• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

lpast said:
Unionize the pigs and you can watch the needle move for an improved lower middle class and economic recovery take some from the top pigs and spread it around and the country will be all the better...
Click to expand...

no. history demonstrates that if we unionize wal mart workers, the chief result will be fewer wal mart workers and more unemployed, followed by a decrease in the standard of living for our low and middle income quintiles.

or the top pigs can leave and we will right promptly created a new set of the top rich people...they need us more than we need them...they dont make a dime without us a FACT that always seems to elude you marine...the top cant fight a war without troops and the rich cant get rich without people actually making them their money
Click to expand...

And the bottom can't do it without someone to hire them. It's called "Mutually Beneficial Trade".
 
solletica said:
With the amount of subsidies they receive from taxpayers, they should.
Click to expand...

Well now, should Unions being doing the same things instead of paying Union bosses outrageous salaries? After all, they get tax breaks and a lot of government largesse and they are tax free. But then they arent synonmous with the ground game of the Democrat party now are they?

The amount of subsidies an organization recieves has no bearing on the amount of charity work they do. The logical dissonance here is huge. Under your assumption, green companies should be doing so much charity work they almost cant do anything else. They recieved 4 times the amount of subsidies and tax breaks than big oil and 10 times what the entire retail sector recieved.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Well now, should Unions being doing the same things instead of paying Union bosses outrageous salaries? After all, they get tax breaks and a lot of government largesse and they are tax free. But then they arent synonmous with the ground game of the Democrat party now are they?

The amount of subsidies an organization recieves has no bearing on the amount of charity work they do. The logical dissonance here is huge. Under your assumption, green companies should be doing so much charity work they almost cant do anything else. They recieved 4 times the amount of subsidies and tax breaks than big oil and 10 times what the entire retail sector recieved.
Click to expand...


Not to mention outright waivers for Obamacare....Talk about the double standard going on here....
 
cpwill said:
no. history demonstrates that if we unionize wal mart workers, the chief result will be fewer wal mart workers and more unemployed, followed by a decrease in the standard of living for our low and middle income quintiles.



And the bottom can't do it without someone to hire them. It's called "Mutually Beneficial Trade".
Click to expand...


totally untrue when we had the last unionization of the country everyone thrived including the economy and the country....and again not true...there will always be someone to fill the pig void...there are alot of wannabe pigs just ask turtledude..
 
buck said:
Or Walmart would be the biggest retailer in the world. Oh.. Wait.

That's right. You can buy all those products you mentioned at Walmart for cheaper then you can pretty much any where else. Customers obviously care about that.

My wife works for a union shop. They can not get their prices even close to Walmarts.. It's difficult when you have to pay your unskilled cashiers $30/hour ($45.00 on sunday) with 401k and full benefits. So, they are cutting way back on hours at her store (the entire chain actually) and they are in danger of going under. Primarily because customers can get the same products cheaper at Target, Walmart or any of the other non-union grocery stores that have recently opened.

So, your claim that customers don't care, is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. My response to you started with "if all people cared about..." And what I said was true, right? Nobody would ever shop at Whole Foods or the Apple Store ever, for any reason, unless there were people out there whose spending habits were based on other criteria than finding the cheapest product. Wal-Mart's success proves that what they are doing is popular and attractive to consumers, but nobody is denying that.

Now as to your wife who makes $30/hour as an "unskilled cashier." Let's take a look at the highest paid cashiers in America. The average cashier in the United States makes $18,000 a year, with the vast majority of them making approximately that amount. The highest paid cashiers in the country are in a few select towns in California, where the median cashier salary is $25,000 a year. That would be about $1,000 per 2 week check, which at $30/hour (and $45 for sunday pay) would mean a little over 15 hours a week. To be blunt, there are virtually no union retail jobs, union cashier jobs, or cashiers making $30/hour anywhere in this country. Either you are living with an anomaly or a fabrication, I'm sorry to tell you.

