This Walmart Commercial made me sick!

[Spexvet]

I can hear the egalitarians' cries: “I want Wal-Mart workers to be paid a good wage but I want it to come out of Wal-Mart’s profits, not mine!”

And there's the crux of the matter. Should the Waltons continue to make skads of money, and live lavishly, while we middle class Americans live in medicrity and the third world workers live in squallor. Or do they have a human reponsibility to share the wealth, which they certainly can afford to do, and give the rest of us a little bit of a break. Looking back at pre-Russian and French Revolutions, it might be beneficial to them to reduce the disparity between very rich and very poor. After all, how much money does one need? I'll go on record right now - The highest annual income I will ever accept is $3million. Anything over that I will use to reduce the cost of my product or service, pay my employees higher salaries, or improve my product or service without increasing the price to the consumer. I swear.

[For-Life]

Can you provide a specific example of what farmers, corporations, and governments to which you are referring? “Independent farmers” in most third world nations are barely, if at all, removed from the earliest forms of agrarian societies. If they’re not living hand-to-mouth, they’re producing just enough to trade with other locals. Not the kind of volume needed to be a target for profitable corporate farming.

Exactly, but it used to be more independent, but as the things that I mention have taken that away. This problem is not recent as it is very old.

So your opinion is that the aforementioned “better solution” to resolving the problem of poverty in a third world nation is that “the nation instead should try to develop its own resources for itself and export them and only import the bare minimum.” That’s great if a nation has all the resources it needs to be self-sufficient, but the world is such that very few like that exist. Most nations need to trade with other nations to get the things they need, and the most common “resource” that many third world nations have to trade is manpower. Given that wealth is built on trade, you can only trade what you have.

A lot of these nations do have the resources needed, or they did until the government and corporations pounced them out.

I think many things and among them is this: History shows that poverty in third world countries does not exist because of Wal-Mart, Nike, or “unfettered capitalism”, so it seems unreasonable to me they should take the brunt of the blame for it.

Maybe not capitalism, but it was first taken by imperialism and now through capitalism

God bless I have no doubt that Wal-Mart is doing what they can to help Wal-Mart.

Yes, but that is not the poin of the thread. The whole point was not to argue about poverty or third world nations. It was that Walmart is saying that when you buy from them you are helping out American farmers and American clothing manufacturers when they are the leaders of out-sourced product.

I can hear the egalitarians' cries: “I want Wal-Mart workers to be paid a good wage but I want it to come out of Wal-Mart’s profits, not mine!”

It is about supply and demand. You are right, but only people like you can change it. I love it when opticians cry about Walmart Vision Centre to me and then go to Walmart after work to buy some toothpaste. But hey, if you want to buy from a company who not only tries to compete with you but also insult your intelligence in a commericial like the one they should, so be it.

[Shutterbug]

I'm enjoying this thread! It seems that Wal-Mart is disapearing into the fog as the real issues are explored and analyzed, but that may indicate that it is not as major a player in the issue as we think. The problem is like a huge yet ugly diamond with many facets.

I hope to see many more profound additions to this line of thinking before the thread ends!

:)

shutterbug

[harry a saake]

It has been my opinion for a long time that this whole situation is about control. If the majority of the people living in a nation are poor, they have no clout. This is the situation in most, if not all of these third world countries.
.....The worst fear of politicians is people who are rich and have clout, because they have the means to make things happen, and maybe not the way politicians want them.
.....So how do you get around this, you send jobs and money overseas and you watch the people in your nation get poorer and poorer. Now these people become easily controllable, as they have no choice to do what the powers that be tell them what to do. I may be wrong but this is what i see happening. The only thing that is ever going to change this is when good people run for office, and that almost never happens, as good people do noit want there name smeared in political games. I know, i once ran for two different offices in Georgia, and that was small scale.

[jediron1]

Spexvet said:
Looking back at pre-Russian and French Revolutions, it might be beneficial to them to reduce the disparity between very rich and very poor.

Sure there was the same disparity between the rich and poor in Russia and France but as soon as the communist got in power in Russia the same old scenario played out with a small minority running the joint while holding the power and purse strings!

