Wow! That's really sad.
10,000 Line Up For a Walmart Job
by sammielee24 65 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
beksbks
People lining up for 3 hours to apply for a job are people looking for work - not welfare. Kudo's to all of them!
Exactly Sammieswife!!
Walmart's medical care packages are so expensive, that 46% of their employee's children are either uncovered, or on medicare!! Even though they are making record profits. How is that a responsible corporate model??
-
brinjen
In the US is the minimum wage set according to age? Here in Oz, the minimum wage is $13.47 per hour.
Wow! That's amazing! That's a liveable wage for a whole lot of people!
It's certainly a lot better than $8 an hour, from what's been posted it dosen't look like our cost of living is any worse either... Many of the large chain stores pay much more than that too, I work for one of the biggest employers in Oz, they pay me $20.02 per hour (plus penalty rates for Sundays/Public Holidays)....
Amazingly too, you can buy a loaf of bread for under $2 here, 2L of milk for under $3, no out-of-control hyperinflation here... oh, and people still aim for promotions.
-
beksbks
oh, and people still aim for promotions.
Hehe good stuff Brinjen! The idea that people have to be treated like animals in order to have the desire to fight their way out of the pen, is purely ridiculous, never mind superior.
-
brinjen
Hey, who doesn't like a pay rise?
-
Tatiana
Hey, sammielee.....haven't we been through this before?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/0081115
A few paragraphs from the article from Harper's.....
Breaking the chain:
The antitrust case against Wal-MartPopular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called “monopsony.” Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
Examples of monopsony can be difficult to pin down, but we are in luck in that today we have one of the best illustrations of monopsony pricing power in economic history: Wal-Mart. There is little need to recount at any length the retailer's power over America's marketplace. For our purposes, a few facts will suffice—that one in every five retail sales in America is recorded at Wal-Mart's cash registers; that the firm's revenue nearly equals that of the next six retailers combined; that for many goods, Wal-Mart accounts for upward of 30 percent of U.S. sales, and plans to more than double its sales within the next five years.
The effects of monopsony also can be difficult to pin down. But again we have easy illustrations ready to hand, in the surprising recent tribulations of two iconic American firms—Coca-Cola and Kraft. Coca-Cola is the quintessential seller of a product based on a “secret formula.” Recently, though, Wal-Mart decided that it did not approve of the artificial sweetener Coca-Cola planned to use in a new line of diet colas. In a response that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, Coca-Cola yielded to the will of an outside firm and designed a second product to meet Wal-Mart's decree. Kraft, meanwhile, is a producer that only four years ago was celebrated by Forbes for “leading the charge” in a “brutal industry.” Yet since 2004, Kraft has announced plans to shut thirty-nine plants, to let go 13,500 workers, and to eliminate a quarter of its products. Most reports blame soaring prices of energy and raw materials, but in a truly free market Kraft could have pushed at least some of these higher costs on to the consumer. This, however, is no longer possible. Even as costs rise, Wal-Mart and other discounters continue to demand that Kraft lower its prices further. Kraft has found itself with no other choice than to swallow the costs, and hence to tear itself to pieces.
The idea that Wal-Mart's power actually subverts the functioning of the free market will seem shocking to some. After all, the firm rose to dominance in the same way that many thousands of other companies before it did—through smart innovation, a unique culture, and a focus on serving the customer. Even a decade ago, Americans could fairly conclude that, in most respects, Wal-Mart's rise had been good for the nation. But the issue before us is not how Wal-Mart grew to scale but how Wal-Mart uses its power today and will use it tomorrow. The problem is that Wal-Mart, like other monopsonists, does not participate in the market so much as use its power to micromanage the market, carefully coordinating the actions of thousands of firms from a position above the market.
Another basic premise of the free-market system is that the price of a commodity or good carries vital information from actor to actor within an economy—say, that cherries are scarce, or vinyl floor tiles abundant, or the latest iPod includes a new technology. Again, no one can deny that, technically, every firm that supplies Wal-Mart is free to ask whatever price it wants. But again, we must ask whether this holds true in the real world. Every producer knows that Wal-Mart is, as one of its executives told the New York Times, a “no-nonsense negotiator,” which means the firm sets take-it-or-leave-it prices, which as we know from the previous paragraph are far harder to leave than to take. Every so often Wal-Mart will accept a higher price, but then the retailer's managers may opt to punish the offending supplier, perhaps by ratcheting up competition with its own in-house brands. Price, within the consumer economy, increasingly carries but one bit of information—that Wal-Mart is powerful enough to bend everyone else to its will.