But if, as you say, the store is going under because people can find the same products for less at Wal-Mart, here is my response: what makes the cheaper product so attractive to consumers is that they can't afford anything else. They are in debt from credit cards, student loans, and often medical bills (which I have a ton of). If people had higher pay with better benefits, it would be much easier for them to use their money to support businesses that treat their employees well and give back to the community.
 
Mustachio said:
I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. My response to you started with "if all people cared about..." And what I said was true, right? Nobody would ever shop at Whole Foods or the Apple Store ever, for any reason, unless there were people out there whose spending habits were based on other criteria than finding the cheapest product. Wal-Mart's success proves that what they are doing is popular and attractive to consumers, but nobody is denying that.

Now as to your wife who makes $30/hour as an "unskilled cashier." Let's take a look at the highest paid cashiers in America. The average cashier in the United States makes $18,000 a year, with the vast majority of them making approximately that amount. The highest paid cashiers in the country are in a few select towns in California, where the median cashier salary is $25,000 a year. That would be about $1,000 per 2 week check, which at $30/hour (and $45 for sunday pay) would mean a little over 15 hours a week. To be blunt, there are virtually no union retail jobs, union cashier jobs, or cashiers making $30/hour anywhere in this country. Either you are living with an anomaly or a fabrication, I'm sorry to tell you.

But if, as you say, the store is going under because people can find the same products for less at Wal-Mart, here is my response: what makes the cheaper product so attractive to consumers is that they can't afford anything else. They are in debt from credit cards, student loans, and often medical bills (which I have a ton of). If people had higher pay with better benefits, it would be much easier for them to use their money to support businesses that treat their employees well and give back to the community.
Click to expand...

Yes but if people had higher pay with better benefits than prices would have to go up to offset the increased costs.

We go through this every time there is an increase in minimum wage.

The real elephant in the room is liberals are unwilling to support their own beliefs. That's the central problem with every single "liberal" issue. "Main Street" isn't going out of business because greedy corporations are opening big box stores and paying their employees dick. "Main Street" is going out of business because liberals would rather save a few bucks at those big box stores.
 
Mustachio said:
Either you are living with an anomaly or a fabrication, I'm sorry to tell you.
Click to expand...

You can be sorry all you want, the point is they are paying $30.00 / hour for those with the highest seniority. My wife is not quite there, she's at about $20.00/hour ($30.00 on sundays). Not bad for sitting there and sliding items past a scanner.

But if, as you say, the store is going under because people can find the same products for less at Wal-Mart, here is my response: what makes the cheaper product so attractive to consumers is that they can't afford anything else. They are in debt from credit cards, student loans, and often medical bills (which I have a ton of). If people had higher pay with better benefits, it would be much easier for them to use their money to support businesses that treat their employees well and give back to the community.
Click to expand...

I don't care how much I made, and I suspect most individuals are like this - I know my grandmother is and she has no worrries for money - if I had more money then I currently do and I could find the exact same product for cheaper at Walmart, I would still buy it at Walmart. With few exceptions most would. Even the wealthy enjoy a good deal.
 
Donahue said:
Yes but if people had higher pay with better benefits than prices would have to go up to offset the increased costs.

We go through this every time there is an increase in minimum wage.

The real elephant in the room is liberals are unwilling to support their own beliefs. That's the central problem with every single "liberal" issue. "Main Street" isn't going out of business because greedy corporations are opening big box stores and paying their employees dick. "Main Street" is going out of business because liberals would rather save a few bucks at those big box stores.
Click to expand...

My only issue with what you said is that it's everybody doing it, not just liberals. Conservatives don't do it either. What's more representative of the conservative vision for America than an individual born with humble means starting their own business and thriving due to local support? Liberals oppose corporations treating their employees poorly yet they spend their money wherever is most convenient. The conservative vision of America is heavily drawn from small business owners yet conservatives aren't supporting small businesses.