[jediron1]

So Harry you summed up what I was saying in posts 2 and 7. What you said is nothing more than Democratic policies fostered by the power elite of the democratic party to control as many people as possible to keep themselfs in power.

[Jubilee]

In my hometown in rural Indiana, Walmart did help save the economy. The town is primarily in two professions, farming and manufacturing. Well independent farmers aren't exactly in a good position, and when the main manufacturing plant was having massive layoffs, and other closed... Walmart opened an optical lab and photo processing plant there. The couple of hundred jobs that created did help a small town. Heck the local Walmart there doesn't even have an optical in it, yet they provide free exams and glasses for local school kids.

I am not saying that Walmart is the ideal model for ethical American Business, but I don't blame them for everything either.

They may outsource many of their own branded merchandise, but many of our domestic brands are still manufactured overseas as well. Look at cars, most of our big three automakers and their subsiderary plants are either cutting staff or closing here in Indiana. Yet, Suburu and Toyota manufacturing plants are thriving and hiring. These are Japaneese brands, but it is helping American business. Meanwhile do you want to spend $7/bottle for Ketchup made locally in the unionized plant, or $10grand on that computer with the same parts as this one for $2500 knowing the only difference was the country it was made in.

I am sorry, I wish I could afford to spend the extra money, but I can't. And as far as that third world worker, I bet they are happy to have a job making some money than none at all. Just because one business isn't operating over there doesn't mean that another one would automatically be there to take its place that is better.

On a side note, did anyone else see the South Park episode on Walmart this season... It was a hillarious satire on this whole subject.

Cassandra

[jediron1]

Jubilee said:I am sorry, I wish I could afford to spend the extra money, but I can't. And as far as that third world worker, I bet they are happy to have a job making some money than none at all. Just because one business isn't operating over there doesn't mean that another one would automatically be there to take its place that is better.

Maybe when we become a third world country you will be happy to have that same job!

[1968]

And there's the crux of the matter. Should the Waltons continue to make skads of money, and live lavishly, while we middle class Americans live in medicrity and the third world workers live in squallor. Or do they have a human reponsibility to share the wealth, which they certainly can afford to do, and give the rest of us a little bit of a break. Looking back at pre-Russian and French Revolutions, it might be beneficial to them to reduce the disparity between very rich and very poor. After all, how much money does one need? I'll go on record right now - The highest annual income I will ever accept is $3million. Anything over that I will use to reduce the cost of my product or service, pay my employees higher salaries, or improve my product or service with increasing the price to the consumer. I swear.

I am not a Marxist so if you are asking me, the short answers are: 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) It depends.

[1968]

Exactly, but it used to be more independent, but as the things that I mention have taken that away. This problem is not recent as it is very old.

So, corporate farms are in the business of acquiring the “businesses” of third world farmers who barely produce enough rice, grain, produce, etc. to trade with other locals? That makes no sense.

A lot of these nations do have the resources needed, or they did until the government and corporations pounced them out.

Which third world nations have the natural resources they need to be economically self-sufficient so that they can exist without trade? Which ones were that way, but are no longer that way?

Maybe not capitalism, but it was first taken by imperialism and now through capitalism

Government corruption in third world countries, which stymies capitalism, should certainly take the brunt of the blame for the existence of poverty in those countries.

Yes, but that is not the poin of the thread. The whole point was not to argue about poverty or third world nations. It was that Walmart is saying that when you buy from them you are helping out American farmers and American clothing manufacturers when they are the leaders of out-sourced product.

The point of that particular comment was indeed the whole point of the thread: that Wal-Mart does primarily what it can to help Wal-Mart. On that point, none of us disagree.

It is about supply and demand. You are right, but only people like you can change it. I love it when opticians cry about Walmart Vision Centre to me and then go to Walmart after work to buy some toothpaste. But hey, if you want to buy from a company who not only tries to compete with you but also insult your intelligence in a commericial like the one they should, so be it.

Firstly, I don’t cry about Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart Vision Centre. Secondly, it’s only your intelligence that has been insulted by Wal-Mart advertising if you’re naïve enough to think that type of ad is unique to them or big business. Local Mom & Pop stores use essentially the same claims in their advertising but the targets on their backs just aren’t as big.

