Wal-mart Defends Controversial Food Drive For Employees

[southern california guy]

Right...  Which have resulted in this:

 

 

It reminds me of a chart for a stock.  Where is it going to go next????  I would be reluctant to bet money based on that curve...

 

Germany, and UK, France (Eurozone) seem to be slightly more stable than the wildly erratic Italy, Spain, and Greece.

Edited November 25, 2013 by southern california guy

[southern california guy]

Here's an interesting unemployment chart.  It is for the US.  And it appears that unemployment was at its worst under Ronald Reagan.

 

 

I got it from this blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14339

Edited November 25, 2013 by southern california guy

[southern california guy]

For an even better perspective, here is a chart of a longer time period.

 

 

See the "Great Depression"?  And the less talked about depression of the 1890's?

Edited November 25, 2013 by southern california guy

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The U.S.A looks like she is going great gunz according to that chart with the whole panic of the last however many years that recession is imminent, though that bar could rise, i hope not, hopefully it goes back to under 7%

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

     

 

That's the recent unemployment history for australia, supposedly.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Winchester]

Apparently, wages are supposed to be set according to employee expenses, not the level of production the employee brings to the company. Sounds great. That won't be disastrous, at all.

[southern california guy]

Apparently, wages are supposed to be set according to employee expenses, not the level of production the employee brings to the company. Sounds great. That won't be disastrous, at all.

 

There's a balance right?  You have to offer high enough pay that you can get people to work for you.  And if they can't make a living at the job -- they will have to leave and do something else instead.

 

Of course you could put out a box and ask customers to donate food and money to your employees.................. :crazy:

 

 

Or you can bring in illegal immigrant employees from an Eastern Block country....  

 

A number of years ago I delivered a load of food to the Super WalMart in Castle Rock Colorado -- just south of Denver -- on Christmas Eve.  I got there at about 10 pm.  The store was closed.  I rang the buzzer around back, but nobody answered.  After waiting ringing the buzzer and waiting back there for about a half hour I walked around to the front of the store.  Somebody was inside running a vacuum cleaner.  I waved to him and held up the delivery papers -- hoping the he might get the manager for me.  Instead he dropped the vacuum cleaner and ran.......  :sad:

 

I was left standing outside in the cold totally puzzled by the whole thing.  So I called my dispatcher and he called WalMart and I the manager finally opened the back door for me and I made the delivery.  I was totally confused by it until I saw something on the news a couple of months later about the WalMarts in the Denver area getting caught hiring illegal Eastern Block workers.

 

Google "WalMart sweatshops".  You might be surprised by what you find.  http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2006/WalmartsSweatshops.html

Edited November 26, 2013 by southern california guy

[4588686]

Apparently, wages are supposed to be set according to employee expenses, not the level of production the employee brings to the company. Sounds great. That won't be disastrous, at all.

That assumes that wages reflect the value a given employee brings to an organization.  This is obviously not the case as CEOs and other high level executives often are well compensated even as they drive a company into the ground.  The bonuses paid out after the crash, for example.  Bruce Bueno De Medquita and Alastair Smith have done some wonderful research on the game theory behind why the organization structure of most corporations allows this to happen.  It is also the reason that so many dictators enjoy more stable political lives than democratically elected leaders.

[Winchester]

That assumes that wages reflect the value a given employee brings to an organization.  This is obviously not the case as CEOs and other high level executives often are well compensated even as they drive a company into the ground.  The bonuses paid out after the crash, for example.  Bruce Bueno De Medquita and Alastair Smith have done some wonderful research on the game theory behind why the organization structure of most corporations allows this to happen.  It is also the reason that so many dictators enjoy more stable political lives than democratically elected leaders.

I didn't say it was the case. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the complaint.

 

I don't support our current economic system, either. I haven't defended modern corporations, who rely on a great many privileges bestowed upon them by the State. Even if you disagree that the means of production may be held privately, perhaps even by a single owner, you can agree with me that what we currently have amounts to a joint ownership of the means of production between private concerns and the State.
 

[CrossCuT]

Whelp, most of the people who are underpaid from Walmart and other places still make enough to survive simply because they are given our tax dollars! Does everyone like that solution more than raising their wage? The American people pick up Walmarts slack and pay their workers the difference.

[Winchester]

Whelp, most of the people who are underpaid from Walmart and other places still make enough to survive simply because they are given our tax dollars! Does everyone like that solution more than raising their wage? The American people pick up Walmarts slack and pay their workers the difference.

Pretty impressive that you've compiled all that data. 

[CrossCuT]

Pretty impressive that you've compiled all that data. 

 

I know Im awesome!!!  :bounce:

[Gabriela]

Here's an interesting unemployment chart.  It is for the US.  And it appears that unemployment was at its worst under Ronald Reagan.

 

 

I got it from this blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14339

 

 

For an even better perspective, here is a chart of a longer time period.

 

 

See the "Great Depression"?  And the less talked about depression of the 1890's?

 

Comparing these two graphs, it actually appears that Reagan reversed a long-standing trend in rising unemployment, from 1945 to 1983. Remember that he served all the way until 1989? Yeah, there's an occasional spike after 1984, and then 9/11 ruined everything, but overall, the trend is pretty clear to me.

[Gabriela]

Two questions:

 

1) I thought that, if you're employed, you can't receive welfare. Is that mistaken?

 

2) Does anyone know how Target compares to Wal-Mart on all these issues being discussed?

[Winchester]

Might want to verify the means of determining unemployment over those years.