Still, there are a lot of people who do walk the walk and talk the talk and shop at the place that walks how they talk. And if more people did it, the increased costs due to higher wages and better benefits could be offset by more business drawn from support for these practices.

But you're right, people still aren't doing it. But I think demographics are shifting and we'll continue to see more consumers who are informed and really do care. Wal-Mart is much better than they used to be and frankly I think it's only because they thought higher wages would attract the aforementioned people.
 
lpast said:
totally untrue when we had the last unionization of the country everyone thrived including the economy and the country....and again not true...there will always be someone to fill the pig void...there are alot of wannabe pigs just ask turtledude..
Click to expand...

And what happened to that unionization of the country. Let me tell you, the union thugs got greedy, not only greedy for wages and benefits, but thieves at ever ship yard, and steeling cargo from trucks delivering goods across this country. And you wonder why union membership has been diminishing for decades. These union thugs are still at work in our schools where you can't fire a teacher, but they got that agreement by selling their vote to liberals. The private sector is ridding themselves of these thugs that all they want is to steal all the money they can from their membership. Even the employees at Walmart will not buy into their BS.
 
DA60 said:
Click to expand...


Do Wallmart employees offer a special service or trade? They aren't teachers, cops, firefighters, sanitation, road side, emergency response, etc. They stock shelves and swipe items over a lazer.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Do Wallmart employees offer a special service or trade? They aren't teachers, cops, firefighters, sanitation, road side, emergency response, etc. They stock shelves and swipe items over a lazer.
Click to expand...

Well, they do have to remember some veggie/fruit codes - the one I recall from when I was working at the grocery store while in HS and a bit afterwards as a 2nd job and my wife still works for is 4011 = banannas. Not paticuarly taxing stuff. And certainly not worth the $12.00 (or so) I was making when I left after 7 years or so.
 
buck said:
Well, they do have to remember some veggie/fruit codes - the one I recall from when I was working at the grocery store while in HS and a bit afterwards as a 2nd job and my wife still works for is 4011 = banannas. Not paticuarly taxing stuff. And certainly not worth the $12.00 (or so) I was making when I left after 7 years or so.
Click to expand...

The point is what you just stated... high school job or second job for a particular reason. A high school level job doesn't merit much pay, IMO.
 
Donahue said:
Yes but if people had higher pay with better benefits than prices would have to go up to offset the increased costs.

We go through this every time there is an increase in minimum wage.

The real elephant in the room is liberals are unwilling to support their own beliefs. That's the central problem with every single "liberal" issue. "Main Street" isn't going out of business because greedy corporations are opening big box stores and paying their employees dick. "Main Street" is going out of business because liberals would rather save a few bucks at those big box stores.
Click to expand...

Dude. It's not just liberals. Even I can't let that particular bit of dissonance slide.

The problems with chain establishments are several fold. The primary one is they destroy local economies because they push the profits to the headquarters rather than letting it stay local. Its not just the pay scales. The pay scales are pretty similar to the pay scales from when locals owned mom and pop stores but, for some reason, no one considered them permanent jobs. Now just because they are owned by large companies somehow they are expected to be long term, I just dont get that.

I dont think there are any easy solutions here, its going to be next to impossible to unionize during one of the most stagnant economy stages we have ever seen. Replacement workers are everywhere. Wal-Mart also has a strong company culture that resists unionization. Im not sure how ethical it may or may not be, but I will say they have a lot of workers that dont want to unionize.

Do I think retail cashiers and salespeople are underpaid? Some are, some are not.
 
Mustachio said:
My only issue with what you said is that it's everybody doing it, not just liberals. Conservatives don't do it either. What's more representative of the conservative vision for America than an individual born with humble means starting their own business and thriving due to local support? Liberals oppose corporations treating their employees poorly yet they spend their money wherever is most convenient. The conservative vision of America is heavily drawn from small business owners yet conservatives aren't supporting small businesses.

