Bullshit indeed -- adults aren't 12 year old children, and most are capable of doing better, should they *choose* to do so. Blaming employers for their failure to do so is simply crazy.
I didn't think so. You might be surprised.
Actually a high-tech center that beats the heck out of most of the surrounding countries. Ask most anyone that actually lives there.
I actually call into question flawed "studies" that are long opinions and short on actual facts, especially those by non-experts. Regardless, I was speaking more to your clearly evident bias and anecdotal reporting.
Clearly evidence bias, and just an anecdote. Why not lets actual overall facts speak for themselves?
Hardly. I think government should stay the heck out, but it's an unfortunate fact that governments compete with each other for businesses, and are often forced to be comparable to incentives offered elsewhere.
Indeed -- you're looking the mirror. I prefer to let actual facts speak for themselves instead of being blinded by my own prejudices.
On the contrary -- what I wrote is patently true.
Real reason: Because they don't.
Not true.
Of course it does.
Actually unnecessary. If WalMart was less attractive than actually available alternatives, then it would have to make itself more attractive to obtain enough labor. That it doesn't have trouble attracting enough labor, and in fact just the opposite, makes it clear that it is more attractive than the available alternatives. So you're really complaining about the lack of better alternatives, or about the failure of workers to qualify for better alternatives, neither of which have anything to do with WalMart.
I can't imagine why you think that has any relevance to this discussion.
Nope.
You've obviously never driven one of these cars at speed. I have, and I can assure you that it's quite athletic.
That's the market at work. Good independents (like Pacific Bay Coffee here in Walnut Creek) have prospered in the fact of competition from Starbucks. The real problem is that most mom and pop coffee shops aren't terribly good.
I think that's wildly exaggerated. Most of the people I know make thoughtful choices. They prefer places like Starbucks for reasons that are meaningful to them, even though they're not meaningful to you.
Actually quite likely to be worse (in their terms, if not yours), which is a bit part of the reason that Starbucks has become so big. Many (most?) people would rather have what they consider good consistency than a few highs and many lows.
Presumably because there aren't enough people like you to make it a good business proposition.
Other media choices are readily available. Regardless, this has little to do with the issue at hand.
Free trade clearly benefits us as a whole, and has created more good jobs than have been lost. You can't really protect jobs by restricting trade -- all you do is hurt everyone in the long run. You only protect jobs by becoming more competitive and productive, which is what free trade is all about. Our low unemployment is the envy of the world, so we're clearly doing something right.
That is already hurting China.
Nope. I'm actually for "a rising tide that lifts all boats."
No, just someone that presumes to know more than the market. They are paid big money because top management talent is very valuable and in very short supply. If typical floor workers want to earn more, than they should upgrade their skills. The real problem is that labor with low skills is worth less and less as technology marches on.
What I actually meant to say was that it's not the fault of Walmart or any other *retail* businesses. It clearly is the "fault" of manufacturing businesses that haven't stayed competitive with foreign competition. It's also the "fault" of government failures to adequate fund education, infrastructure, and research and development.
My belief is that we need to make ourselves more competitive as a nation (with proper investments), and that we need to focus on areas where we have a competitive edge over other nations. Manufacturing with high unskilled labor content isn't one of those areas.
The actual primary reason is that they are so much more productive than we are in terms of value that the cost of transportation isn't enough to keep us competitive.
Yes.
Yes.
Won't help. What will help:
I agree. We should be investing (not spending) our billions here, rather than on pointless overseas adventures.
LOL!! What haven't you done??
I've done lots of things in my life, including auto racing (when I was a lot younger:), but there still lots of things I haven't done (e.g., sky diving, hang gliding, extreme ironing).
He's never admitted being wrong.
You got him there! ROTFLOL!!!
Demonstrably false. But then of course you know that. You're just acting like a jerk, as usual.
Really? I'm still waiting to see the list of current Nextel phones that use IMEI- you have stated that they exist and have yet to go on record admitting that you were wrong. Of course this is only one of many instances- don't make me waste the time to list them all.
No- I acted like a jerk a couple of weeks ago. This is simply another case of you not knowing the truth when it is presented to you. This is something else you have never done.
Pretty damn outrageous that you are so willing to blame the worker and give the employer a pass. What on earth justifies immediately assuming that every single (for example) Walmart employee "can't qualify for a better paying job" or "won't get a better paying job"?!?!
Is that what you as an employer would tell any employee coming to you asking for a raise - that they don't deserve it, and it's not your fault? How ridiculous.
If they can't find a job that pays them a wage that they can live on at a minimum level of health and safety, then I would argue that accepting financial aid while looking for a job that pays an actual living wage would be a much smarter course of action.
The problem in the USA is that people have been conditioned by-and-large to automatically view anyone on unemployment or federal assistance as lazy good-for-nothing slobs that don't really want to work. Apparently you're one of those people with that view.
When the vast majority of your competitors pay workers a substantially higher wage, it is not a question of providing "entry level" (ie, lousy) jobs, it is a question of being competitive and paying a living wage. I quite sincerely doubt that the reason most Walmart competitors pay a much higher wage is because they voluntarily want to minimize their profits.
Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that lazy slobs avoid applying for jobs at Walmart competitors because they know they aren't worth getting paid more.
If the jobs are not available, they aren't available. If Walmart, as the largest employer in the world, only offers crappy-paying jobs in an employment-depressed area, then they have the ability to drive down the average pay in that area, just like a different employer (ie Google) that pays above-average wages can similiarly drive up the average wage where they do business. (duh)
On the other hand, I'm likely not to be surprised. You may continue to hinge your arguments on circumstantial nonsense, it makes little difference to me as I expect this already from you.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.