NationStates Jolt Archive

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/germanys_larges.html


IG Metall, Germany's largest trade union, continues to stand firmly behind its recent depiction of American businesspeople as blood sucking parasites on the cover of the organization's magazine, 'metall.' A speaker for IG Metall, Georgios Arwanitidis, defended the magazine cover as "a good caricature" after it was sharply criticized by Guido Westerwelle, the Chairman of Germany's Free-Democratic party.

IG Metall: "A Good Caricature"

The Cover Reads: "US-Firms in Germany: The (Blood-) Suckers"

When this "metall" edition first appeared, we at Davids Medienkritik immediately brought you full coverage of both the cover and the inside story (PDF format ):


*whistles innocently*

Wow... I think he is correct.

Somebody should point out to them that only the female mosquitos bite. Seeing how Germany has more women heading companies than we do.....

*crawls into his hole again*

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/germanys_larges.html



*whistles innocently*
IG Metall are correct. Many US investors coming here and buying firms ARE blood suckers.

Bad taste, but corporate raiders are becoming more and more of a problem. Of those an overwhelming majority comes from the US.

*Cough* Malcolm Glazer *cough*

No it does not look like Germany in the 1930's.
They are just saying it how it is, I wouldnt trust an American major company, they lack morals.

Most companies that operate internationally don't have any morals. In fact, they are the root of all evil.
I thought that the U.S. looked like 1930's Germany after 11 September, when every moron flew a flag to show how 'patriotic' they were. Then they left them sitting outside in the snow and rain, and wadded them into a ball when they became tattered from abuse.

I don't see any problem with criticising US corporations for being out to destroy local businesses. If Wal-Mart threatens to enter my country I will do all that I can, fight tooth and nail to keep them out.

I don't see any problem with criticising US corporations for being out to destroy local businesses. If Wal-Mart threatens to enter my country I will do all that I can, fight tooth and nail to keep them out.


You will fight tooth and nail against lower prices and wider selection?

Why?

Metall is right. I live in America and I agree. Our businesses are cold uncaring blood sucking parasites. Take Wal-Mart for example. Hungry for money, treats its employees horribly, Wal-Mart wants to only charge $10 for a CD. Do they even know how much that will effect the artist's profits? Out of a $14 CD the artist only gets about $2-3. Our big businesses suck.

You will fight tooth and nail against lower prices and wider selection?

Why?

You do know that corporations like Wal-Mart displace hundreds, if not thousands of people when they build a supermarket in any given town. Don't you?

Metall is right. I live in America and I agree. Our businesses are cold uncaring blood sucking parasites. Take Wal-Mart for example. Hungry for money, treats its employees horribly, Wal-Mart wants to only charge $10 for a CD. Do they even know how much that will effect the artist's profits? Out of a $14 CD the artist only gets about $2-3. Our big businesses suck.

I knw. How horrible of wall mart to charge $10 when the record store is charging $19. Even though the "artist" still gets the same $2-3, which he barely sees anyway because the record companies have a weird way of accounting for sales and royalties.

But lets not forget that wall mart is evil.

I knw. How horrible of wall mart to charge $10 when the record store is charging $19. Even though the "artist" still gets the same $2-3, which he barely sees anyway because the record companies have a weird way of accounting for sales and royalties.

But lets not forget that wall mart is evil.

What's your problem, man? Do you not give a damn about people's lives being destroyed just for somewhat cheaper products?

You do know that corporations like Wal-Mart displace hundreds, if not thousands of people when they build a supermarket in any given town. Don't you?

You do know that Wall mart is the single largest employer in the United Stated dont you? And it has successfully brought high quality goods at much reduced prices for millions of people.

And I did a case study on wall mart in B- school. Granted, the study was on the efficiencies brought on by their revamping of distribution networks, but unless you have at least a functional understanding of basic economics, why do you disparage institutions that provide

1) many jobs
2) high quality goods
3) low prices

did you think Wall mart puts a gun to peoples heads and makes them shop there? they shop there because they offer better goods at loweer prices. Who do you think benefits from that?

What's your problem, man? Do you not give a damn about people's lives being destroyed just for somewhat cheaper products?

What's your problem, woman? Do you not give a damn about people's lives being made better by getting the same or better quality goods at lower prices?

You will fight tooth and nail against lower prices and wider selection?

Why?
Yes, because I don't want Ireland to become just another random indistinctive country.

Also, I work for a small business.

Do you not give a damn about people's lives being made better by getting the same or better quality goods at lower prices?

When the goods are made by sweat shop labourers earning 14 cents an hour, are sold by a company that actively opposes union activity, provides such low job satisfaction that 50% of its employees leave within a year, and drives local businesses out of operation wherever they set up leading to a destruction of local cultural colour and heritage, yes I give a damn.

The selling of cheap goods is far from the only standard by which a company should be judged.