Still, there are a lot of people who do walk the walk and talk the talk and shop at the place that walks how they talk. And if more people did it, the increased costs due to higher wages and better benefits could be offset by more business drawn from support for these practices.

But you're right, people still aren't doing it. But I think demographics are shifting and we'll continue to see more consumers who are informed and really do care. Wal-Mart is much better than they used to be and frankly I think it's only because they thought higher wages would attract the aforementioned people.
Click to expand...


That is not the conservative "vision" for America though.

Conservatives want the freedom to do business with whomever and however we want.

I'm not particularly partisan but I'm tired of Democrats whining about things they have no interest in doing themselves. They represent almost half of one of the most populated countries on the planet. Almost all of their pet issues would simply disappear if they actually lived the way they insist I should.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Dude. It's not just liberals. Even I can't let that particular bit of dissonance slide.

The problems with chain establishments are several fold. The primary one is they destroy local economies because they push the profits to the headquarters rather than letting it stay local. Its not just the pay scales. The pay scales are pretty similar to the pay scales from when locals owned mom and pop stores but, for some reason, no one considered them permanent jobs. Now just because they are owned by large companies somehow they are expected to be long term, I just dont get that.

I dont think there are any easy solutions here, its going to be next to impossible to unionize during one of the most stagnant economy stages we have ever seen. Replacement workers are everywhere. Wal-Mart also has a strong company culture that resists unionization. Im not sure how ethical it may or may not be, but I will say they have a lot of workers that dont want to unionize.

Do I think retail cashiers and salespeople are underpaid? Some are, some are not.
Click to expand...

It is liberals though.

We're not 121 pages into another anti-Walmart thread because half of one of the most populated countries in the world refuses to shop in a big box store. The whole issue would cease to exist if the same people who hate Walmart, etc. on internet message boards boycotted stores which do not pay cashiers a "living" wage.
 
lpast said:
totally untrue when we had the last unionization of the country everyone thrived including the economy and the country...
Click to expand...

That is sadly not true. The drive to increase unionization in the 30's helped to prolong the Great Depression. Labor exists on the Demand/Supply curve, just like everything else. When you increase the cost, you decrease demand.

.and again not true...there will always be someone to fill the pig void...there are alot of wannabe pigs just ask turtledude..
Click to expand...

:roll: excited to have a chance to call someone else a 'pig'?

And it is true. If they did not benefit from taking those jobs, they would not take them. If the employers did not benefit from hiring the workers, they wouldn't hire them. Mutually Beneficial Trade - one persons' money for another persons' labor. You keep talking about how business owners make money off their employees - you seem to be forgetting that the flip side of that is that employees make their money off of their employers.
 
cpwill said:
That is sadly not true. The drive to increase unionization in the 30's helped to prolong the Great Depression. Labor exists on the Demand/Supply curve, just like everything else. When you increase the cost, you decrease demand.



:roll: excited to have a chance to call someone else a 'pig'?

And it is true. If they did not benefit from taking those jobs, they would not take them. If the employers did not benefit from hiring the workers, they wouldn't hire them. Mutually Beneficial Trade - one persons' money for another persons' labor. You keep talking about how business owners make money off their employees - you seem to be forgetting that the flip side of that is that employees make their money off of their employers.
Click to expand...

I consider all crooks pigs...and I could post everyday about an rich individual or a corporation that used their postion to lie, cheat steal from the public and even KILL them all for the endless pursuit of MORE PROFIT...
 
Donahue said:
I'm not particularly partisan but I'm tired of Democrats whining about things they have no interest in doing themselves. They represent almost half of one of the most populated countries on the planet. Almost all of their pet issues would simply disappear if they actually lived the way they insist I should.
Click to expand...

Donahue said:
It is liberals though.

We're not 121 pages into another anti-Walmart thread because half of one of the most populated countries in the world refuses to shop in a big box store. The whole issue would cease to exist if the same people who hate Walmart, etc. on internet message boards boycotted stores which do not pay cashiers a "living" wage.
Click to expand...

