Indeed...apparently companies actually have to pay them to stock their items...
Newt Gingrich = Wtf
- Thread starter stosh
- Start date
newt. newt NEWT NooooooooooOOOOOoooooOOOOooot
Wal Mart is famous for forcing companies to sell items at very little profit because they sell so much in volume. This is common knowledge.
That's not what he's saying. Companies don't cut their markup.....they PAY for "permits" to allowed to have their stuff sold at walmart.
exactly
What does that matter to the consumer so long as its cheaper?
So what? Would you do business at Walmart if you loss money or just broke even?
I bet every manufacturer that sells at WM makes a much larger profit then they would if if they sold their crap somewhere else...
It doesn't. But don't delude yourself into thinking that WalMart itself is running a low margin business. They're not. They're suppliers might be, but WalMart isn't.
And also don't assume all their products are cheaper. The same way MacDonald's makes their money off the drinks not the food, WalMart attracts the customers with low prices on high profile items like DVD players, then makes their money off the other stuff that people pick up while they're shopping.
All of that stuff DOES NOT MATTER to the consumer. Period. And the last part is simply standard practice for many retail outlets. As somebody pointed out in an LBS thread. Stores take it in the pants for the $2.99 ribeye so they can sell other items. Duh
Why do I care what money wal mart makes so long as I pay less?
So uh.......I'm clarifying for BS what mmike said
Obviously......which is why the pay the fee.
What is it exactly you're upset about?
Exactly. Companies make a killing at the many, many high volume locations. Why pity them? They sell tons and make tons. Boo hoo if they could make more.
That Jeter is not President...
I'm speechless. That was one of the most balanced and rational posts I've seen in a while.
I think the key is we have to make sure that WM follows legal and ethical business practices. If they take shortcuts as a company wide policy, then we have a problem...
Yeah, I agree. As the nations largest employer (other than the federal govt.) who continues to grow even still, they ought to insure their workers instead of pocketing so much cash. But it is non-skilled labor just the same. It isnt meant as a career option.
Like hell it isn't. All those people working at Wal-Mart prevents me from having to interact with them on a work level. Like Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing."
Fast food tends to serve the same useful purpose in areas with low amounts of illegal immigration...
All of our fast food workers can still somehow afford gold teeth and air jordans. Apparently its not such a bad business to be in after all.
I never said anything about raising the minimum wage.
It is meant as a starting "minimum" that you should soon outgrow if you: a) try; b) think; or c) are willing to sweat.
I've done all three and have little sympathy for those that constantly complain about not making enough money.
In fact, a good riding buddy constantly complains about not making crap and claims that someday he's gonna get another job and make real money. His lack of self-motivation is the only thing holding him back.
But...
The book is well written from a sociological perspective. The author essentially shows that its harder to crawl out of the hole than it seems.
You should read the book. It will allow you look at the "unwashed masses" with a more simpathetic eye... Or maybee even change your perspective.
You make it sound like "pocketing cash" is wrong.
Try to look at it from the CFO, CEO, President, or Boards perspective. Their job is essentially to maximize investor returns and share prices (i.e. profits). If providing insurance does not increase the bottom line, essentially they are not doing their job and could (potentially) be sued for damages by shareholders.
Now there is an ethical/social responsability argument and the fact that providing insurance would net them better, more productive employees, but that is a decision for the board of directors to ponder.
Ethics has to come into the picture at some point. Maximising profits is all fine and good, but greed, monopolization and exploitation are simply unacceptable. As profitable as they currently are, IMO, they owe it to US taxpayers to insure their workers. Not only does our money keep their store afloat, but out tax dollars pay THEIR WORKERS' health insurance. How can you not see something wrong in that?
Uh, the point is that you may not pay less. DuhAll of that stuff DOES NOT MATTER to the consumer. Period. And the last part is simply standard practice for many retail outlets. As somebody pointed out in an LBS thread. Stores take it in the pants for the $2.99 ribeye so they can sell other items. Duh
Why do I care what money wal mart makes so long as I pay less?
