Capitolism making lives better

[temp1]

Do big-time CEOs – no matter how compassionate and cuddly they might be personally – have to be SOBs on the job?

Yes, says the conventional wisdom of greater CorporateWorld. The bottom line dictates that wages and benefits be slashed and that offshoring be pursued with a vengeance. It's not personal, just business. "Look ye to Wal-Mart," boom the market gods, directing CEOs to follow the anti-labor, low-wage, no benefit, move-it-all-to-China ethic of this giant. The gods decree that no one can out-compete Wal-Mart, so best to imitate the beast.

Apparently, Jim Sinegal has been going to the wrong church. He's CEO of Costco, the profitable warehouse club retailer that's fast growing across the country. He takes a shockingly heretical view of his job, boasting of his company's fair treatment of employees: "We pay much better than Wal-Mart," Sinegal says. "That's not altruism. It's good business."

Indeed, Costco's pay is much, much, much better – a full-time Costco clerk or warehouse worker earns more than $41,000 a year, plus they get terrific health care coverage. Wal-Mart workers get barely a third of that pay, plus a lousy health care plan. Costco even has unions!

Yet, Costco's labor costs are only about half of Wal-Mart's. How's that possible? One reason is that Costco workers feel valued, which adds enormously to their productivity, and they don't leave – employee turnover is a tiny fraction of Wal-Mart's rapidly revolving door.

Another thing Sinegal rejects is offshoring: "We could move [some operations] to Bangladesh or somewhere. But what kind of message would that send to our employees? Not a good one, I think."

While Wal-Mart makes twice as much profit as Costco, Sinegal believes it's better business to make a nice profit, but not a killing, and to invest more in Costco's 92,000 workers. "I don't see what's wrong with an employee earning enough to be able to buy a house or having a health plan for the family," he says.


-Jim Hightower http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu..._hightower.html

[jamesrage]

While Wal-Mart makes twice as much profit as Costco, Sinegal believes it's better business to make a nice profit, but not a killing, and to invest more in Costco's 92,000 workers. "I don't see what's wrong with an employee earning enough to be able to buy a house or having a health plan for the family," he says.


I wish all businesses thought this way.

This is why outsourcing should be banned.Outsourcing makes it were employees have to have beg for lower wages just to keep their job or makes it were companies can threaten to move overseas if their employess unionize.

This also why Bush's plan to grant legal status to illegal immagrints must not pass.

[gopman]

I don't buy 100% into the fact that thier higher productivity is due to "feeling valued," although that certainly contributes. Costco is probably able to take their pick of the best workers. That may also translate into better customer service, which can only help business. I think it's pretty well known that treating people like cattle is not the best business plan ever devised, but Wal Mart has found a niche for very low markup products, and they've also solidified their business by being the first to put everything in one place.

[Smith224]

Originally posted by gopman
I don't buy 100% into the fact that thier higher productivity is due to "feeling valued," although that certainly contributes. Costco is probably able to take their pick of the best workers. That may also translate into better customer service, which can only help business. I think it's pretty well known that treating people like cattle is not the best business plan ever devised, but Wal Mart has found a niche for very low markup products, and they've also solidified their business by being the first to put everything in one place.

I agree. Higher Productivity is not necessarily because you feel good about your job. Right now in MA we have a very high amount of productivity but very low job growth. This due to employers not hiring more people and employees working harder to keep up with the increasing demand. The employee will work harder or lose their job.

Back to the Costco situation, it does help to retain employees. The cost of training goes way down and they can pick the best for the job. It is good to see that Costco found that right balance, that is the tricky part.

[jnewbyjr]

This is a great media opportunity to blow something up that most uninformed Americans will just listen to and not know any better.

Let's not over-estimate the overseas job loss, this has been going for years and actually benefits the country. Outsourcing lowers prices, which lowers inflation which increases spending power. It also allows for lower interest rates which increases economic spending as well.

Let's not forget about the 4.5 million Americans that work for foreign companies on our soil. Not to mention the 1 million plus Americans that work in the foreign trade sector. Look at all the foreign auto makers investing in plants here versus their own countries.

Let's call a spade a spade, productivity enhancements have reduced manufacturing jobs around the world by nearly 22 million in the past 7 years, the U.S. isn't immune to this.

Instead of pouting about some lost jobs, let's do what has made America great in the past and create new jobs in new sectors. Cycles come and go, the media just has to have something to write about and blow out of porportion.

[jamesrage]

Let's not over-estimate the overseas job loss, this has been going for years and actually benefits the country. Outsourcing lowers prices, which lowers inflation which increases spending power. It also allows for lower interest rates which increases economic spending as well.

Thats the plus side.The down side is that if most people lose their jobs and have to settle for low income jobs,how will they have money to spend if they are only making enough just to get by?

What about worker's right to organize a union?Outsourcing can easily wipe that out.What about negociating for higher pay?Outsourcing can eliminate that as well.

Education cost an arm and a leg in time and money.Most companies do not do on the job training anymore.Most people do not want to want spend all this time and money for a career that has almost no openings,and you look up any job forcast, jobs that have the most openings are low paying jobs.Why go to school period if your job that you are studing for is going to get shipped overseas or when there are no openings.

Its not just low tech jobs that are being outsourced but hightech jobs as well.As well as companies that specialize in consumer services.

What about when the new jobs are created,will they be immune to outsourcing?Your job may not safe for long from outsourcing.

Its funny that people are willing to support something that they feel will have no negative effect on them,then when it affects them such as losing a $90,000 a year job then that when they change thier mind on the whole thing.

[jnewbyjr]

The lack Unions would be godsend. They've so outlived their lives, that getting rid of them is addition by substraction. Unions are one of the biggest causes of many of our problems and why industry is looking overseas. And it has nothing to wages.

Retirement plans are killing companies such as Auto-Makers and Manufacturing. You can't place that burden on business, that is the responsibilty of the workers like in most businesses. That one item alone is killing business.

No, I'm not afraid of my job being outsourced - becasue if it is, I'll get off my butt and go find another job. That could even mean moving to another part of the country if need be which many won't do.

There is a plant near here that can't find workers with a starting pay of $22.00/hour and benefits. Whiel this plant has been doing itthe same way for 30+ years, they can't find workers willing to work today. Part of our problem in this area is work ethic. There is none, they are to use Unions that provide cake jobs that can be done in 4 hours and they can read the paper the other 4 hours.

[timlea]

I think it is beating a dead horse to say that Wal-mart pays slave wages, outsource production of goods to China etc...we only are preaching to the converted. The facts are basic: When a corporation (like Costco) treats employees well, pays them well, and offers good benefits, it is a benefit to themselves. Higher wages = better living conditions. Good benefits = healthy employees. Treats workers with respect = good morale. Better living, health, and morale = better workers.
This also allows a company to be more selective in their recruiting efforts. Clients and customers feel better about their business associations. There is less fear of unionization on the part of the employer. More than less you would think that more corporations would follow this modes operendi. Case in point - when was the last time anyone of you walked into a Walmart and found it a purely pleasant experience?
There can be no justification for Wal-marts activities other than pure profit and enslavery of the poor American worker whom may lack the education and experience to improve their position in life (which may be no fault of their own -- who knows?--) to improve the bottom line....Profits.

-end rant

I'm new here! Hi all.

Timlea

[cicero191]

I think it is beating a dead horse to say that Wal-mart pays slave wages, outsource production of goods to China etc...we only are preaching to the converted. The facts are basic: When a corporation (like Costco) treats employees well, pays them well, and offers good benefits, it is a benefit to themselves. Higher wages = better living conditions. Good benefits = healthy employees. Treats workers with respect = good morale. Better living, health, and morale = better workers.
This also allows a company to be more selective in their recruiting efforts. Clients and customers feel better about their business associations. There is less fear of unionization on the part of the employer. More than less you would think that more corporations would follow this modes operendi. Case in point - when was the last time anyone of you walked into a Walmart and found it a purely pleasant experience?
There can be no justification for Wal-marts activities other than pure profit and enslavery of the poor American worker whom may lack the education and experience to improve their position in life (which may be no fault of their own -- who knows?--) to improve the bottom line....Profits.

-end rant

I'm new here! Hi all.

Timlea

I've had tons of fun in Wal-Marts. Bring about ten friends and play Capture the Flag.

[ScummyD]

"Capitolism making lives better"

Apparently it doesn't make lives all that better. At least as far as the written word is concerned, or spelled. :D

[gopman]

Capitalism doesn't make lives better, it lets you make your own life better.

A point I thought should be added- manufacturing jobs peaked in the US in 1979, and relative to other nations the loss since then has been modest.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/joblosses.html

Here's an interesting WSJ article on outsourcing.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108051488120967387-IZjgoNjlad3oJ2vbXmIaq6Bm5,00.html

Kerry thinks that he will stop this process and create a million billion jobs. If, God forbid, he is elected president, he will get a serious smackdown from the invisible hand, and our country will be much worse off economically.

[ScummyD]

Capitalism doesn't make lives better, it lets you make your own life better.
Very true, indeed. :whack:

It is all in the mind set. Politicians and government should not be in the business of making people's lives better. As my former governor believed and constantly spouted; that he was going to make our lives better. :rolleyes:

[Jard]

The problem with capitalism is it induces a consumer society which in itself is not all that advantageous. Don't get me wrong, consuming is fun and like everyone I enjoy consuming.