What does boycotting Wal-Mart mean? Does it mean not shopping there? Because I don't. And I'm liberal, that doesn't mean I'm a Democrat.

Who is going to spend their time boycotting stores? I chose my job according to what I feel good about doing. My line of work is helping people for much less money than I would get paid were I to spend my time trying to make money. I agree that the vast majority of people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. But I would caution you against thinking that anybody who says they hate Wal-Mart is a hypocrite because "they probably shop there too." Well I don't. I support local businesses, I go to farmer's markets and "ma and pa" stores, and I have no problem paying a little more for a responsible business. Even when I order pizza I call the local dude (a first generation immigrant from Italy who's pizza is awesome btw).

I don't make much money and I can do it. Other people can, too. Asking for us to call in sick to go picket is ridiculous. I think a lot of people shop at Wal-Mart and other retail giants instead of supporting local commerce, and then try to justify it with the "it's what we all do" mentality. Well, I don't do it. Maybe more people should stop justifying how they spend their money and start paying more attention to it.
 
lpast said:
I consider all crooks pigs...and I could post everyday about an rich individual or a corporation that used their postion to lie, cheat steal from the public and even KILL them all for the endless pursuit of MORE PROFIT...
Click to expand...

As would I. In fact, I see no reason for the qualifier - anyone who would lie and murder for money is worthy of being considered a criminal.


However, this is a thread about Wal-Mart; and specifically how some of their employees are upset about being low-value labor, and instead of deciding to do something about that by improving themselves, seem to prefer to blame their employer for their own lack.
 
cpwill said:
As would I. In fact, I see no reason for the qualifier - anyone who would lie and murder for money is worthy of being considered a criminal.


However, this is a thread about Wal-Mart; and specifically how some of their employees are upset about being low-value labor, and instead of deciding to do something about that by improving themselves, seem to prefer to blame their employer for their own lack.
Click to expand...

Im sure you didnt see it..but I posted two last week about pharmacuetical companies killing people by hiding the risks to life that they knew existed from the public and the doctors..no one goes to jail just fines..
Thats what infuriates me..big banks..big pharma big anything that get caught stealing billions or hundreds of millions from the public..no one goes to jail and they get a 100 million dollar fine for stealing a half a billion...its all bs cp..there are many components to the reasons I feel the way I do...the difference is..you only look for the good in corporations and there is good to find...I look for the bad and theres plenty of that too.
 
DVSentinel said:
Ok, now lets look at what those "greedy" shareholders made. So far this year, Walmart stock bottomed out at $57.36 (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.: NYSE:WMT quotes & news - Google Finance) and annualized dividends for 2012 are $1.46 (Walmart Corporate - Dividends & Stock Splits), so at it's lowest stock price, it would take the average investor 39.3 years to make back, from dividends, the dollar amount they paid. (Current rates, $72.10 and $1.59, it would take 45.3 years). So it would take over $40 years for an investor to make back their investment if the relied upon dividends being paid.

I don't know about others, but waiting 40+ years to get back what I put in and actually start making money off of an investment is not being greedy. I would make more money off of selling that stock that I purchased at $57.36 for $72.10 than I would ever make off of dividends. Dividends are the distribution of profits, those not used for other things, to share holders. Walmart hardly appears "greedy" when you consider return upon the investment in the company.

How many walmart employee's want to wait 40+ years to get the pay they earned on their investment of labor? Looked at this way, who is being "greedy"?
Click to expand...