First of all, I would like to keep insurance seperate from monopolization and exploitation.
Health insurance is an extremely expensive item to provide. I imagine that if Wal-Mart were to provide all their employees with insurance benefits they would lose or significantly deminish their competetive edge (over Target, Best Buy, etc, etc.).
I see three ways of resolving this:
1) Leave things as is, those without insurance are stuck with sub-standard care and become a tax burden on the rest of us.
2) Require all employers (of a certain size) to provide their employees with health insurance. Right now, most larger companies do provide some full-time employees and management with benefits. This is probably the driving force behind Wal-Mart's increase in "part-time workers". I don't agree with this approach, but don't know what we can do about it (other than not shop there).
3) Implement some sort of gubmnt run health coverage plan. I think this should be a minimum/catastrophic insurance plan that people can upgrade from for better coverage, options and service.
As you know, this is an item of huge debate.
...such is the nature of capitalism. We dont owe wal mart immunity from competition.
Also, we foot the bill for their insurance either way with increased prices or with our tax dollars. Personally, Id like to see as little government involvment as possible, which means I want the onus to be on the private entity.
Typically, Im against unions, but in this case the company just wields too much power. The govt. could intervene on counts of "monopolization" and force Wally world to allow a workers union to form and demand simple benefits.
I remember this idea coming up sometime over the last several years. Some Dem brought it up during their campaign, either Dole or Kerry. Irregardlessly, Bush sharply disagreed with it because such a system would resemble universal healthcare. My personal beliefs disagree with that, with one of the issues being that healthcare is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy.
That is a good point. And I'm sure with WM's buying power they could get some horrific discounts on health care.
I feel that focusing on WM is misleading, when so many other companies use the same tactics. Just because they are the biggest and most successfull does not mean they should be penalized (or at least not the only ones penalized).
The idea of "universal health care" sounds good, but would never work. It would basically be govt run, which means it would cost four times what it should and would probably be difficult to use. Taxes would become astronomical.
My last job didn't have health coverage so I got a catastrophic insurance policy. It basically did nothing untill I'd spent $2,500 and it would cover the rest. Such a system could all but eliminate bancruptcy related to health care without becoming a rediculous tax burden. General health care costs would go down because hospitals would no longer have to write off unpaid care bills from people filing bankruptcy.
For those that need, or employers that wanted to offer, full coverage insurance could still be an option. The cost of this would also go down dramatically since it would (could) no longer cover catastrophic issues.
I see it as a winning option. If there's a hole in my theory feel free to shoot at it.
Why would that be the case? It isn't everywhere else in the first world.
Have you been to the DMV? I rest my case.
How about some data in graphic form?
Sucks to be a man...except we don't have to sit down on the toilet at gas station bathrooms. I'd say that's worth 5 years or so...
Apparently its not working for canada according to your data?How about some data in graphic form?
Sucks to be a man...except we don't have to sit down on the toilet at gas station bathrooms. I'd say that's worth 5 years or so...
Canada's just left off the second chart. You may notice there are 12 countries on the first, and only 8 on the second. The OECD dosen't have Canada's numbers for 2004, but they were noticeably better than both the US and the UK in 2000.
Here is some data:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/27/35529803.xls
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/42/35530071.xls
I'm not sure I get your argument Silver.
Not trying to be a smartass, but how do those charts imply that the US Government could implement an efficient universal health care system.
To me it shows that we spend more, and get less. Most likely because we are a bunch of obese slobs that develope diabetes and heart disease that require $$$ to treat.
Though I did just finish online traffic school.. my brain is a little fried
(two hours! WoooHooo!!!).
We spend more and get less because all the insurance companies and hospitals have to pay for marketing and administration costs. Not to mention answer to shareholders. And then there is executive compensation:
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIRRI3M.html
Plus the fact that all of the different insurance companies don't have the bargaining power that a single payer system does makes drug costs higher...
Now, I understand your concerns about the US government. Having said that, the one thing this country does well is invade other countries and devastate their armed forces. Who takes care of that?
Yep, it's a government program