The question lies with quantity, it is a proven fact that a human will consume more when he has more infront of him. The more you see the more you want. Leading to over-consumption. Today we see people who are shopperholics, foodaholics, alcooholics, driveaholics, TVholics. People are becoming fat, unhealthy, lazy, and I even think stupid, losing touch with reality and culture (through mainly TV).

The first problem with ....holics is it is both unhealthy for society and the individual. Any kind of addiction is an extreme, in aand extremes are generally accepted ll spheres of life, as being bad. The second problem is that this extreme consumption society we live in today is unhealthy for the planet we live in, we, as a race are using our natural ressources at an unamangable rate.

Now using ressources is not bad in itself, we as humans need the ressources around us I understand this. They provide sources of energy, food and shelter. However extreme consumption like that of certain americans when it comes to food, cannot be be good physically and also the abuse when it comes to consuming ressources. Another example are cars, people cannot be bothered to walk 10-15 minutes these days, you know to go to the shop or something like that. There are a number of reasons why this walk would be be good for society (pollution reduction), and the individual (health).

Yet so much is presented infront of us, we are becoming becoming greedier, and lazier by the day, for the profit of corporations, and our selfish selfs of course.

This is a hugh generalisation I know, I know a lot of people are not like this. However I know most people will also idenify to something in this.

[chris99]

gopman---i read your article from wsj and it stated that: Yet losing skilled jobs to low-wage foreign competition is as old as the Industrial Revolution. In the 1830s, the British textile industry became so efficient that Indian cloth makers couldn't compete. The work was outsourced to England, with disastrous consequences for Indian workers. "The misery hardly finds parallel in the history of commerce," India's governor general, William Bentinck, wrote to his superiors in London in 1834.

But this is untrue and the quote is misleading as it does not specifically support the WSJ view--it could support the following view which is true---namely that Indian textiles might have been more efficient. Britain simply crushed Indian textiles through force and protectionism.

This is illustrated in the following: Britain's textile industry was protected from Indian competition; a matter of importance, because Indian producers enjoyed a comparative advantage in printed cotton textile fabrics for the expanding market in England. A British Royal Industrial Commission of 1916-1918 recalled that Indian industrial development was "not inferior to that of the more advanced European nations" when "merchant adventurers from the West" arrived; it may even be "that the industries of India were far more advanced than those of the West up to the advent of the industrial revolution," Frederick Clairmonte observes," citing British studies. Parliamentary Acts of 1700 and 1720 forbade the import of printed fabrics from India, Persia, and China; all goods seized in contravention of this edict were to be confiscated, sold by auction, and re-exported. Indian calicoes were barred, including "any garment or apparel whatsoever...in or about any bed, chair cushion, window curtain, or any other sort of household stuff or furniture." Later, British taxes also discriminated against local cloth within India, which was forced to take inferior British textiles. Such measures were unavoidable, Horace Wilson wrote in his History of British India in 1826: "Had this not been the case, the mills of Paisley and Manchester would have been stopped in their outset, and could scarcely have been again set in motion, even by the power of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of Indian manufacturers." Economic historian J.H. Clapham concluded that "this restrictive act gave an important, and it may be argued a useful, stimulus to textile printing in Britain," a leading sector of the industrial revolution. By the 19th century, India was financing more than two-fifths of Britain's trade deficit, providing a market for British manufactures as well as troops for its colonial conquests and the opium that was the staple of its trade with China.14

"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today," Jawaharlal Nehru wrote: "Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty." In the mid-18th century, India was developed by comparative standards, not only in textiles. "The ship building industry was flourishing and one of the flagships of an English admiral during the Napoleonic wars had been built by an Indian firm in India." Not only textiles, but other well-established industries such as "ship-building, metal working, glass, paper, and many crafts," declined under British rule, as India's development was arrested and the growth of new industry blocked, and India became "an agricultural colony of industrial England." While Europe urbanized, India "became progressively ruralized," with a rapid increase in the proportion of the population dependent on agriculture, "the real, the fundamental cause of the appalling poverty of the Indian people," Nehru writes. In 1840, a British historian testifying before a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee could still say: "India is as much a manufacturing country as an agriculturalist; and he who would seek to reduce her to the position of an agricultural country, seeks to lower her in the scale of civilization," exactly what happened under Britain's "despotic sway," Nehru observes.

[chris99]

The protection of the English colonists was actually a rather devious instrument. As Smith notes elsewhere, Britain "imposes an absolute prohibition upon the erection of slit-mills in any of her American plantations," and closely regulates internal commerce "of the produce of America; a regulation which effectually prevents the establishment of any manufacture of [hats, wools, woollen goods] for distant sale, and confines the industry of her colonists in this way to such coarse and household manufactures, as a private family commonly makes for its own use" or for its close neighbors. This is "a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind," standard in the colonial domains. Under Britain's Permanent Settlement of 1793 in India, land was privatized, yielding wealth to local clients and taxes for the British rulers, while "The settlement fashioned with great care and deliberation has to our painful knowledge subjected almost the whole of the lower classes to most grievous oppression," a British enquiry commission concluded in 1832, commenting on yet another facet of the experiment.

"The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton-weavers are bleaching the plains of India." Governor-General of India, Lord Bentinck

[Dave]

Do big-time CEOs – no matter how compassionate and cuddly they might be personally – have to be SOBs on the job?
Indeed, Costco's pay is much, much, much better – a full-time Costco clerk or warehouse worker earns more than $41,000 a year, plus they get terrific health care coverage. Wal-Mart workers get barely a third of that pay, plus a lousy health care plan. Costco even has unions!

Yet, Costco's labor costs are only about half of Wal-Mart's. How's that possible? One reason is that Costco workers feel valued, which adds enormously to their productivity, and they don't leave – employee turnover is a tiny fraction of Wal-Mart's rapidly revolving door.
-Jim Hightower http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu..._hightower.html


Let me point out some things about Wal-Mart you might not know. First, Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the world so to compare it to a company that only has a fraction of the employees is not a fair comparison. :cool:

Wal-Mart donates So many $$$$ into communities around the world that if you took the time to get a grand total, the donations would be given out at a rate of $5 per minute of every year. :clap:

If all theft $$$ from Wal-Mart were collected to create another company, that company would rank in the top 5 on the fortune 500 list. :eek:

Wal-Mart has been named the most admired company two years running by Fortune 500 Mag. :)

The only thing you stated that holds any water is that our health plan bites the big one. :mad: Take my word for we will change it.

Thanks

Dave

[chris99]

Let me point out some things about Wal-Mart you might not know. First, Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the world so to compare it to a company that only has a fraction of the employees is not a fair comparison. :cool:


because big companies necessarily pay employees little? Wal-Mart pays less because the employees have no union (obvious)


Wal-Mart donates So many $$$$ into communities around the world that if you took the time to get a grand total, the donations would be given out at a rate of $5 per minute of every year. :clap:

we need more than charity--the 20s robber barons gave out charity too in order to mask the fact that they were making $$$ hand over fist while people were starving


If all theft $$$ from Wal-Mart were collected to create another company, that company would rank in the top 5 on the fortune 500 list. :eek:


maybe if they treated their employees better there would be less theft



Wal-Mart has been named the most admired company two years running by Fortune 500 Mag. :)

who cares what fortune 500 thinks? what do they admire its profits?



The only thing you stated that holds any water is that our health plan bites the big one. :mad: Take my word for we will change it.

Bush is already changing it for the worse--look at that drug plan for senior!

[Dave]

Your statemnts have no merit. It is my belief you know little of wal-mart. It is also my belief that you know little of unions. If you'd like, I can give you my theory on how unions were in part the down fall of the american jobs. Let me know.

Thanks

Dave

[chris99]

tell me you theory. i was of the impression that the lack of union strength in the US was why you work harder and longer than people in all other developed countries---the reason why your healthcare system is so bad compared to say Canada which has a history of stronger union presence. You can read "selling-Free Enterprise" it gives you a bit of info on business and unions in the US---the business propaganda is pretty funny to look at now. Let me guess your theory is that unions or workers were asking too much from the poor US corporations and they were not able to compete with other corporations and make the massive profits that they had been able to in the past so they started moving jobs ofshore so that they could continue to make their massive profits. Is this you theory? or is it something about how union people are lazy and unions stop people from working--or something ludicrous like that. I do however know that Wal-Mart is quite aggessive in its attempts to keep its employees from unionising. I understand that unions can be undemocratic but we should work to make them more democratic and responsive to their members--i mean what is the alternative in capitalism. Hope for the good will of the owners or corporations? hahahahaha but anways let me know about your theory and let me know some more about wal-mart and unions. if your theory could also explain how the employee pay is much higher at costco which has unions but much lower at wal-mart which does not have unions. If you could work in how this has nothing to do with unions but the size of the company that would be fantastic because i really have no idea what your theory is going to be now....I mean wal-mart is bigger so they can buy more in bulk (cheaper price) they can get sweeter deals by playing states off of each other. so yah let me know! :)

[Dave]

Oh gee! Where do I start? You want many of my theories. Let's see, a long, long time ago in a land we call America our fore fathers............ Ok that's to far back. (lol)

Let's start with unions: Unions may have been needed at one point in this country, I can not say, it was before my time. Now I'll give you unions as I know them. My question is what can they do for you. The answer is nothing. They do not pay you, they do not give you benefits, and in return charge you dues just to have a right to talk to the management of a company. They destory profits, eliminate communcation, and create a enviroment that breeds contempt. I'll give exsample of all that later. Unions are after one thing and one thing only, their survival. Their survival comes at the cost of taking money out of your pocket. They force the closing of many good companies and are a hinderance to the creation of the free market.