When the goods are made by sweat shop labourers earning 14 cents an hour, are sold by a company that actively opposes union activity, provides such low job satisfaction that 50% of its employees leave within a year, and drives local businesses out of operation wherever they set up leading to a destruction of local cultural colour and heritage, yes I give a damn.

The selling of cheap goods is far from the only standard by which a company should be judged.
You said it BWO.

More people are employed by a multitude of small businesses than by a single Wal-Mart. The small businesses also pay better, give better service to the customer and make the area more interesting.

You do know that Wall mart is the single largest employer in the United Stated dont you? And it has successfully brought high quality goods at much reduced prices for millions of people.

And I did a case study on wall mart in B- school. Granted, the study was on the efficiencies brought on by their revamping of distribution networks, but unless you have at least a functional understanding of basic economics, why do you disparage institutions that provide

1) many jobs
2) high quality goods
3) low prices

did you think Wall mart puts a gun to peoples heads and makes them shop there? they shop there because they offer better goods at loweer prices. Who do you think benefits from that?


Do you work for Walmart? :rolleyes:

Seriously, WalMart drives all the little mom and pop stores out of town, including all the good record stores. WalMart can't order in good CDs and only carries mainstream garbage, hence (reason #64 why) WalMart should die.

When WalMart or similar stores show up alot of people lose their jobs, and working for no money at WalMart is poor compensation for making a living wage at a store that was in town before WalMart came.

You said it BWO.

Killdozer said it better:

Downtown next to the Croker store is where my hardware store once stood.
It’s all gone now, along with the rest of downtown, all the windows are boarded over with wood.

We survived the arrival of the K-Mart and the Provider that came before,
But not even they had the strength to withstand the attack of that fucking Walmart store.

Sam Walton promised prosperity and everyday low prices, but when he brought his store to town,
He only delivered unemployment as one by one all the other stores shut down.

Soon I was forced to swallow my pride and to take the only job I could score,
For twenty-eight hours a week at minimum wage as the greeter out at the Walmart store.

Sam Walton has single-handedly sounded the death-knell for small towns across America,
I’ve learned my lesson and I’m here to tell you, you can’t trust a man from Arkansas.

When the goods are made by sweat shop labourers earning 14 cents an hour, are sold by a company that actively opposes union activity, provides such low job satisfaction that 50% of its employees leave within a year, and drives local businesses out of operation wherever they set up leading to a destruction of local cultural colour and heritage, yes I give a damn.

The selling of cheap goods is far from the only standard by which a company should be judged.


1) I cant say anything about Wall marts employee retention rate, because I dont know much about it. I would venture a guess that Wall mart employs a great deal of people with little to no marketable skills, and as soon as they aquire some skills9even if that skill is only 1 yr of continuous employment) they move on to bigger and better things.

2) as far as "sweatshops" go, you havent the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Cause sweatshops only pay 2 - 3 times the local going rate for labour? What do you think these people would be doing if they werent being paid $1 a day? I will tell you, because I grew up(summers) with it. They would be doing nothing or working for a 1/3 or that. Are you so simple that you dont understand that it costs differant amount to live in differant countries?

When sweatshops or call centers open do you think the local labour force hates them? No, the only people who hate them are the local businesspeople, because they drive up wages.

Yes, they work for wages that a person who has access to the internet would laugh at. They also have expenses that are so low you would hit yourself.

3) As far as driving local business out of work, how do you think this takes place? Do you think WallMart hires goons to beat up the local business? Or do you think that they offer better goods at lower prices? Last I checked, offering better and more goods at lower prices was a public service...Something to be appreciated

Yes, because I don't want Ireland to become just another random indistinctive country.

Also, I work for a small business.

You'd rather it be so distinctive...with potatoes, whiskey, and petty fighting between the same religion? That's a great distinction

Eh, it doesn't matter. Wal-mart will go out of business in 15-20 years.

Do you work for Walmart? :rolleyes:

never worked retail in my life..Unless you count 6 months as a cold caller and a few months as a broker. Thats as dirty as a person can get I suppose without actually making money from it.



Seriously, WalMart drives all the little mom and pop stores out of town, including all the good record stores. WalMart can't order in good CDs and only carries mainstream garbage, hence (reason #64 why) WalMart should die.

When WalMart or similar stores show up alot of people lose their jobs, and working for no money at WalMart is poor compensation for making a living wage at a store that was in town before WalMart came.

This is so silly, I have to be a fool to even consider arguing basic utility on a board like nationstates.

Last I checked, offering better and more goods at lower prices was a public service...Something to be appreciated
You're not addressing BWO's points, or mine. You're just repeating what you already said.

Killdozer said it better:

Downtown next to the Croker store is where my hardware store once stood.
It’s all gone now, along with the rest of downtown, all the windows are boarded over with wood.