Well if you add in capital appreciation, it won't take 40 years.
Not to mention, that dividends tend to grow over time and that Walmart employees get a company match on stock, which is 15 cents on the dollar.
They automatically profit from investing in company stock.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Of course people that have more responsibility get paid more. Thats how it should be. But that has nothing to do with cooperatives. The individual has more responsibility so they get paid more. The individual that has less gets payed less. Thats the way it should be.
Click to expand...
No, the right and moral way is to go and sit at a table and discuss merits. Not go outside and make a scene chanting some slogan that is worthless costing the company money. That just creates bad feelings and hardship for people that have nothing to do with your dispute.
Click to expand...
They do have a say in thier wage. All they have to do is accept or not accept the wage offered at the date of hire. If they get hired and want more later on down the line then they should ASK, like adults. Not through temper tantrums like spoiled children.
Click to expand...

First of all, it has nothing to do with responsibility ... It has to do with the Capitalist will always pay himself the most he can, and the workers the least he can. The way it should be is whatever pay you can get, that's the market, its not a meritocracy, it never has been.

Second of all, sitting down and "asking" for more pay because you think you deserve it won't do ****, unless you can back it up with some sort of power, and you can have a lot more of that with a union, the capitalist controls all the capital, so if workers want leverage they need to fight collectively.

What you're basically saying is the workers should just play the game the way the Capitalist wants them too ... Nonsense, you play the game in a way that where you have the highest leverage, thats how capitalists do it, thus that is how workers should do it.

And how do they first get control of that capitol? Through thier mental acuity. It certainly isn't by sitting on thier ass.
Click to expand...

mental activity AND institutional frameworks and institutional advantages and so on.

Gotta love these silly statements. A company cannot work as a democracy. Again, look at our Senate and Congress to see what a democracy is like in action.
Click to expand...

The senate and congress are examplse of a currupt plutocracy, where the representatives answer to buisiness leaders.

also WE HAVE TONS AND TONS OF EXAMPLES THAT WORK AS DEMOCRACIES .... the richest area in europe, Emilia-Romagna, is famous for its cooperatives ...

So? 50 years ago we also had more morals, and less greed. We have changed alot in 50 years.

And that is not what you are saying at all. You are saying that you want the grunts to have just as much say as those that built the company. Even the ones that just started working.
Click to expand...

Thats rediculous ... thats like arguing that the reason black people are better off now is because black people have better morals now.

Thats nonsense, people were just as greedy 50 years ago as they are not, the difference the institutions.

Or is it that everyone suddenyl got more greedy at the same time the US made neo-liberal reforms, and the reforms had nothing to do with it. Common now.

Wrong. The very first form of "government" if you can call it that was strength makes right. If you're stronger than the other guy then you can take what he has. Capitalism started the moment when Strength makes Right stopped being the main thing and people started trading one item for another. Even Germany, which you tout as being socialistic (which its not) (or at least the picture perfect way of unions) is based on capitalism.
Click to expand...

Wrong, just based on facts. the first governments were tribal, i.e. run by elders and relatively democratic, when land became more important you had monarchies and theocracies with mostly command economies, even in major cities like in Rome and greece, markets were not the main distributive method, trading was mainly between societies not within.

Capitalism started with the industrial revolution. Also Capitalism =/= Markets, it is the Capitalist mode of production.

As far as Germany, yeah ... its not socialist, but it has a lot more socialistic policies than other places which are a big reason it's successful.

Name me one socialist country that has worked.
Click to expand...

There has never been a socialist country, you have cooperatives, and areas that were socialistic and countries that implimented socialistic policies, but there hasn't been a socialist country.

Contradictory. If its a socialistic idea (which its not) how can it also be based on capitalism which is the anti-thesis of socialism? Do you even know what socialism actually is?
Click to expand...

Like I said ITS NOT A SOCIALIST OR A CAPITALIST IDEA .... It's just a fact on how Capitalism works.

And yeah, I do know what socialism is, its economic democracy.

Sure they will. And do. 7% of our working force is in a union in the US. 53% of our workforce is either middle class or rich....going by US standards of wealth. I would have to say that those that are middle class and rich easily get thier labor's worth. The lower 47% is debateable as to thier worth. And you cannot go by what the individual thinks that they are worth because they will always claim that they are worth far more than they really are.
Click to expand...