Exsample 1: 1982(?) Anaconda MT. A union smelter plant, 1000+ workers, the union repeatly sought out more money for it's workers. In 1982 the owner at contract time told the union(because he couldn't tell the employees) that the company was losing money and laid the records on the table. The owner was searching for a 2% cut back instead of a 3% increase. The union told the workers that the company was lying and encouraged a strike. The plant closed. 1000+ workers making 18+ an hour let go. Where did the union do these workers or the company any good?

Exsample 2: Thacher's Corp. Muscatine, IA 1995 same story, but the company just moved to a enviroment that was shell we say not union. 800+ jobs lost

Exsample 3: Magtag went to their union to report falling profits, Magtag's are now made in Mexico. Thank you unions.

Now that's just 3, but there's many more and I know you know it. So, I won't go on.

Now Wal-Mart: Yes they are anti union. Why? They believe in the rights of the individual. As for the pay, well pay is never enough. I will tell you that when I started at Wal-mart 3 years ago, due to a plant closing, I accepted $7.25 an hour. I now make almost twice that and I am not management nor union. Yes, I worked hard for it and no did not start out with it. I have profit sharing, retirement, and stock options. More days off than I'll ever use and a general enjoyment of going to work. Things I never recieved from a unionized company. As I tell everyone, I am not a number, my name is Dave and I pay no dues.

Thank you for your time.

Dave

[gopman]

If unions really cared about about workers, they would understand that the health of the business is vital to the health of the workers. Instead they are only in it to seek power and money from themselves, straight out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.

[Dave]

I forgot!!! Costco is to small to compare and it could be argued that they are small because unions keep profits to low to expand. Last year Wal-Mart grew at a rate of 1.7 stores per day. How did Costco do? The bottom line is, Wal-Mart is not always right and there may or may not be things they need to correct, but all in all they are a good company. They put people to work, encourage community envolvement, and seek ways to bring you lower prices for the goods you need. Now that's just evil.(sarcaism)

Thanks

Dave

[Kana]

...the use of sweatshops in china, cambodia, etc... always implies slave labor.
and its also a crutch. imagine what would happen to that lovely load of cheap labor if there were a revolution in china (and its coming, dont try to deny it)? it would be a major economic collapse in the u.s.... because so much of their labor is done their.
the u.s. collapse would cause repurcussions in japan and r.s.k., though those two would likely bounce back due to trade with europe and australia.

the thing is, walmart is sleezy, treats its employees like dirt, enslaves some 80,000,000 people in china (who are paid less than 1/10 of the chinese legal minimum wage per day), and crushes small business enterprises...

the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains.

[cicero191]

...the use of sweatshops in china, cambodia, etc... always implies slave labor.
and its also a crutch. imagine what would happen to that lovely load of cheap labor if there were a revolution in china (and its coming, dont try to deny it)? it would be a major economic collapse in the u.s.... because so much of their labor is done their.
the u.s. collapse would cause repurcussions in japan and r.s.k., though those two would likely bounce back due to trade with europe and australia.

the thing is, walmart is sleezy, treats its employees like dirt, enslaves some 80,000,000 people in china (who are paid less than 1/10 of the chinese legal minimum wage per day), and crushes small business enterprises...

the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains.

See...um...the thing is, China's actually a Communist country. They're trying to become a capitalist country. The reason they have such low wages is because they are communist. In a capitalist country, the people have the right to choose who they work for. They sell their labor. In communism, they don't.

By the way, they've already had a revolution in China. A communist one. Look what it got them.

[Kana]

see, um, china is not communist, by that definition, as people do have the right to chose who to work for. now, if you have the money, you are allowed to start your own business. ive been there. i studied there for a year, i know quite well what the situation is in neijiang, shenyang, and nanjing.
i also know that the minimum worker wage required by national law is 37 cents per day... and the average payed by sweatshops is 2.8 cents per day.
theyve had a number of revolutions in china.
look what the first of two in the past century got them: freedom from western oppression.
the second, was an extension of western oppression, as mao was little other than a propagandized soviet puppet.
mao, who claimed to be a socialist leader, and became no more than a stalinist mockup murderer.
but even mao wouldnt go so far as the big businesses are going in the name of profit.

once more, no matter where you live - the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains.

[admirralsdoll]

the thing is, walmart is sleezy, treats its employees like dirt, enslaves some 80,000,000 people in china (who are paid less than 1/10 of the chinese legal minimum wage per day), and crushes small business enterprises...
Post by Kana



Who exactly said this???? or where did you read this???? :confused:

[Kana]

the number of chinese workers employed by walmart is from the sendai shinpo.
as for small business enterprises, thats from the personal experience of some of my friends in the u.s.; who can tell you first hand that your little store loses business veeeeery quick when the walmart empire puts a store within four blocks of it.
the wage-per-day information is from the beijing square times.

[chris99]

Oh gee! Where do I start? You want many of my theories. Let's see, a long, long time ago in a land we call America our fore fathers............ Ok that's to far back. (lol)

Let's start with unions: Unions may have been needed at one point in this country, I can not say, it was before my time. Now I'll give you unions as I know them. My question is what can they do for you. The answer is nothing. They do not pay you, they do not give you benefits, and in return charge you dues just to have a right to talk to the management of a company. They destory profits, eliminate communcation, and create a enviroment that breeds contempt. I'll give exsample of all that later. Unions are after one thing and one thing only, their survival. Their survival comes at the cost of taking money out of your pocket. They force the closing of many good companies and are a hinderance to the creation of the free market.

Exsample 1: 1982(?) Anaconda MT. A union smelter plant, 1000+ workers, the union repeatly sought out more money for it's workers. In 1982 the owner at contract time told the union(because he couldn't tell the employees) that the company was losing money and laid the records on the table. The owner was searching for a 2% cut back instead of a 3% increase. The union told the workers that the company was lying and encouraged a strike. The plant closed. 1000+ workers making 18+ an hour let go. Where did the union do these workers or the company any good?

Exsample 2: Thacher's Corp. Muscatine, IA 1995 same story, but the company just moved to a enviroment that was shell we say not union. 800+ jobs lost

Exsample 3: Magtag went to their union to report falling profits, Magtag's are now made in Mexico. Thank you unions.

Now that's just 3, but there's many more and I know you know it. So, I won't go on.

Now Wal-Mart: Yes they are anti union. Why? They believe in the rights of the individual. As for the pay, well pay is never enough. I will tell you that when I started at Wal-mart 3 years ago, due to a plant closing, I accepted $7.25 an hour. I now make almost twice that and I am not management nor union. Yes, I worked hard for it and no did not start out with it. I have profit sharing, retirement, and stock options. More days off than I'll ever use and a general enjoyment of going to work. Things I never recieved from a unionized company. As I tell everyone, I am not a number, my name is Dave and I pay no dues.

Thank you for your time.

Dave


So Dave you point is as I thought before that the workers are taking too much $$$ from the owners and that they should just be happy with what they have and rely on the charity of the owners even though the goal of the owners is to make the most $$$ they can since they are competing with others who have this same goal (this creates an environment where there is pressure to lower wages)---why do you think that wages for workers have stagnated or fallen while corporate profits have SKYROCKETED? what is your opinion on capital flight and the flexible and uncertain job market that has been created as a result? Do you not see that workers and owners have different interests? do you not think that workers should own and have a meaningful part in what they are creating or do you have the view that they should just shut up and make widgets for their masters who throw them crumbs while stopping them from organising into a group where they could actually press THEIR interests! the worker's interests are not that of the company's.

So wal-mart believes in the right of the individual??? i think that all companies would rather deal with individuals because it is easier to push them around--especially in this flexible labour market. i think that there are definite problems with unions but the problems you have raised are really just from the point of view of the owners--i think you should look at them from the worker's standpoint----all they do is take your dues? hahah i am sorry but take a look at other developed countries and how they have far less inequality than the US (you guys are tops) and this can be related to the fact that you have such a weak labour movement. you basically have a business run society--i really think that people should be before profit. And companies moving ofshore because it is cheaper does not help US workers---look at nike, michael moore had these people pleading with phil knight that they would work for minimum wage but he can get work in indonesia for cheaper so he does! wal-mart would too but they are a service not manufacturing so they are fine paying the lowest they can (they can pay some people more if it helps them ---you know they don't want to totally piss off their workers)---i really just think that we should be doing more meaningful work than these service industry jobs that we are getting stuck with (atleast manufacturing was higher paying--BECAUSE OF UNIONS)--c'mon if you band together you have more bargaining power and can get better benefits. you don't get rights given to you -you take them. study your history.

Thank you for you time,
Chris

[chris99]

I forgot!!! Costco is to small to compare and it could be argued that they are small because unions keep profits to low to expand. Last year Wal-Mart grew at a rate of 1.7 stores per day. How did Costco do? The bottom line is, Wal-Mart is not always right and there may or may not be things they need to correct, but all in all they are a good company. They put people to work, encourage community envolvement, and seek ways to bring you lower prices for the goods you need. Now that's just evil.(sarcaism)

Thanks

Dave

so unions lower profits--yes i agree because then workers get more salary which lowers profits. i am sorry i thought that you were a worker and not an owner. my bad.