[jediron1]

1968 first quoted For-life:

Originally Posted by For-Life
</FONT></FONT>It is about supply and demand. You are right, but only people like you can change it. I love it when opticians cry about Walmart Vision Centre to me and then go to Walmart after work to buy some toothpaste. But hey, if you want to buy from a company who not only tries to compete with you but also insult your intelligence in a commericial like the one they should, so be it.

Then goes on to say:

Firstly, I don’t cry about Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart Vision Centre. Secondly, it’s only your intelligence that has been insulted by Wal-Mart advertising if you’re naïve enough to think that type of ad is unique to them or big business. Local Mom & Pop stores use essentially the same claims in their advertising but the targets on their backs just aren’t as big.

First, I don't think For-Life had you in mind when he said: "I love it when opticians cry about Walmart Vision Centre to me", I believe he is talking in general! Secondly, Again I don't think he is naive as you say, he is only pointing out the fact that Wal uses that type of ad more blatantly then most.Thirdly, The Mom and Pops use the same advertising, please give us some examples. This should be good!

[Spexvet]

In my hometown in rural Indiana, Walmart did help save the economy. The town is primarily in two professions, farming and manufacturing. Well independent farmers aren't exactly in a good position, and when the main manufacturing plant was having massive layoffs, and other closed... Walmart opened an optical lab and photo processing plant there.
Cassandra

It could be that Walmart's practices are what lead to "massive layoffs" in the first place. BTW, are the Walmart jobs paying similar salaries to the manufacturing jobs?

[Spexvet]

Spexvet said:
Looking back at pre-Russian and French Revolutions, it might be beneficial to them to reduce the disparity between very rich and very poor.

Sure there was the same disparity between the rich and poor in Russia and France but as soon as the communist got in power in Russia the same old scenario played out with a small minority running the joint while holding the power and purse strings!

Ahhh, but the people who had wealth pre-revolution were NOT the people who had wealth post-revolution, in many cases. If the "haves" want to continue to "have", they should grab less, and share a little more. Else the "have nots" may take action (and their wealth).

[jediron1]

Spexvet said:
Ahhh, but the people who had wealth pre-revolution were NOT the people who had wealth post-revolution, in many cases. If the "haves" want to continue to "have", they should grab less, and share a little more. Else the "have nots" may take action (and their wealth).

That is the point, the disparity that they wanted to get rid of still raised it's ugly head but with just different people. I repeat:


"there was the same disparity between the rich and poor in Russia and France but as soon as the communist got in power in Russia the same old scenario played out with a small minority running the joint while holding the power and purse strings!


The problem with your answer about grabbing less, the people had no choice in the matter, once Stalin took over that was it. And your answer "Else the have nots may take action" HOW? They had no power, wealth or guns Stalin made sure of that!

[Spexvet]

Spexvet said:
Ahhh, but the people who had wealth pre-revolution were NOT the people who had wealth post-revolution, in many cases. If the "haves" want to continue to "have", they should grab less, and share a little more. Else the "have nots" may take action (and their wealth).

That is the point, the disparity that they wanted to get rid of still raised it's ugly head but with just different people. I repeat:


"there was the same disparity between the rich and poor in Russia and France but as soon as the communist got in power in Russia the same old scenario played out with a small minority running the joint while holding the power and purse strings!


The problem with your answer about grabbing less, the people had no choice in the matter, once Stalin took over that was it. And your answer "Else the have nots may take action" HOW? They had no power, wealth or guns Stalin made sure of that!

You may note that when I refer to historical facts, I use the past tense, as in "had wealth" and "were not" . I then tied those facts to the current situation, and used the present tense, as in "want to continue" and "may take action". Now does it make more sense? You see, the "have nots" in the US NOW, do have guns, and numbers - so if you're rich, beware!

[jediron1]

Spexvet in post #26 you did not make that clear. You said "pre Russia revolution" not past. But in your own sarcastic way you did make you point. As far fetched as it was, it was made! :hammer:

[Spexvet]

I meant no sarcasm. I'm glad that I was more clear the second time.

