imagine that.

But it ain't all peaches and cream. With more and more of our people being paid shit, or rendered unemployable for even "entry level" job, it's a sonofabitch to find customers to buy the shit we sell, albeit only in the US. Foreign markets are filling the void nicely, so I can still buy $100 ties. Yippee for me. And fuck Americans if they cannot rise from poverty to the board room. Laissez-faire free markets are the cat's fucking pajamas.

Yeah, pal?

They have to have a criminal background check cause they might be working with money.....You truly are a paranoid idiot.

Not only that, but no one wants to spend all their time eyeballing their employees to make sure their merchandise isn't walking out the back door. If employees are trusted less these days, don't blame the employers; blame the past employees who proved that people can't be trusted.

Yep. And blame all of us who have demanded those big box stores that come with work forces that aren't personal friends and family of the proprietors and therefore the probability of employee theft is far more likely. And blame a litigious society--one that didn't exist all that long ago--in which hundreds and thousands of hungry attorneys are just itching to get their hands on a civil rights suit. Used to be an employer could easily get rid of the dishonest or substandard employee. Now not so much. Most especially if the employee is one of the more protected groups.

 

[Spoonman]

sometimes, but only for the fashion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

sometimes, but only for the fashion.

LOL!

I used to get clothes at Wal Mart. Then I realized that it was cheaper for my to buy more expensive clothing somewhere else because the durability of the clothes at Wal-Mart is practically non-existent. A $50 pair of pants that lasts 5 years is cheaper than a $10 pair that lasts 6 months.

 

[Koios]

All minimum wage did was change the cost of labor and add some additional dynamics. Labor is still a commodity as much as any other cost of doing business and any business person who is at all competent must factor in the cost of labor including payroll taxes, labor based insurance costs, costs of training, benefits, and all other costs related to labor when he or she fixes his/her prices. It is a buyers market for the employer when the economy is crappy and unemployment is high and he/she can be much more picky about who gets hired and the workers have much less option about where then can work and what their earnings and benefits will be. It is a sellers market for the worker when the economy is good and there is full employment--he/she has much more option to sell his/her labor the highest bidder.

Wal-mart is no different than the mom and pop store when setting wages and benefits and calculating how to manage these to maximize profits. And do not think the mom and pop store is any more noble or magnanimous in being willing to pay more than it has to in order to follow a business plan and meet goals.

What other commodities have price minimums? Or requirements such as matching payroll taxes, meeting safety and health requirements, mandatory break periods and so on down the line?

The American people are not a commodity no matter who wishes they were. And efforts to commoditize workers merely makes America more South American-like, which hurts both workers and businesses, while making the country less secure.

 

[Foxfyre]

sometimes, but only for the fashion.

LOL!

I used to get clothes at Wal Mart. Then I realized that it was cheaper for my to buy more expensive clothing somewhere else because the durability of the clothes at Wal-Mart is practically non-existent. A $50 pair of pants that lasts 5 years is cheaper than a $10 pair that lasts 6 months.

This is true. Wal-mart doesn't carry much high end stuff when it comes to clothing. However, for every day underwear, hoisery, every day sweat shirts and tees and such, Wal-mart has some great bargains. These days money is tighter for us now that we're retired and pretty much on a fixed budget, so saving a few bucks on stuff that we have to have but doesn't need to be fancy or high end makes Wal-mart and stores like it much appreciated.

 

[PredFan]

I haven't been but depending on the outcome of this friday, I might.

If Walmart caves in to the greedy union thugs, I won't ever shop there again. If they stand their ground, I will do as much of my shopping there as I can.

 

[Katzndogz]

sometimes, but only for the fashion.

LOL!

I used to get clothes at Wal Mart. Then I realized that it was cheaper for my to buy more expensive clothing somewhere else because the durability of the clothes at Wal-Mart is practically non-existent. A $50 pair of pants that lasts 5 years is cheaper than a $10 pair that lasts 6 months.

Wal Mart isn't known for their quality. Buying clothing from Wal Mart expecting durability just makes you rather silly. There are things to spend money on and things not to spend money on. Wal Mart is good for children's clothing. Wal Mart clothing will last just long enough for the kid to grow out of them. Buy some very trendy knock off that will last just long enough to reach the end of the trend. Price is no substitute for wisdom. I spent a fortune on a London Fog coat ten years ago. It still looks brand new. I figure the annual cost was $20.00 a year so far, and going down every year as the cost is amortized over the life of the coat and Wal Mart cannot beat that price.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I haven't been but depending on the oucome of this friday, I might.

If Walmart caves in to the greedy union thugs, I won't ever shop there again. If they stand their ground, I will do as much of my shopping there as I can.

Wal Mart knows that if they cave, that they'll be creating a market they worked so hard to create. During WWII during rationing, a study showed that one of every four transactions was underground.

 

[Foxfyre]

All minimum wage did was change the cost of labor and add some additional dynamics. Labor is still a commodity as much as any other cost of doing business and any business person who is at all competent must factor in the cost of labor including payroll taxes, labor based insurance costs, costs of training, benefits, and all other costs related to labor when he or she fixes his/her prices. It is a buyers market for the employer when the economy is crappy and unemployment is high and he/she can be much more picky about who gets hired and the workers have much less option about where then can work and what their earnings and benefits will be. It is a sellers market for the worker when the economy is good and there is full employment--he/she has much more option to sell his/her labor the highest bidder.

Wal-mart is no different than the mom and pop store when setting wages and benefits and calculating how to manage these to maximize profits. And do not think the mom and pop store is any more noble or magnanimous in being willing to pay more than it has to in order to follow a business plan and meet goals.

What other commodities have price minimums? Or requirements such as matching payroll taxes, meeting safety and health requirements, mandatory break periods and so on down the line?

The American people are not a commodity no matter who wishes they were. And efforts to commoditize workers merely makes America more South American-like, which hurts both workers and businesses, while making the country less secure.

You are having a hard time separating a concept of a person and a commodity aren't you. The person is not the commodity. The person's labor, that he sells for an agreed price, is.

And when the government sets a minimum for labor, the employer is obligated to pay it, but it also can affect the price of everything the employer sells to everybody including those who work for him/her. And not only is the employer obligated to pay it, but so are all the folks who are his suppliers which also can affect the price every step of the way.....UNLESS.....he imports as much of his merchandise as he can and thereby bypass the minimum wage requirements.

And THAT is why higher minimum wages are great for those who get it, but has also cost Americans hundreds of thousands of good jobs that go overseas where artificial wages via minimum wage or unions are not a factor and where people are delighted to have the work at any wage.

Most of the folks who work at Wal-mart aren't making great money either, but most who work there are grateful for the jobs. Make their labor higher than the market will bear, however, and many of those same folks will have no jobs at all. And yet there are some who think that is a more righteous path than allowing the free market to set the wages.