[chris99]

See...um...the thing is, China's actually a Communist country. They're trying to become a capitalist country. The reason they have such low wages is because they are communist. In a capitalist country, the people have the right to choose who they work for. They sell their labor. In communism, they don't.

By the way, they've already had a revolution in China. A communist one. Look what it got them.

repressive governments where people have not fought for minimum wage and 8 hour work days are places where wages are low. that is obvious. it can't just be that they are communist. look at US history-they had sweatshops, no minimum wage--look at indonesia now--c'mon it is just where workers have not BANDED together and fought for minimal rights. again obvious.

[chris99]

If unions really cared about about workers, they would understand that the health of the business is vital to the health of the workers. Instead they are only in it to seek power and money from themselves, straight out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.


business does need to be healthy but they are robbing US workers blind--US workers should have more of a share in their profits but how can they get this if they don't band together? US workers are working harder and longer but their pay has not increased--this surely does not benefit US workers but it does benefit US business--many people seem to suffer from this false belief that what is good for business is necessarily good for the workers.

[chris99]

[QUOTE=Smith224]I agree. Higher Productivity is not necessarily because you feel good about your job. Right now in MA we have a very high amount of productivity but very low job growth. This due to employers not hiring more people and employees working harder to keep up with the increasing demand. The employee will work harder or lose their job.
QUOTE]

You can also beat employees and tell them that you will kill their families if they don't work harder but i question whether this or this fear of losing a job is a good thing for the worker----job stress is now much higher than it used to be. Again most of this discussion appears to be from the point of what is best for business not what is best for the worker.

[Dave]

so unions lower profits--yes i agree because then workers get more salary which lowers profits. i am sorry i thought that you were a worker and not an owner. my bad.

I am a worker, just like any hourly employee. However, I know the bottom line is to make money. You wouldn't start a business to go broke would you. :confused: Niether did Sam. Profit is a must. There's no way around it, no profit, no work. Unions hinder this process. My examples were not about $$$ as you put it. That's the union in you talking. My examples were about the thousands of workers let go because of the greed of unions. While you stand and aplaud this behavior, families go without. You tell me which is better. Working for $14 an hr in a union, with plant closing offered at every contract, until closing happens. Or working for $8 an hr in a non-union where your increase is only limited by you and your out put. This is what Wal-Mart does. :clap: Did I mention I just got another raise today. :clap: No BS. I love my job :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks

Dave

[chris99]

ah so your position is don't anger the master too much or he might take away your ability to feed yourself and your family. I think that there is something wrong with this scenario. That is fantastic that you are getting raises but not everyone is so lucky. the bottom line is not just to make money but to make the MOST money they can--this means trying to pay employees as little as they can without the employees doing things like (starting a union) or (getting rally angry and doing things to harm the company). You cannot divorce unions from the workers like you are doing. Unions get $$$ for workers--they are not supposed to just horde it themselves (like companies do!)---how are your benefits bythe way? actually i hear that starbucks is ok on benefits even without a union! so it is possible for some companies to try to treat their workers not too horribly but still they will tend to get beat out by companies making more $$$ by treating their employees badly.

I thinl that it is a mistake to say that the workers were let go becuase of the greed of the unions--they were let go because of the greed of the companies--they simply make more $$$ by moving their manufacturing ofshores for cheaper labour (i am sure that there are some examples of workers wanting too much $$$ for a company to be profitable but this is surely a minority---many corps move overseas just to make MORE $$$ not simply $$$) AGAIN corps and workers are generally opposed to each other----that is great that you love your job! but that doesn't change the fact that the bottom line is that many corps do not want to pay decent wages and don't have to because of high unemployment and labour felxibility

[Dave]

That is fantastic that you are getting raises but not everyone is so lucky. the bottom line is not just to make money but to make the MOST money they can--this means trying to pay employees as little as they can without the employees doing things like (starting a union) or (getting rally angry and doing things to harm the company). You cannot divorce unions from the workers like you are doing. Unions get $$$ for workers--they are not supposed to just horde it themselves (like companies do!)---how are your benefits bythe way? AGAIN corps and workers are generally opposed to each other----

These are the areas I'll address. I will state to start that my rate of increase in pay at Wal-Mart is the exception. I average 2 to 3 raise a year. If there is any Wal-mart associates out there just PM me and I'll help you out. I will state I work darn hard for my money. For 8 to 10 hrs a day my heart pumps Wal-Mart blue. So, in short luck has nothing to do with it.

What do you mean I can not divorce Unions. Again I am not salary management. I can do pretty much as I chose. Since you use the word "supposed" when you state "Unions....... are not supposed to just horde it themself" in reference to $$$. I agree. However some unions do. That would make some unions bad and some very bad. :lol: I am sure there's a union company somewhere, where the owner and the workers say it's a good thing we're union, but I've never seen it. Why do you think that is?

How are my benefits? Let's see, health, dental, LTD, STD, life ins, profit sharing, 401K, company retirement, stock options, associate discount, and bonus. Now with that stated, most feel our health insurance needs some improving, but that seems to be the case everywhere.

Management and workers are generally opposed to each other? Why? This was not the case before unions. Unions breed contempt. :mad: Work should not have to be a battlefield. Work should be a place of pride and although it took me to many years to get here, Wal-Mart has given me that.

Thanks

Dave

[JD3]

These are the areas I'll address. I will state to start that my rate of increase in pay at Wal-Mart is the exception. I average 2 to 3 raise a year. If there is any Wal-mart associates out there just PM me and I'll help you out. I will state I work darn hard for my money. For 8 to 10 hrs a day my heart pumps Wal-Mart blue. So, in short luck has nothing to do with it.

What do you mean I can not divorce Unions. Again I am not salary management. I can do pretty much as I chose. Since you use the word "supposed" when you state "Unions....... are not supposed to just horde it themself" in reference to $$$. I agree. However some unions do. That would make some unions bad and some very bad. :lol: I am sure there's a union company somewhere, where the owner and the workers say it's a good thing we're union, but I've never seen it. Why do you think that is?

How are my benefits? Let's see, health, dental, LTD, STD, life ins, profit sharing, 401K, company retirement, stock options, associate discount, and bonus. Now with that stated, most feel our health insurance needs some improving, but that seems to be the case everywhere.

Management and workers are generally opposed to each other? Why? This was not the case before unions. Unions breed contempt. :mad: Work should not have to be a battlefield. Work should be a place of pride and although it took me to many years to get here, Wal-Mart has given me that.

Thanks

Dave


A bit of rebuff here. I think if you look the battle between management and workers goes back long before unions. You've read or seen Dickin's "Scrooge." The employee was always in some measure subject to the whims of the employer. And whenever jobs are scarce, the advantage goes to the empolyer.

You are fortunate if you work for a reasonable employer. But not all comapnies are reasonable. And Unions in the past did win major benefits for the worker. Health care is major. And since it is likely to be lost by many in the coming years, you should ask what it is going to be like with more and more unisured.

Workers need a collective voice. Have unions been corrupt? Have they betrayed the people they represent at times? Yes. However, that doesn't change the need for a collective voice.

[Dave]

I can agree that there may have been a time when unions were needed. I'll even state that there may be a time when they are needed again. We all long to live the American dream. That dream is gets harder to hold on to. I live in a house that grosses close to 100,000 a year and we're broke. I was just as broke at $6.00 dollars an hour on my own. Money is not everything, it's the only thing. We fight over health care do to cost, we compete for better jobs for better pay, We search for best values in everything we buy, It is the $ that runs our lifes. Have you ever went and bought a house or a car and told the sales person, no I'd really like to give you a couple of thousand more for it. Money is the issue and the only issue.

Remember, while money can not buy you happiness, it can make misery more affordable.

Thanks

Dave

[earth]

I don't like unions simply for the reason that they're corrupt, but you can't ignore the fact that they are vehemant in representing their workers rights and demands for more pay.

On the one hand:

Companies need to make money.

On the other hand:

Employee's make the company money.

So who deserves the money? I'd say the employees. Not those in the boardroom...

[Dave]

I disagree to some extent. While I do agree it is common joe worker who makes the money for a company and needs rewarding for doing so, he gets a pay check. Someone told me long ago, want the check, do the job. It becomes wrong when one out weighs the other. When you have a ceo making 6 figure income, telling common joe worker they have to cut hours inorder to meet the bottom line yet keep production the same. It's wrong. To make it fair, I believe in times like that management should be required to deduct whatever % of pay from their salary, cut from the employee. Meaning if employee are cut 8 hours on a forty hour week, management should lose 1/5 of their salary. Bottom line is everyones pay. In the same breath, a company needs good leaders and they should be rewarded highly.

[JD3]

I disagree to some extent. While I do agree it is common joe worker who makes the money for a company and needs rewarding for doing so, he gets a pay check. Someone told me long ago, want the check, do the job. It becomes wrong when one out weighs the other. When you have a ceo making 6 figure income, telling common joe worker they have to cut hours inorder to meet the bottom line yet keep production the same. It's wrong. To make it fair, I believe in times like that management should be required to deduct whatever % of pay from their salary, cut from the employee. Meaning if employee are cut 8 hours on a forty hour week, management should lose 1/5 of their salary. Bottom line is everyones pay. In the same breath, a company needs good leaders and they should be rewarded highly.

Who, if not a union, is going to make the CEO take a cut? Can we count on him or her to do it voluntarily?