Those who would use the word “free” to describe the market over which Wal-Mart presides should first consult with Coca-Cola's product- design department; or with Kraft managers, or Kraft shareholders, or the Kraft employees who lost their jobs. These results were decided not within the scrum of the marketplace but by a single firm. Free-market utopians have long decried government industrial policy because it puts into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians the power to determine which firms “win” and which “lose.” Wal-Mart picks winners and losers every day, and the losers have no recourse to any court or any political representative anywhere.
-
sammielee24
I've actually had people tell me that they can make more on milking the welfare system
than working.
Perhaps that's because part of the problem is the way those programs are set up. A person on welfare is getting assistance to pay for their rent, their food, transportation and all of their medical is paid for - so if their income outside the 'system' is not equal to that of being 'inside' the system, then it reduces the motivation to seek and keep work. I believe that although there are abusers, that number is far less than the number of truly needy who do use the system.
I think that placing more obligation on absentee fathers or mothers financially for their children is one way to go but it must be fair and balanced so that neither side can abuse that process easily. I think that rather than teach abstinence to kids, why not teach them abstinence along with real and available birth control. The majority of teens having babies will end up on welfare and once in that cycle it takes years for many of them to get out. I think that forcing recipients to take classes in basic living skills, nutrition, managing their money, childcare and so on, can only help. Increase the level of employment income to provide a safety net for those getting off of assistance - I'd rather see someone working at minimum wage and help them keep a roof over their head, than doing nothing. Make volunteer work a necessary part of using assistance if you can't work and are otherwise healthy. There are many options to changing the programs to make them better, but often there is little real initiative, will power or follow through when it comes to doing so. Just my thoughts anyway..sammieswife.
Victor C. Strasburger, MD University of New Mexico School of Medicine
Fact:One million teens in the USA will become pregnant over the next twelve months. Ninety-five percent of those pregnancies are unintended. About one third will end in abortion; one third will end in spontaneous miscarriage; and one third will continue their pregnancy to term and keep their baby.
-
journey-on
I think that forcing recipients to take classes in basic living skills, nutrition, managing their money, childcare and so on, can only help. Increase the level of employment income to provide a safety net for those getting off of assistance - I'd rather see someone working at minimum wage and help them keep a roof over their head, than doing nothing. Make volunteer work a necessary part of using assistance if you can't work and are otherwise healthy
You have some good ideas here, Sammie. I've always thought volunteer work should be part of any assistance program. But if I had said it here, I would have been lambasted....lol
-
sammielee24
but, to do this means sacrifice and hard work. it's easier for people to blame the system. i refuse to accept the idea of forcing someone to pay you more. i was told from a very early age i would never amount to much. i worked my ass off to get where i am and still bust my hump to make my life better. i don't expect anyone to help me.
BigD - you have done well for yourself and your hard work is paying off for you. Nobody can quibble with that.
There are many people however that do sacrifice. They do work hard. They don't ask for help. They do the best they can with what they have been given in life and it isn't fair for any of us to denigrate them for the standards they have achieved while facing incredible challenges. More people don't ask for a hand out than do and some will start out working at Walmart and end up working there because it's what they need to do for themselves and their family. Everyone doesn't see choices and opportunities - every doesn't have the same abilities or capabilities as you might but they still do what they can with what they've got. We disagree obviously on the value of a job and the obligation we have to all the workers to ensure that they earn enough to live on - when they don't, someone has to pay or let all the working poor starve. We do that by supplementing their income through tax paid social programs or by an increase in crime as people take what they want regardless.
sammieswife.
-
sammielee24
It's certainly a lot better than $8 an hour, from what's been posted it dosen't look like our cost of living is any worse either... Many of the large chain stores pay much more than that too, I work for one of the biggest employers in Oz, they pay me $20.02 per hour (plus penalty rates for Sundays/Public Holidays)....
Amazingly too, you can buy a loaf of bread for under $2 here, 2L of milk for under $3, no out-of-control hyperinflation here... oh, and people still aim for promotions.
OMG!!! I can't believe that!!
I bought a loaf of 7 grain bread this week and it cost me almost $4.00 and the last time we bought milk it was over $3.00! Healthy food isn't cheap - filler food can be had pretty cheap if you go to Outlet stores - places where the food comes in from stores that are bankrupt and closing down or the expiration dates are either past or close the end date. A lot of high carb, sugary stuff but people on a budget can get a lot of filler for cheap there and it helps if you've got hungry kids. I. sammieswife.