Not so. Walmart is one of the richest and yet it treats the lesser worker like dirt.
Printable View
Not so. Walmart is one of the richest and yet it treats the lesser worker like dirt.
I'm sorry that you think my posts are only based in theory. I tend to think that competitive advantage, comparative advantage, general economics, and creative destruction (Schumpeter) are all reality-based, and should guide decision-making.
If you want to create a special category for critical defense-based, government assisted companies/industries, then you at least have a defensible argument. In my opinion, having the government step in just because there may be some short-term (or even longer-term) disruption to employment sectors is a bad idea. In the end, you wind up with the government supporting industries that are non-competitive and don't add value.
Based on your previous comments I had the sense you were against any government intervention in the market (the lassez-faire view). Now it appears you acknowledge there are at least times when this may be necessary. It may be that we just differ in the degree in which we see intervention as necessary.
Also, aren't corporations made up of people (and owned by people)? Why is it that things that are good for corporations are believed to be bad for people? That's the vibe I get from many posters on this board.
Glad you asked. Yes, corps are made up of people, but the corporation itself, by it's nature, doesn't act fully human. When you get down to it, the prime directive of any major corporation (not one in which you own or control yourself) is to grow, i.e., to profit in dollars and cents. This is mutually reinforced by by stockholders, directors, and managers of the company, each which has a legal duty to follow the prime directive. If any one of the triumvate, (or individuals) resist, they can, are probably will be, replaced.
I believe most people tend to rationalize the things they do in life, and this holds true for the players in a corporation as well. If a tension arises between environmental or labor considerations, and the profitability of the corporation, the profit consideration is given greatest weight. Always. As a manager, your decisions are going to be strongly guided by the corporations interest, i.e., the prime directive--and as a highly compensated employee you have a lot of incentive to uphold this directive.
Scenario: you are unlikely to buy a house in an environmentally hazardous neigborhood (even if hazard may be small)--especially if you have children. That is the natural human reaction. But if you are a manager or director of a company which builds and sells houses, you are going to have a different point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big
Big, this is simply not true. People love working at Wal-Mart. They make much more than any other worker working in a grocery store.
Hey, Troll of a thousand names, don't you have any other threads or forums you can try to fuck up today? Do they treat you as nice on this forum as they do on the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatius J. Reilly
Isn't what I say true? Respond to what I said. It is a VERY valid criticism.
Please discuss without the use of profanity. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatius J. Reilly
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/bu...retail.html?hp
Matclone,Quote:
Originally Posted by matclone
So if an individual that works for a company resists the directive to help grow and profit a company, they may be fired.
Uh, sounds about right to me. What Neverland are you thinking from? Your fancy diatribe can be broke down to what I just said without all the filler. And mine makes your worldview look ridiculous.
So if an individual that works for a company resists the directive to help grow and profit a company, they may be fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatius J. Reilly
Even if the resistance is due to moral and ethical principles.