[temp1]

Who, if not a union, is going to make the CEO take a cut? Can we count on him or her to do it voluntarily?

Stock holders are demanding input on this and they will also demand accountability, what is happinging right now W/Disney may change the nature of the CEO position in this country big time, or it may not we'll see.

[JustinH]

I was going to post about this very topic... interesting indeed. Although, the comment made the Costco gets to pick from the "best of the best" is quite true, it's only true as a result of their great pay and benefits. So to say "well they get to pick from the best of the best" is a fallacy. Walmart, regardless of the market they are targeting, can afford to pay FAR FAR FAR better wages then they do, considering they rake in $7 billion a year in profits.

And FYI: It's tax payers that help pay for Walmarts low wages. Through medicaid, TANF and food stamps. Although I wouldn't consider this a "reliable" source, I'll post it anyway: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21604.html

Here we see in this study (biased or not), a Walmart (with 200 employees) costs tax payers and the government $420,750 per year. Here's the breakdown:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families;

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming three percent of the store’s employees qualify for such assistance;

This is actually interesting, since the average Walmart employee makes $1000/month, it would actually be FAR higher then 3% of employees qualifying.

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children;

That's saying that 50% of Walmart's employees have dependants... I'd say more then that, but seems fair.

$100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families, each with an average of two children, qualify;

$108,000 a year for children’s health insurance costs, assuming 30 employees, each with an average of two children, qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP);

$9,750 a year for subsidies for energy assistance for low-income families

Think of it this way... the Walmart you are shopping at, is costing YOU and the rest of your community ~$500,000 in taxes, meanwhile raking in $7 Billion in profits...

[JustinH]

Walmart CEO:
$5,390,000 million

Largest company in the world (profit & revenue), doesn't even come CLOSE to the Top 50 highest paid executives in the US.

[cicero191]

I was going to post about this very topic... interesting indeed. Although, the comment made the Costco gets to pick from the "best of the best" is quite true, it's only true as a result of their great pay and benefits. So to say "well they get to pick from the best of the best" is a fallacy. Walmart, regardless of the market they are targeting, can afford to pay FAR FAR FAR better wages then they do, considering they rake in $7 billion a year in profits.

And FYI: It's tax payers that help pay for Walmarts low wages. Through medicaid, TANF and food stamps. Although I wouldn't consider this a "reliable" source, I'll post it anyway: http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21604.html

Here we see in this study (biased or not), a Walmart (with 200 employees) costs tax payers and the government $420,750 per year. Here's the breakdown:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families;

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming three percent of the store’s employees qualify for such assistance;

This is actually interesting, since the average Walmart employee makes $1000/month, it would actually be FAR higher then 3% of employees qualifying.

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children;

So we should cut welfare and entitlements...interesting. Liberal means, conservative ends.

That's saying that 50% of Walmart's employees have dependants... I'd say more then that, but seems fair.

$100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families, each with an average of two children, qualify;

$108,000 a year for children’s health insurance costs, assuming 30 employees, each with an average of two children, qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP);

$9,750 a year for subsidies for energy assistance for low-income families

Think of it this way... the Walmart you are shopping at, is costing YOU and the rest of your community ~$500,000 in taxes, meanwhile raking in $7 Billion in profits...

So we should cut entitlements. Interesting...liberal means, conservative ends.

[JustinH]

So we should cut entitlements. Interesting...liberal means, conservative ends.

Indeed, keep the poor poorer and the rich richer... the conservative ideal. How about we raise minimum wage to a truly LIVING wage? Oh we can't do that... that would really hurt Walmart's $7 Billion dollar profits. Or perhaps we can slap them with an anti-trust lawsuit for their predetory practices? No no no... we love corporate anti-competitive America... we get stuff cheaper that way!

However, your "conservative ends" thing is a joke in itself. It's sad to see that you support children without healthcare and poverty (never met a pro-poverty anti-healthcare person in my life, but hey it was bound to happen). You know, people dying of starvation, children dying of diseases, because their parents can't afford healthcare... but hey, who cares about kids (unless they aren't born yet, of course), at least my taxes won't be so expensive!

[cicero191]

Indeed, keep the poor poorer and the rich richer... the conservative ideal. How about we raise minimum wage to a truly LIVING wage? Oh we can't do that... that would really hurt Walmart's $7 Billion dollar profits. Or perhaps we can slap them with an anti-trust lawsuit for their predetory practices? No no no... we love corporate anti-competitive America... we get stuff cheaper that way!

However, your "conservative ends" thing is a joke in itself. It's sad to see that you support children without healthcare and poverty (never met a pro-poverty anti-healthcare person in my life, but hey it was bound to happen). You know, people dying of starvation, children dying of diseases, because their parents can't afford healthcare... but hey, who cares about kids (unless they aren't born yet, of course), at least my taxes won't be so expensive!

Raising the minimum wage causes inflation and unemployment.

And if you can find evidence that Walmart has engaged in monopolistic practices and doesn't simply have a better business model, I will be surprised.

I'm only opposed to welfare if the party involved does not deserve it or relies on it instead making a living. In addition, the welfare system is subject to fraud and abuse.

[chris99]

Management and workers are generally opposed to each other? Why? This was not the case before unions. Unions breed contempt. :mad: Work should not have to be a battlefield. Work should be a place of pride and although it took me to many years to get here, Wal-Mart has given me that.

Thanks

Dave


read up on your labour history in the 20s if you want some insight into how workers and management were opposed to each other before unions. Again check out SELLING FREE ENTERPRISE---i am sure that there are web sources as well.

[chris99]

Raising the minimum wage causes inflation and unemployment.


I think that this illustrates the problems with capitalism--there will always be inequality and measures to combat this (raise minimum wage) cause problems or are difficult to implement (for a variety of reasons--including the rich not wanting to share a larger portion of their profits)---If we are going to try to find a way so that people are able to live productive, healthy fulfilling lives than it appears that capitalism is not the system that can provide this for everyone as there must necessarily be losers. What do you think we can do to change this?

[JustinH]

Raising the minimum wage causes inflation and unemployment.

Indeed...

Washington 2000: 5.4%
Washington 2001: 6.4%
Washington 2002: 7.0%
Washington 2003: 7.3%
Washington 2004: 6.2%

A great example, since Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the US. As you can see, it is getting closer and closer to it's 2000 rates... 5.4%. But even more interesting, is the fact that in 2000 it had the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states (this was prior to enacting the living wage law). Now, it's listed as 5th highest... so you have ANY evidence for your side?

And if you can find evidence that Walmart has engaged in monopolistic practices and doesn't simply have a better business model, I will be surprised.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I'm only opposed to welfare if the party involved does not deserve it or relies on it instead making a living. In addition, the welfare system is subject to fraud and abuse.

Well, in the case I presented, they were all working at Walmart (so they were trying to make a living), and obviously the numbers weren't "frauded" in this case. Have any other ideas?

[ScummyD]

Indeed...

Washington 2000: 5.4%
Washington 2001: 6.4%
Washington 2002: 7.0%
Washington 2003: 7.3%
Washington 2004: 6.2%

A great example, since Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the US. As you can see, it is getting closer and closer to it's 2000 rates... 5.4%.
How can you honestly make that conclusion??? UE goes from 7.3% to 6.2% and we are hardly into 2004 and you say it is "getting closer and closer..." by those numbers???

[JustinH]

How can you honestly make that conclusion??? UE goes from 7.3% to 6.2% and we are hardly into 2004 and you say it is "getting closer and closer..." by those numbers???

Yeah, you know the big recession we've been getting over since 2001? Figured everyone had known about it... do some research on the topic. EVERY state in the US had a giant increase in unemployment after 9/11... I should have posted this already, I KNEW some conservative was going to argue "But it's higher"... I had far too much faith in you guys.

[Dave]

Indeed...

Washington 2000: 5.4%
Washington 2001: 6.4%
Washington 2002: 7.0%
Washington 2003: 7.3%
Washington 2004: 6.2%

A great example, since Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the US. As you can see, it is getting closer and closer to it's 2000 rates... 5.4%. But even more interesting, is the fact that in 2000 it had the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states (this was prior to enacting the living wage law). Now, it's listed as 5th highest... so you have ANY evidence for your side?



http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html



Well, in the case I presented, they were all working at Walmart (so they were trying to make a living), and obviously the numbers weren't "frauded" in this case. Have any other ideas?

Clearly you have proven Wal-Mart is the root cause of all evil. They buy up a American product, in mass, give it to the average Joe at a lower price and it's evil. That little jar of pickels, is also sold at wal-mart. So, while pick your pack of pickels, keep that in mind. :lol:

Thanks

Dave

[cicero191]

Indeed...

Washington 2000: 5.4%
Washington 2001: 6.4%
Washington 2002: 7.0%
Washington 2003: 7.3%
Washington 2004: 6.2%

A great example, since Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the US. As you can see, it is getting closer and closer to it's 2000 rates... 5.4%. But even more interesting, is the fact that in 2000 it had the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states (this was prior to enacting the living wage law). Now, it's listed as 5th highest... so you have ANY evidence for your side?

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Well, in the case I presented, they were all working at Walmart (so they were trying to make a living), and obviously the numbers weren't "frauded" in this case. Have any other ideas?

Well, what were the unemployment rates of other states?

The article simply states that Walmart is constantly looking for the best deal from its suppliers. Since when is that wrong?