No ... its not by what they think they are worth, the metric I'm going by is the value they actually produce, and by that workers by definition don't get waht they are worht otherwise capitalism (profit) would'nt work.

So? Considering the CEO has more invested into the company than the common worker it only makes since that they are not the first to get cut. Why should they be? Just because YOU don't see them doing anything does not mean that they don't.
Click to expand...

Most of the time the CEO isn't that invested in the company, they have investments all over the places and are many times on boards of other companies, they have reall big golden parachutes and a lot less stake in a company than a worker who's livelyhood depends on it.

I wasn't arguing that CEO's don't do anything btw.

Beats me. I'm not a CEO. I'm one of those lower 47% people. But it is quite possible with the advancements in technology making things easier to keep track of things that a CEO needs to keep track of.
Click to expand...

Wiat what???? So why are you not rich? Are you just lazy?

Also are you arguing seriously that CEOs got 300% more compensation because their job god easier????

Also technology made workers more productive too ...

The fact is the same, CEO's paid themselves more because they could ... nothing more nothing less.

So? Power does not equal bad. Power is neutral. It is how the power is used that makes good or bad.
Click to expand...

Given that I'm taking it you have no problem with dictatorships ... as long as they are benevolant.

Oh yes, the whole unionized Germany bit. Do you even know the differences between the US and Germany? I tried to point towards it once before but you ignored it. I'll ask again, How much greed is there in Germany compared to the US? (and yes, I already know the answer)
Click to expand...

Its not just Germany, its Sweden, Norway, Emilia-Romagna, and other places, the common demoniator is strong Unions and strong social democracies and cooperative ... Not some moral differences.

People are JUST AS GREEDY in Germany as they are everywhere else, the difference is the institutional frameworks, i.e. the economic system.

Arguing that its just moral differences is moronic, and akin to arguing that black people in America are more poor because they are just dumber.

If you want to get semantical any right is a social construct. But guess what. It doesn't matter what you think or not because in the US capitalist property (property period) IS a right. It is even in the Constitution. 5th and 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The difference is, I can speak and do what I want with my body without any social isntitution ... I don't own capitalist property beyond my possessions without a social instituion, without that its just a claim as valid as me claiming I'm the king of New Zealand.

And items on shelves don't affect other peoples lives either. But we're not talking about inanimate objects. We're talking about you, your property.

BTW, if we want to expand on your idea that a CEO did not build the company from the ground up because of society then the same would apply to your living room. Because without society your living room would not have been able to have been built. Using your same arguement those that built your house has a right to say how that house is treated, lived in, what is in it, how much they should get for you living in it etc etc.
Click to expand...

The difference is no one relies on my living room for lively hood, nor does my living room affect society. Giant corporations do.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You apparently only read what you wanted to read and ignored the part (if you even looked for it) that unions had in Hostess's downfall. You should also probably note that I never ONCE said that the CEO's of Hostess never messed up. But they were not he only reasons for Hostess going downhill. And it wasn't the union wanting to put a stop to Hostess's mismanagement. The wanted to be paid more. Which is not very smart to demand of a company that is on the brink of bankruptcy...wouldn't you say? But no. They had to demand more knowing that Hostess was struggling. Knowing that they couldn't take a strike. Was even warned that if the workers didn't get back to work then Hostess WOULD fold and have to liquidate. Yet the workers did not care that Hostess was struggling. They didn't care that a continued strike would bankrupt them. All they cared about was getting more money. Not caring that they were asking for more than Hostess could give.

But you don't care about that either do you? You only care that Hostess CEO's were making more than the workers and by your definition of morality that is just wrong. Because you see everyone as equal. Regardless of the fact that people are not equal in the things that matter to a buisness.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the Union had already taken cuts as management gave themselves raises ... So obviously Hostess COULD give their executives tons of money ... and thus not cut workers. This was redistribution upwards, the bankruptcy had nothing to do with the Union.