We survived the arrival of the K-Mart and the Provider that came before,
But not even they had the strength to withstand the attack of that fucking Walmart store.

Sam Walton promised prosperity and everyday low prices, but when he brought his store to town,
He only delivered unemployment as one by one all the other stores shut down.

Soon I was forced to swallow my pride and to take the only job I could score,
For twenty-eight hours a week at minimum wage as the greeter out at the Walmart store.

Sam Walton has single-handedly sounded the death-knell for small towns across America,
I’ve learned my lesson and I’m here to tell you, you can’t trust a man from Arkansas.


Maybe they should have lowered their prices to compete, but instead they stubbornly refuse and expect people to buy inferior products at a higher price. I buy the best quality at the best price, they should try to compete and give out better products. That isn't Wal*mart's fault, that's the small companies fault.

You'd rather it be so distinctive...with potatoes, whiskey, and petty fighting between the same religion? That's a great distinction
Shutup, there's more to Ireland than that. What makes you think that I want petty fighting between the same religion? More to the point, what makes you think that Wal-Mart could get rid of that?

Maybe they should have lowered their prices to compete, but instead they stubbornly refuse and expect people to buy inferior products at a higher price.
I agree with this in theory, but in reality most small businesses cannot afford to lower down to Wal-Mart prices.

You said it BWO.

More people are employed by a multitude of small businesses than by a single Wal-Mart. The small businesses also pay better, give better service to the customer and make the area more interesting.

Then why do they go out of business? If the small business here gave better services and or better pay better I'd work there and buy from there. The fact of the matter is small businesses give out crappy products at crappy prices.

The fact of the matter is small businesses give out crappy products at crappy prices.
"Crappy" prices, maybe, but crappy products? They're usually the same products that Wal-Mart sell, aren't they?

Your hatred of small business makes me think that you must work for Wal-Mart.

You'd rather it be so distinctive...with potatoes, whiskey, and petty fighting between the same religion? That's a great distinction

Whereas the influx of businesses like Walmart instantly does away with spuds, whiskey and sectarianism?



EDIT: and ad hominem slurs?

You're not addressing BWO's points, or mine. You're just repeating what you already said.

Because you are not making any point other than the local business is.. local.

They lose out because they cannot offer the same quality/range of products as wall mart can. The customer gets a better deal by spending his money at wall mart as oppossed to the small mom and pop.

this sucks for the mom and pop.

This is good for the customer.

This is also good for Wall mart.

The mom and pop will either have to adapt(as many have by becoming e retailers) or suffer.

Where do you think all the online business at E Bay came? do you think all of them were just kids? how many of them were regular mom and pop stores that caught the trend and moved there?

Will people suffer? Of course.. Transitions are always difficult. At one point 70+ percent of the Us population were farmers, less than 2% now. At one point 40 percent were in maufacturing, I think 17+% now.

Times change. Change with them

Or bitch on internet chat boards and think that affects things.

"Crappy" prices, maybe, but crappy products? They're usually the same products that Wal-Mart sell, aren't they?

Your hatred of small business makes me think that you must work for Wal-Mart.

Hatred of small business? what a silly idea.

While Wall Mart is the single largest employer in the US, The vast majority of jobs are held with small businesses.

My father(aside from being a doctor) is a small business owner.

I am now trying to be a small business owner.

The truth of the matter is that Wall Mart is able to sell equal or better quality goods at lower prices. this is the ONLY reason for their success.

To argue that this is bad means that you are willing to argue that customers should be willing to pay higher prices for the same goods. Do you really want to make that argument?

2) as far as "sweatshops" go, you havent the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Cause sweatshops only pay 2 - 3 times the local going rate for labour? What do you think these people would be doing if they werent being paid $1 a day? I will tell you, because I grew up(summers) with it. They would be doing nothing or working for a 1/3 or that. Are you so simple that you dont understand that it costs differant amount to live in differant countries?

Bangladesh has set up Export Processing Zones specifically to attract foreign employers, which have created a stranglehold whereby the choice is either to work for wages as low as 9 cents an hour in a non-unionized workplace and thus fall short of the government mandated minimum monthly salary of roughly $20. The choice is not between working for worse wages in locally owned and operated factories, as these have largely been marginalised by international ownership. The choice is instead work for paltry wages or not at all.

To argue that this is bad means that you are willing to argue that customers should be willing to pay higher prices for the same goods. Do you really want to make that argument?

Yes. Why? because when one takes part in a transaction the exchange of materials is not the only factor which should be looked at. The ethical dimension also enters into the equation.

Bangladesh has set up Export Processing Zones specifically to attract foreign employers, which have created a stranglehold whereby the choice is either to work for wages as low as 9 cents an hour in a non-unionized workplace and thus fall short of the government mandated minimum monthly salary of roughly $20. The choice is not between working for worse wages in locally owned and operated factories, as these have largely been marginalised by international ownership. The choice is instead work for paltry wages or not at all.