Ohhhh...now they're working. Well, I would say working at Walmart is a gateway to working elsewhere and that the people are demonstrating a willingness to work. So it's okay to give them temporary relief at least.

[JustinH]

Well, what were the unemployment rates of other states?

New York
2000: 4.6%
2001: 4.9%
2002: 6.1%
2003: 6.3%
2004: 6.9%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 2.3%

Idaho
2000: 4.9%
2001: 5.0%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 5.4%
2004: 6.1%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 1.2%

Utah
2000: 3.3%
2001: 4.4%
2002: 6.1%
2003: 5.6%
2004: 5.2%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 1.9%

Washington Increase (2000-2004): 0.8%

That evidence enough?

The article simply states that Walmart is constantly looking for the best deal from its suppliers. Since when is that wrong?

Nice water-down... they use morbid tactics, because they know any company that goes against their "wishes" could be put out of business. 7% of month spent in retail stores goes to Walmart... they own too much market.

Ohhhh...now they're working. Well, I would say working at Walmart is a gateway to working elsewhere and that the people are demonstrating a willingness to work. So it's okay to give them temporary relief at least.

Umm... the whole idea is how much Walmart costs taxpayers. Whether or not it's a "gateway" job is irrelevent... because as soon as someone goes to a better job, another person fills their shoes, and another person using the welfare system, honestly, because Walmart pays crap.

[cicero191]

New York
2000: 4.6%
2001: 4.9%
2002: 6.1%
2003: 6.3%
2004: 6.9%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 2.3%

Idaho
2000: 4.9%
2001: 5.0%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 5.4%
2004: 6.1%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 1.2%

Utah
2000: 3.3%
2001: 4.4%
2002: 6.1%
2003: 5.6%
2004: 5.2%
Total Increase (2000-2004): 1.9%

Washington Increase (2000-2004): 0.8%

That evidence enough?

Nice water-down... they use morbid tactics, because they know any company that goes against their "wishes" could be put out of business. 7% of month spent in retail stores goes to Walmart... they own too much market.

Umm... the whole idea is how much Walmart costs taxpayers. Whether or not it's a "gateway" job is irrelevent... because as soon as someone goes to a better job, another person fills their shoes, and another person using the welfare system, honestly, because Walmart pays crap.

And yet, Washington has higher unemployment rates overall.

7% doesn't seem to be too much share to me. I would bet that 7% of all computers sold nowadays are Dells. Intel has a far larger market share then 7%. Neither of these are decried with the vehemence dedicated towards Walmart.

Walmart would seem me to cost taxpayers less. If these people weren't working at Walmart, they most likely would not be working at all, and taxpayers would have to pay even more for them.

[JustinH]

And yet, Washington has higher unemployment rates overall.

Actually New York does... did you read it? Furthermore, Washington STARTED with a higher unemployment rate in 2000, BEFORE the minimum wage increase began. So try again.

7% doesn't seem to be too much share to me. I would bet that 7% of all computers sold nowadays are Dells. Intel has a far larger market share then 7%. Neither of these are decried with the vehemence dedicated towards Walmart.

Dell sells computers, Intel sells processors. Walmart owns 7% of RETAIL... big difference. Now if Intel owned 7% of the technology market, that would be fair. But don't compare the entire retail market to a tiny segment of the technology market.

Walmart would seem me to cost taxpayers less. If these people weren't working at Walmart, they most likely would not be working at all, and taxpayers would have to pay even more for them.

Are you trying to look foolish? What source or evidence do you have that if they weren't working for Walmart they wouldn't be working? None... it's just right-wing garbage because you can't think of a reasonable response. Either admit defeat, or post a valid link that supports your side.

[cicero191]

Actually New York does... did you read it? Furthermore, Washington STARTED with a higher unemployment rate in 2000, BEFORE the minimum wage increase began. So try again.

Dell sells computers, Intel sells processors. Walmart owns 7% of RETAIL... big difference. Now if Intel owned 7% of the technology market, that would be fair. But don't compare the entire retail market to a tiny segment of the technology market.

Are you trying to look foolish? What source or evidence do you have that if they weren't working for Walmart they wouldn't be working? None... it's just right-wing garbage because you can't think of a reasonable response. Either admit defeat, or post a valid link that supports your side.

Washington 2000: 5.4%
Washington 2001: 6.4%
Washington 2002: 7.0%
Washington 2003: 7.3%
Washington 2004: 6.2%

New York 2000: 4.6%
New York 2001: 4.9%
New York 2002: 6.1%
New York 2003: 6.3%
New York 2004: 6.9%

Washington's rates are higher in four of five years.

I would think a monopoly would be bad in any sector. If control of tiny sections of the technology industry is irrelevant, why the suit against Microsoft by the DOJ?

In the large majority of cases, Walmart pays less and provides less benefits than other employers. Also, their employees, in terms of professionalism, appearance, and service, are generally of lower caliber than those of their competitors. I've shopped in all these kinds of stores and I have friends who used to work for Walmart. The only reason anyone ever works for Walmart at a low level is because they can't get a job anywhere else. This could be due to a poor economy or their own lack of marketability, but in either case Walmart employs people who would not otherwise be employed.

[Dave]

Also, their employees, in terms of professionalism, appearance, and service, are generally of lower caliber than those of their competitors. The only reason anyone ever works for Walmart at a low level is because they can't get a job anywhere else.


Do you have any idea as to how many people you just insulted? :rolleyes: I not sure you intentally did this, but your result was the same. People work at Wal-Mart for the same reasons people work at any job- a paycheck. As for the caliber of service, service to often is in direct relation to a customers actions. Example: I had a customer, while on my way into work, stop me and asked "hey buddy, where are they keeping the f-ing cinnamin rolls at." When I responded with, I don't think we sale that flavor anymore, he called me an A#&%*%$! Now, see I thought it was funny, and he was just being a jerk. For the most the public can be impossiable to please. There's no writen book on it. What makes you happy may not work for the the next guy. So personally, I have a general rule, threat me with respect and I'll do the same. Curse at me, insult me, or yell and leave you standing in the aisle like a deer cought in the headlights. Nowhere in our policies does it state we have to be abused. Another thing that burst my bubble, is the way people treat cashiers. (thank God I'm not one, I would never had lasted a week) Although I understand the customers frustration, you shop for an hour or two, go to leave and there's 4 cashiers on 28 chek-out lanes. Makes little sense to me too. However, it is not the cashiers fault and the abuse these people go through is uncalled for. I was called up one time to help in a situation with a rude customer who had just purchsed $485.? in goods and was very up set that a gallon of milk was leaking. Now everyone had told this customer we'd get him another gallon of milk, even went as far as to tell him we'd redo his shopping for him, incase anything else was damaged. He continued to yell, curse, and degrade this cashier. So I looked firmly at him and asked, Can I do anything to make this right for you. He replied, there's no f-ing way anyone can make this right. I agreed and handed the man back his money and thank him for shopping Wal-Mart. Talk about a change in attitude. That man was scared I was going to make him leave without his purchase. That was what we call a fun customer.

Anyway, way to much yaking. I love to talk Wal-Mart.

Thanks

Dave

[JustinH]

Washington's rates are higher in four of five years.

You don't get it, in 2000 the minimum wage increase hadn't happened. Washington has always had a higher unemployment rate then most states (in fact 2000 it was the highest in the nation). Now it is 5th... and you're telling me that has something to do with the minimum wage increase? Since the minimum wage increase, Washington has went from the highest unemployment rate, to the 5th highest.

Again, you're ignoring the facts because they don't coincide with your belief that raising minimum wage will increase unemployment. I've proven you wrong, and you have no argument left.

I would think a monopoly would be bad in any sector. If control of tiny sections of the technology industry is irrelevant, why the suit against Microsoft by the DOJ?

Microsoft is another poor example to prove your point. They owned the entire desktop market, no competition what-so-ever. Intel has competition from AMD and the cheaper products... that being said, IMHO AMD makes a far better product, which is why their market share is increasing. But again, you are comparing one sector (processors) with the entire retail industry.

In the large majority of cases, Walmart pays less and provides less benefits than other employers. Also, their employees, in terms of professionalism, appearance, and service, are generally of lower caliber than those of their competitors. I've shopped in all these kinds of stores and I have friends who used to work for Walmart. The only reason anyone ever works for Walmart at a low level is because they can't get a job anywhere else. This could be due to a poor economy or their own lack of marketability, but in either case Walmart employs people who would not otherwise be employed.

Wow... why don't you just insult every Walmart employee? My wife worked for Walmart when she was young... she was professional and offered excellent customer service. You are simply demonizing employees in a strange attempt to make your point. You offer no source for anything, you simply make blanket statements insulting millions of people... just let it go.

[cicero191]

You don't get it, in 2000 the minimum wage increase hadn't happened. Washington has always had a higher unemployment rate then most states (in fact 2000 it was the highest in the nation). Now it is 5th... and you're telling me that has something to do with the minimum wage increase? Since the minimum wage increase, Washington has went from the highest unemployment rate, to the 5th highest.

Again, you're ignoring the facts because they don't coincide with your belief that raising minimum wage will increase unemployment. I've proven you wrong, and you have no argument left.

Microsoft is another poor example to prove your point. They owned the entire desktop market, no competition what-so-ever. Intel has competition from AMD and the cheaper products... that being said, IMHO AMD makes a far better product, which is why their market share is increasing. But again, you are comparing one sector (processors) with the entire retail industry.