Its not immoral that the CEO was making more ... What was immoral was teh CEO raising his own pay while cutting the workers pay, claiming the company was in trouble.

Kal'Stang said:
You should really take a look at what the unions do in Germany and Germany itself before comparing it to the US. We have two totally different cultures.
Click to expand...

The Unions had WAY WAY more power in Germany, meaning they didn't have to strike as much ... That is the difference, it's not culture its economics.

Kal'Stang said:
As for the crappy worker. 1: Democracy does not work when running a company. 2: A crappy worker can still be well liked. That alone would keep him in his position if it was up to a democracy. Just look at Obama. He's a crappy President yet he is well liked by enough people to keep him in office. And don't even try to claim that I think Romeny or any of the other politicians that ran for POTUS was good. I thought that they were ALL crap.
Click to expand...

1. Empirically false as shown over and over again.
2. The same with an executive, since he chooses the board that selects the executive, which is why crappy executives get giant pay packages and don't get fired.

Kal'Stang said:
He/should will still do that even with a union. As he/she should. In a company the owner is always the most important. Everyone else is replaceable with other workers compared to the owner.
Click to expand...

In most companies the owners have almost no stake in the company, since they are liquid and dispersed shareholders.


Kal'Stang said:
Yes shareholders of today have very little interest in long term. But that has nothing to do with the stock itself and has everything to do with greed and short term thinking. If a shareholder wanted they could take over the company long term. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean that it can't happen.


Thinking that lieing is irrelevent is one huge problem with you youngsters these days.


All of it that you did not already respond to.
Click to expand...

First paragraph: I'm talking the real world here not the theoretical world ... the reason Capitalism works this way in the US isn't because people in the US are immoral or especially greedy, its becuase of the insitutions of Capitalism.

2nd: You havn't pointed to any specific lie, at all, just asserted that they must do it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. They do smaller manufacturing runs and their manufacturing industry was smaller in scope post WW2. It was much cheaper for them to retool with a smaller machine base.

2. Unions were strongest in the US in early 60s into the late 70s---at which point decline in auto manufacturing began. You still arent getting the point about German unions being vastly different from US unions. US unions are adversarial in nature, German unions work with management and have open information policies. Its not just unions in the US, management is just as guilty.

3. Go look it up. Im not going to explain something to you thats common knowledge on supply chain management. GM focuses on redundancies in their supply chain, Toyota focuses on building relationships with sub contracting manufacturers. Japanese companies follow that model and Germans do the same thing. It could have arisen from lack of having a lot of manufacturers competing in niche markets, I dont know. I just know that it is.

4. No, son, thats marketing.

5. Yeah we werent. Where are most US electronics made again? Asia? We are still engaging in a push economy in several sectors. The second consideration is combatting the illegal trade activities China is engaging in from piracy, to copyright theft, to product dumping. US innovation is great, our ability to capitlize on it long term? Not so much.
Click to expand...

1. And they grew to much larger runs and are still doing fine ... BECAUSE OF THE SYSTEM THEY HAVE.

2. Unions were losing ground in the late 70s. The reason German unions are different is because of the economic system of co-determination, not some genetic difference between germans and americans.

3. Germany has policies that put a lot of restricutions on companies ... I don't know about Japan, but for comapnies to move or shift they have to go through many political loopholes, basically they have more public accountability. Putting that all to simple cultural or moral differences is rediculous ... BOTH countries firms want to make a profit and need to focus on short term profits ... the difference is the institutional framework.

4. Thats subjective ... and there is no way to show it at all, also marketing is the result of management.

5. And why do US companies outsource and German companies do not? Do German Companies like paying more for labor? No ... its the difference in the institutions.

Also its not JUST germany, its other social democratic countries too, or is it just a coincidence that social democracies have good morals and culture and neo-liberal ones do not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom