Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Unfortunately the record shows that Walmart's competitors in the same industry, in the same geographical area, for the same types of stores pay their employees, on average, a much higher wage. How do you explain that?

I am assuming people understand that we are talking "non-governmental entities" here.

And speaking of getting the facts straight, Walmart is indeed the largest non-governmental employer in the world.

First of all, the Indian Railways is an arm of the Indian government, its employees are civil servants who are recruited via civil service examinations and it is subsidized by the Indian government. Secondly, Walmart's own figures now place their worldwide employee count at 1,800,000, whereas employment in the Indian Railways has been falling, and is planned to decline from the present number of about 1,585,000 to about

I assume you will now go suspiciously silent on this "correction" of yours. (or come up with some silly retort because I am choosing to call you on it this time)

For the umpteenth time, you have nothing to back up that contention (and many others) of yours.

As just one example, if a different large retailer (ie Target or Costco) moved into an area instead of Walmart, they would employ a similiar category of worker, yet they would typically have a significantly higher wage/benefit package than an equivalent Walmart employee. This is a well-documented fact.

More on how Walmart shifts the costs of healthcare to taxpayers, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Actually your continued specific assertions that Walmart employees would be "unemployed if not working for Walmart", that workers should be "grateful" for the low-paying wages that Walmart offers and that if they're not more gainfully employed it "must be their own fault" demonstrates a real contempt for others.

I'm going to hold you to that when you start making statements that treat them (and corporations) as if they are.

Nice sentiment in general, but in practice you cannot discount the huge challenge in dealing with the difference in the cost of labor. Many have talked about the "shift to a service economy" in the USA, but the problem is that Walmart jobs are emblematic of the kind of poor replacement for previous jobs (ie in the manufacturing sector) that used to really pay a living wage. (Back in the '60s, the base cost of living was around 30% of _individual_ income -- it is now around 50% of _household_ income. If that isn't a massive step backwards, I don't know what is.)

The current presidential administration is trying to use other ways to address this, including protectionism (ie steel industry), conducting continuous wars to bolster the military industry and corporations that stand to benefit from occupation and reconstruction, and resisting global calls for responsibility on environmental issues where the US is a prime offender.

Stupidly, because the USA could turn around and make a successful industry out of things like environmental technology, rather than trying to bully the world into letting it maintain its status-quo.

Apparently US corporate management has a very short memory because when the Japanese auto industry came on hard and fast in the '70s and put a real big scare into US auto executives (causing them to study what made the Japanese industry such a competitive threat), much was made of the Japanese management model which, among other things, was distinguished from the US model by a much more "flat" compensation scale and a far less hierarchical architecture. With the kind of pay that US executives make, it's no surprise that workers feel unappreciated and exploited. (Akio Morita, the widely admired founder and head of Sony Corp. at the time, said as much in the book he co-authored entitled "The Japan That Can Say No")

It takes a blowoff artist to know one.

Elitism and arrogance, thy name is Navas.

Quit trying to deflect the argument -- you know damned well what's meant here.

The type of employers whom you incessantly defend are exactly the same as those who used to employ 12 year old children for 12 hour shifts -- probably spouting the same mindless arguments about "efficiency, productivity and competitiveness" that you spew daily.

Surely the children were free to seek a higher-paying job, if they only had the gumption to upgrade their skills.

You can be certain that the jobs of the previously "better qualified" employees of the former competing companies will disappear as soon as Walmart stamps out the competition. And it's hardly likely that they'll be shown any respect when they show up tugging their forelocks at Walmart's employment office.

And so goes the race to the bottom, led by China and India with their child workers.

Silence, churlish one -- JN likely has the land speed records on cars, boats and horses.

Ahh, so you're a very long-time fan who's followed his career, too. :-)

Takes one to know one, right?

He's probably right, Phil -- he knows more about contempt than anyone on this or numerous other newsgroups.

The education you seem to favor in previous posts is, in the end, nothing more than massive social engineering on a national scale.

Some might even call it counterproductive government interference in the workings of the free market.

One of the large difficulties that came out of the Daimler Chrysler merger was the tension among tthe top execuives of both companies. The Daimler execs wanted to be paid as were the Chrysler execs, while the American execs lived in mortal fear that their pay and perks would be cut to the level of their new German colleagues.

Actually they prepaid for the benefits from their taxes. Only the haughty of spirit look down on them for claiming such benefits.

P.S. It's also called arrogance.

Neither does it prove my lack of credibility on narrow aspects pertaining to a particular locale simply because I haven't visited there. It's tantamount to discounting an astrophysicists view of the solar system by pointing out that s/he has not personally visited the stars and other heavenly bodies.

Wages aren't ever determined by what the employee thinks they need. It's based on the mutual agreement of what the employee and employer agree the position is worth. If either party disagrees, neither is forced to accept the conditions.

Unless you are willing discard the free market, pay is based on perceived skills and performance -- not what the someone thinks they need.

Parties enter into agreements all the time - often grudgingly.

The above agreement MIGHT be "based on the mutual agreement of what the employee and employer agree the position is worth", if neither side is under pressure. A person in desperate straights would very likely accept employment that was needed, even if that meant he fully believed he was underpaid, or the work was too hazardous. Similarly, an employer might hire an unqualified, or irresponsible employee, if he could find no one else to do the job.

An extreme example comes to mind from the Japanese movie Seppuku (1962) aka "Harakiri". Here an individual decided to perform seppuku for money to pay for needed medical care for his wife. He saw no other way out. The employer, a samurai clan, tricked him and gave him a bamboo-edged blade to perform seppuku with (so they could relish the event all the more). He suffered much more than expected as a result. [To conclude the movie, the father-in-law had his revenge.]