Wow... why don't you just insult every Walmart employee? My wife worked for Walmart when she was young... she was professional and offered excellent customer service. You are simply demonizing employees in a strange attempt to make your point. You offer no source for anything, you simply make blanket statements insulting millions of people... just let it go.

Ever take an economics course? Most professors agree with me, to the extent that the theory on why minimum wage causes unemployment is a part of all introductory microeconomics courses. Just because you demonstrate one counterexample does not mean that the theory is wrong in general.

Somehow I seem to recall that Microsoft owns the OS market, not the "desktop" market. Regarding Intel, I don't remember the last time I saw a wide-selling commercial computer that did not use their chips. You probably know of a few that don't, but the public associates "processors" with "Intel." Why not go after Intel?

Apparently you did not read that I said I have friends who work for Walmart. People work for Walmart when they can't get jobs elsewhere. Previous to their experience at Walmart, my friends could not get jobs elsewhere. Now they can, and they have chosen to move on. The fact that people stay at Walmart for such long periods of time indicates to me that they are either unaware of other jobs or can not get them.

[Dave]

Apparently you did not read that I said I have friends who work for Walmart. People work for Walmart when they can't get jobs elsewhere. Previous to their experience at Walmart, my friends could not get jobs elsewhere. Now they can, and they have chosen to move on. The fact that people stay at Walmart for such long periods of time indicates to me that they are either unaware of other jobs or can not get them.


Or, just maybe, Wal-Mart is not the worthless place you want to imply it is. Just a thought. ;)

Thanks

Dave

[JustinH]

Ever take an economics course? Most professors agree with me, to the extent that the theory on why minimum wage causes unemployment is a part of all introductory microeconomics courses. Just because you demonstrate one counterexample does not mean that the theory is wrong in general.

Taken several actually... and no offense but I've just given REAL evidence that you and your professors are wrong. And it's funny that my single "counterexample" isn't good enough for you, when the only source you have is these "professors" you talk about. I've given evidence of my argument... you haven't done anything.

Somehow I seem to recall that Microsoft owns the OS market, not the "desktop" market. Regarding Intel, I don't remember the last time I saw a wide-selling commercial computer that did not use their chips. You probably know of a few that don't, but the public associates "processors" with "Intel." Why not go after Intel?

Dell is the only major manufactorer that hasn't brought in AMD chips... so yes, I know of a few. And I don't need to go after Intel, because they don't cost taxpayers anything, first of all, nor do they force suppliers into situations that cost them money. Perhaps the "public" may make that association... but I sincerely doubt it. The majority of the "public" doesn't even know what the processor does, much less that Intel is the primary manufactorer.
The biggest difference, however, is in the fact that Intel doesn't use predetory practices to beef out competition. They are still, and will continue to be, more expensive then AMD. Which is one of the requirements for an anti-trust lawsuit.

Apparently you did not read that I said I have friends who work for Walmart. People work for Walmart when they can't get jobs elsewhere. Previous to their experience at Walmart, my friends could not get jobs elsewhere. Now they can, and they have chosen to move on. The fact that people stay at Walmart for such long periods of time indicates to me that they are either unaware of other jobs or can not get them.

Again, you use "friends" as your source for evidence. Your argument is flawed... in fact you managed to use a slippery slope AND a hasty induction in your little speech. I think you've managed to beat VOR by using two different fallacies in one argument.

No sense in continuing this. You've lost credibility unless you manage to actually show documentable evidence (as I have). You keep giving personal examples, but they are utterly useless since they can't be proven, much less disproven. I'm still waiting for something other then your failing opinion.

[xpanda]

Clearly you have proven Wal-Mart is the root cause of all evil. They buy up a American product, in mass, give it to the average Joe at a lower price and it's evil. That little jar of pickels, is also sold at wal-mart. So, while pick your pack of pickels, keep that in mind. :lol:

Thanks

Dave

Just going to jump in with my two cents about WalMart -- I used to work for a company of whom WalMart was a customer. They insisted we install their inventory tracking system (which added to our total costs,) and told us what they were going to pay for our products, which were substantially lower than our usual prices. To be sure, they were so low that had WalMart been our only customer, we would have a net profit margin of less than 1%. That is just not good business. We tried it for a while, but the only way we could recover our losses was to charge our other customers more or send our manufacturing overseas, resulting in the layoff of over 350 people. We were one of the lucky ones, as we didn't let our other customer relationships slide. We dumped them.

[cicero191]

Taken several actually... and no offense but I've just given REAL evidence that you and your professors are wrong. And it's funny that my single "counterexample" isn't good enough for you, when the only source you have is these "professors" you talk about. I've given evidence of my argument... you haven't done anything.

Dell is the only major manufactorer that hasn't brought in AMD chips... so yes, I know of a few. And I don't need to go after Intel, because they don't cost taxpayers anything, first of all, nor do they force suppliers into situations that cost them money. Perhaps the "public" may make that association... but I sincerely doubt it. The majority of the "public" doesn't even know what the processor does, much less that Intel is the primary manufactorer.
The biggest difference, however, is in the fact that Intel doesn't use predetory practices to beef out competition. They are still, and will continue to be, more expensive then AMD. Which is one of the requirements for an anti-trust lawsuit.

Again, you use "friends" as your source for evidence. Your argument is flawed... in fact you managed to use a slippery slope AND a hasty induction in your little speech. I think you've managed to beat VOR by using two different fallacies in one argument.

No sense in continuing this. You've lost credibility unless you manage to actually show documentable evidence (as I have). You keep giving personal examples, but they are utterly useless since they can't be proven, much less disproven. I'm still waiting for something other then your failing opinion.

Your "real evidence" clearly states that in most cases, Washington's unemployment rate was higher than that of other states both before and after the minimum wage change.

Well, I investigated these AMD people. I looked at Gateways, HPs, and Compaqs. Gateway, from what I could tell, uses exclusively Intel. HP and Compaq use mostly Intel. And if being more expensive than the competition grants you immunity from antitrust litigation, how come Microsoft was sued when Linux, BeOS and (I believe) Macs are less expensive?

Why are my personal experiences any more flawed examples than yours? I used my friends as examples, you used your wife. What makes yours more credible than mine?

[JustinH]

Your "real evidence" clearly states that in most cases, Washington's unemployment rate was higher than that of other states both before and after the minimum wage change.

Indeed, and it's also lower then several states that continue to support federal minimum wage. It also, shows that you are incorrect, as can be seen by the net increase from all the other states, compared to Washington's.

Well, I investigated these AMD people. I looked at Gateways, HPs, and Compaqs. Gateway, from what I could tell, uses exclusively Intel. HP and Compaq use mostly Intel. And if being more expensive than the competition grants you immunity from antitrust litigation, how come Microsoft was sued when Linux, BeOS and (I believe) Macs are less expensive?

Apparently you don't know much about the market, regardless, you somehow managed to determine that HPs and Compaq use "mostly" Intel from their website? Well, I'd recommend going to Staples or any other HP distributor and you would find an equal amount of both.
As for your last statement, you used my entire post out of context. The fact that Intel isn't predetory that avoids the antitrust lawsuit. You see, Intel didn't try to undercut AMD when they came into the market. More importantly, Microsoft was slaped with antitrust, because they threatened manufactorers (such as Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway etc), basically stating that if they offer any non-Windows OS, that they would lose their discounts on Windows software.

Why are my personal experiences any more flawed examples than yours? I used my friends as examples, you used your wife. What makes yours more credible than mine?

My examples can be proven through a simple check on a number of websites. Your "personal" examples were used in several situations, including what your "professors" said. I used my wife as an example, to discount yours. I used a document that showed how much the average Walmart costs taxpayers, I used freely available information showing that the state of Washington did NOT see an unemployment increase due to minimum wage increases.
Your "friends" example was just silly anyway. You stated that if they are working at Walmart they "wouldn't have a job anyway"... there is no evidence of that and honestly I used my wife as an example to tempt you. You didn't take the bait, but instead try to say that's the ONLY evidence I used in my arguments.

Try again.

[Dave]

Just going to jump in with my two cents about WalMart -- I used to work for a company of whom WalMart was a customer. They insisted we install their inventory tracking system (which added to our total costs,) and told us what they were going to pay for our products, which were substantially lower than our usual prices. To be sure, they were so low that had WalMart been our only customer, we would have a net profit margin of less than 1%. That is just not good business. We tried it for a while, but the only way we could recover our losses was to charge our other customers more or send our manufacturing overseas, resulting in the layoff of over 350 people. We were one of the lucky ones, as we didn't let our other customer relationships slide. We dumped them.


There is no doubt that Wal-Mart crunches the bottom line. You have to understand that .0001% to wal-mart is millions of $$$$. If there is no money in Wal-Mart for venders to sell their products, you are right they need to move on. However the line in Bentonville keeps growing. It's really something to see. A sales person shows up in a $40,000 car, dressed in a $300 suit, enters the building into a room that looks like a old DMV. Basic chairs in a row, a coffee pot that request a .25cent donation, they are told to take a number and wait. Soon a young man enters wearing a wal-mart blue vest and ask you to follow him. You're lead into 12x12 white room that just has a table, 2 chairs and a picture of Sam Walton. Your left in that room, until the young man returns. This young man make far less than the $80,000 a year you're recieving. Yet you know he controls your future. He returns, sits right across from you. With a pen and a note pad, he asks you one question. What can Disney do for Wal-Mart?

And people wonder why we're #1. :clap:

Thanks

Dave

[cicero191]

Indeed, and it's also lower then several states that continue to support federal minimum wage. It also, shows that you are incorrect, as can be seen by the net increase from all the other states, compared to Washington's.

Apparently you don't know much about the market, regardless, you somehow managed to determine that HPs and Compaq use "mostly" Intel from their website? Well, I'd recommend going to Staples or any other HP distributor and you would find an equal amount of both.
As for your last statement, you used my entire post out of context. The fact that Intel isn't predetory that avoids the antitrust lawsuit. You see, Intel didn't try to undercut AMD when they came into the market. More importantly, Microsoft was slaped with antitrust, because they threatened manufactorers (such as Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway etc), basically stating that if they offer any non-Windows OS, that they would lose their discounts on Windows software.

My examples can be proven through a simple check on a number of websites. Your "personal" examples were used in several situations, including what your "professors" said. I used my wife as an example, to discount yours. I used a document that showed how much the average Walmart costs taxpayers, I used freely available information showing that the state of Washington did NOT see an unemployment increase due to minimum wage increases.
Your "friends" example was just silly anyway. You stated that if they are working at Walmart they "wouldn't have a job anyway"... there is no evidence of that and honestly I used my wife as an example to tempt you. You didn't take the bait, but instead try to say that's the ONLY evidence I used in my arguments.

Try again.

One example does not make an entire argument. Washington, one state, changed five places in the unemployment rate. So what? It's one state that over a period of five years that changed a very small amount.

OK. So your accusation is that Walmart is predatory. I would say, given the amount of power that you seem to think they have, if they were predatory, they would have a great deal more market share then 7%.

Also, about that 7% figure. Where's it from? What's the market share of others compared to it? How does that compare with other historically high market shares?

Walmart is a low-paying and somewhat menial job. People work there because they don't know or can't work on other jobs. It could be because they're too young or don't know how to do anything else.

[JustinH]

One example does not make an entire argument. Washington, one state, changed five places in the unemployment rate. So what? It's one state that over a period of five years that changed a very small amount.

Then make your argument with evidence that can be proven. You're committing the famous burden of proof fallacy. You fail to provide evidence of your own claims, but continually attack mine as non-representative of the truth. PROVE ME WRONG. :rolleyes:

OK. So your accusation is that Walmart is predatory. I would say, given the amount of power that you seem to think they have, if they were predatory, they would have a great deal more market share then 7%.

Not really, we are talking retail here. That means 7% of everything sold, 7 cents on every dollar sold in a retail store, is sold at Walmart. The second largest retailer in the world (Home Depot) doesn't even have 1% of the market share.

Also, about that 7% figure. Where's it from? What's the market share of others compared to it? How does that compare with other historically high market shares?

The source is in the fastcompany article. As for the market share of others, you can see by Home Depot's retail market share, less then 1%.

Walmart is a low-paying and somewhat menial job. People work there because they don't know or can't work on other jobs. It could be because they're too young or don't know how to do anything else.

More psychobabble without any evidence or source. Feel free to keep attacking Walmart employees... perhpas blame them for the national debt. Hell, blame them for the death of Christ, it is only hurting your credibility by making outlandish and rude claims.

[cicero191]

Then make your argument with evidence that can be proven. You're committing the famous burden of proof fallacy. You fail to provide evidence of your own claims, but continually attack mine as non-representative of the truth. PROVE ME WRONG. :rolleyes:

Not really, we are talking retail here. That means 7% of everything sold, 7 cents on every dollar sold in a retail store, is sold at Walmart. The second largest retailer in the world (Home Depot) doesn't even have 1% of the market share.

The source is in the fastcompany article. As for the market share of others, you can see by Home Depot's retail market share, less then 1%.

More psychobabble without any evidence or source. Feel free to keep attacking Walmart employees... perhpas blame them for the national debt. Hell, blame them for the death of Christ, it is only hurting your credibility by making outlandish and rude claims.

I don't think that it's something that's empirically proven. We could probably both come up with counterexamples to each other, and none of them would demonstrate a causal link. But I have a theory substantiated by years of study in economics. Do you?

Once more, regarding market share. There are two main ways to determine whether or not a given market is competitive or not. The first is the four-firm concentration ratio, which sums the shares of the top four sellers. Less than forty percent is considered competitive. Retail is competitive according to this measure.

The second is called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the sum of the squares of the market shares of the top fifty firms. Less then 1000 is regarded as competitive. Retail is also competitive according to this measure.

My evidence is personal experience in Walmart and the personal experience of most people I've talked too. I'm not a professional polling organization, and I don't know of any surveys on this matter.

[JustinH]

I don't think that it's something that's empirically proven. We could probably both come up with counterexamples to each other, and none of them would demonstrate a causal link. But I have a theory substantiated by years of study in economics. Do you?

Then why is it, that you have posted a real counterexample? Nope, you don't have one. Your theory is based on years substantiated by years of study in economics, eh?

Well, these two professors in economics disagree:
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm

But what do they know, they just have PhD's... :rolleyes:

Once more, regarding market share. There are two main ways to determine whether or not a given market is competitive or not. The first is the four-firm concentration ratio, which sums the shares of the top four sellers. Less than forty percent is considered competitive. Retail is competitive according to this measure.

The second is called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the sum of the squares of the market shares of the top fifty firms. Less then 1000 is regarded as competitive. Retail is also competitive according to this measure.

Well, economics be damned then! The fact that every major direct competitor to Walmart is nearly bankrupt (K-mart & Target namely) doesn't play a role in your "magical" caluclations that make retail competitive? The fact that Walmart has undercut and eventually put out of business every sole-proprietorship within miles of one of its stores? No, those don't matter, only an Index or a ratio can be used.

My evidence is personal experience in Walmart and the personal experience of most people I've talked too. I'm not a professional polling organization, and I don't know of any surveys on this matter.

Of course you don't, there aren't any. Everything you posted is your biased "personal experience" you continually speak of. Just babble, nothing more then that.

[cicero191]

Then why is it, that you have posted a real counterexample? Nope, you don't have one. Your theory is based on years substantiated by years of study in economics, eh?

Well, these two professors in economics disagree:
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm

But what do they know, they just have PhD's... :rolleyes:

Well, economics be damned then! The fact that every major direct competitor to Walmart is nearly bankrupt (K-mart & Target namely) doesn't play a role in your "magical" caluclations that make retail competitive? The fact that Walmart has undercut and eventually put out of business every sole-proprietorship within miles of one of its stores? No, those don't matter, only an Index or a ratio can be used.

Of course you don't, there aren't any. Everything you posted is your biased "personal experience" you continually speak of. Just babble, nothing more then that.

Of course professors disagree. They're human. But 7 of 10 agree with me.

K-mart and Target are going bankrupt through faults of their own.

[JustinH]

Of course professors disagree. They're human. But 7 of 10 agree with me.

Are you trying to totally discredit yourself? At least give a source when you make some random ratio.

K-mart and Target are going bankrupt through faults of their own.

That is certainly part of it, but so is Walmart's anti-competitive practices.

[cicero191]

Are you trying to totally discredit yourself? At least give a source when you make some random ratio.

That is certainly part of it, but so is Walmart's anti-competitive practices.

Source: "Microeconomics," 6th edition, Michael Parkin, Ph.D., p. 14, Copyright 2003. Pearson Education, Inc.

Would you like that in APA format?

And we appear to disagree on just what the phrase "anti-competitive practices" means.

[JustinH]

Source: "Microeconomics," 6th edition, Michael Parkin, Ph.D., p. 14, Copyright 2003. Pearson Education, Inc.

Would you like that in APA format?

I'll take your word for it since mine is on back order. :D... in any case, my example disproved that theory, and I'm sure there are examples that prove it otherwise. In the case of Washington State, it had little effect, if any, in some other cases it may cause problems... I would say that IF minimum wage increases effect the unemployment rate, it would only do so if a number of conditions are met.

And we appear to disagree on just what the phrase "anti-competitive practices" means.

Fair enough

[cicero191]

I'll take your word for it since mine is on back order. :D... in any case, my example disproved that theory, and I'm sure there are examples that prove it otherwise. In the case of Washington State, it had little effect, if any, in some other cases it may cause problems... I would say that IF minimum wage increases effect the unemployment rate, it would only do so if a number of conditions are met.

Fair enough

There are two possible scenarios involved in minimum wage. One is that it is nonbinding and does not force companies to pay higher than they normally would. This doesn't effect anyone positively or negatively and is basically pointless. The second scenario is a binding floor, where the company is forced to pay more then they would normally. This is what leads to unemployment. It's possible that Washington installed a nonbinding minimum wage, and it's also possible that the minimum wage increase was overridden by other factors.

[JustinH]

There are two possible scenarios involved in minimum wage. One is that it is nonbinding and does not force companies to pay higher than they normally would. This doesn't effect anyone positively or negatively and is basically pointless. The second scenario is a binding floor, where the company is forced to pay more then they would normally. This is what leads to unemployment. It's possible that Washington installed a nonbinding minimum wage, and it's also possible that the minimum wage increase was overridden by other factors.

Nope Washington's is a forced minimum wage, not nonbinding. And it didn't lead to unemployment.

[cicero191]

Nope Washington's is a forced minimum wage, not nonbinding. And it didn't lead to unemployment.

In that case, I would say that other factors overrode the existence of the minimum wage.