Spexvet

[ziggy]

I'm glad to see you guy keping up the thread. I just have a few questions. Some of you seem to think there should that there should be a limit on how much a person or company should make. What is that #? How did you arrive at the formula used? What percentage of your personal income have you sent to a 501c-3? Hearing some of you ponder wealth redistrabution is not only scarry but also child-like. "he has a bigger piece than meeeeeeeee!!"

Grow up, life is not fair or even. Jed did this make to vitriolic, if not I'll try harder next time.

[Spexvet]

I'm glad to see you guy keping up the thread. I just have a few questions. Some of you seem to think there should that there should be a limit on how much a person or company should make. What is that #? How did you arrive at the formula used? What percentage of your personal income have you sent to a 501c-3? Hearing some of you ponder wealth redistrabution is not only scarry but also child-like. "he has a bigger piece than meeeeeeeee!!"

Grow up, life is not fair or even. Jed did this make to vitriolic, if not I'll try harder next time.

Just ask yourself "how much is enough?" and then "what will I do with the excess when I have enough and others live in squallor?"

[ziggy]

Spex, i'm so far from "enough" I couldnt even start to answer your question. Where's your mark? You quoted 3 mil before. That seems high to meeeee!!:D

[Spexvet]

Spex, i'm so far from "enough" I couldnt even start to answer your question. Where's your mark? You quoted 3 mil before. That seems high to meeeee!!:D

I think I can make ends meet on $3 million/year. But I'm probably just as far away as you are.:cheers:

[jediron1]

ziggy said:Jed did this make to vitriolic, if not I'll try harder next time.


No, but your sarcasm is came through LOUD and clear!:hammer:

[1968]

Just ask yourself "how much is enough?" and then "what will I do with the excess when I have enough and others live in squallor?"

Well, then, is the full question “How much money is enough to not live in squalor?”, “How much money is enough to not live in mediocrity?”, “How much money is enough to live comfortably?”, “How much money is enough to live super comfortably?”, or something else? Your prior questions (i.e. “How much money does one need?” and “How much money is enough?”) presuppose a purpose that you haven’t yet stated.

Then how do these questions fit into the equation for the arbitrary maximum income limit: Why should anyone get to live super comfortably while others live only comfortably? Why should anyone get to live comfortably while other live in mediocrity? Why should anyone get to live in mediocrity while others live in squalor? ("From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" is pure Marxism.)

Spexvet, you do realize that most of the people who post to Optiboard are “filthy rich” when compared with people in third world countries. To them, we might as well be making the same amount as Sam Walton. I can imagine that if your question (i.e. “How much money does one need?”) were asked in the third world, we might get answers like this: “All I need is $10,000 per year to make ends meet. If I had that amount I can honestly say I would donate the rest.” Why should you wait until you are making $3,000,000 per year before you lend them a hand?

[Shutterbug]

Spexvet, you do realize that most of the people who post to Optiboard are “filthy rich” when compared with people in third world countries. To them, we might as well be making the same amount as Sam Walton. I can imagine that if your question (i.e. “How much money does one need?”) were asked in the third world, we might get answers like this: “All I need is $10,000 per year to make ends meet. If I had that amount I can honestly say I would donate the rest.”

Good point, except the $10,000 figure is way beyond the wildest dreams of most of these people. Annual income is under $500 in many 3rd world countries and just doubling that would make a huge difference to them!

We can't even begin to imagine the life that they live. But there is an interesting point here. They do make it through each day on bare sustenance. So when we ask "how much is enough?" the bigger question is "how much is really needed to support a quality existance (roof, food, clothes, medicine)? Probably much less than we care to consider as income here. We would have to do without our gadgets! (oh nooooo :) )

So sharing the wealth is an interesting idea (that will never happen) and the point made above is valid - if things get too bad, the poor will revolt and just take what you have. There is a thin line on this "tight rope".

[ziggy]

Its all relitive. Thats the problem with fooling around with the federal min wage. Every time the min wage goes up, so does the price of every thing from bread to housing! It is a no win.