WOW!! what a fervent reader of local news you must be.

I have just moved(dec 13 2004) to New Delhi India to set up my business here.

1) if you knew anything about real world conditions in Bangladesh you would never open your mouth again about exploitive practices about anything that happened anywhere outside of sudan. India of all places turns away refugees from these places. India is booming now though. I cant get workers for anything approaching what used to be a normal price.. Because of all these damn MNC that come here and jack up prices.

Still, my 24/7 houseboy/cook gets paid $55 a month and is absolutely loves his job. My 24/6(I give him sundays off because I am a nice guy) driver gets paid $80 a month. Bangladesh people would kill for this money. Of course, these prices are prices in the nations capitol. Its cheaper in the villages. Edit: and much much cheaper in bangladesh



Oh, btw, my driver appartly has enough cash to get drunk every day and still send money to his wife and kids who dont have to work. How many people in the US do you know where the husband and wife dont have to work?

These are going rates after the ridiculous boom in wages. Just because you are too provincial to understand, doesnt make the world revolve around your limitted view.

It would be better if people who just didnt know, kept quite and let these problems get fixed by people who do know. It is because of people like you that India suffered for so long till we threw off the yoke of socialism in 1990. 50 years of stagnation( the hindu growth rate it was called), and in only 15 of capitalism, look at us now.

if you knew anything about real world conditions in Bangladesh you would never open your mouth again about exploitive practices about anything that happened anywhere outside of sudan.

The particular practices in Sudan justify other practices elsewhere how exactly?

The particular practices in Sudan justify other practices elsewhere how exactly?

they dont.

But they are so grotesque(sp) that even people who have no clue should be able to express their opinions with some level of validity. Unlike your posts concerning sweatshops and Bangladesh.

2) as far as "sweatshops" go, you havent the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Cause sweatshops only pay 2 - 3 times the local going rate for labour? What do you think these people would be doing if they werent being paid $1 a day? I will tell you, because I grew up(summers) with it. They would be doing nothing or working for a 1/3 or that. Are you so simple that you dont understand that it costs differant amount to live in differant countries?

Really? That's funny...I spent time in Mexico, and the people there fucking hate the American companies that set up sweatshops. With a passion. Oh, and regardless of lower living costs in the nations where sweatshops exist, the fact is that one hour's work still buys less in Mexico for a sweatshop laborer than it does for a minimum-wage laborer in America. Simple fact. You cannot survive with a decent living in a sweatshop.

Yes. Why? because when one takes part in a transaction the exchange of materials is not the only factor which should be looked at. The ethical dimension also enters into the equation.

Okay,

So, ethically, why is the mom and pop charging the customer more than others are for the same product?

Really? That's funny...I spent time in Mexico, and the people there fucking hate the American companies that set up sweatshops. With a passion. Oh, and regardless of lower living costs in the nations where sweatshops exist, the fact is that one hour's work still buys less in Mexico for a sweatshop laborer than it does for a minimum-wage laborer in America. Simple fact. You cannot survive with a decent living in a sweatshop.

So then dont work there.

And in India, we love American an European so called "sweatshops".

Well, I dont so much as an employer, but the employees sure seem to.

Edit: and what does spent time there mean? spring break? talking to the tourist business?

Okay,

So, ethically, why is the mom and pop charging the customer more than others are for the same product?


Speaking generally because they have higher overheads. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they are happy paying for such overheads.

Speaking generally because they have higher overheads. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they are happy paying for such overheads.

Actually, mom and pops have lower overheads, but higher product prices, but lets leave that aside.

The customers are deciding. Thats why Wall Marts and stores like them win. Why you have a problem with it I dont understand. You just said let the customer decide. They are.

The mom and pops generally lose out. Why/ Because customers vote with their wallets.

Honestly, I dont even understand why you and me have a disagreement on this?

I understand you being misinformed/ignorant of the situation in bangladesh/India relative to developed countries, just like I do not know personally the situation in Mexico(as some other poster brought up). But when you state that let the customer decide, I fail to see the disagreement between us.

By all means, let the customer decide. While we are at it, let the worker decide also.

The customers are deciding. Thats why Wall Marts and stores like them win. Why you have a problem with it I dont understand. You just said let the customer decide. They are.

The mom and pops generally lose out. Why/ Because customers vote with their wallets.

Honestly, I dont even understand why you and me have a disagreement on this?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8872093&postcount=18

I gave a list of reasons why I give a damn there. These are some of the ethical factors that sway where my money goes. However, once the massive retailers move into an area and drive others out of business the choice is effectively taken away from me.

EDIT: because this keyboard keeps skipping letters and such like.

This is so silly, I have to be a fool to even consider arguing basic utility on a board like nationstates.

No, please do. Calculate for me right now, how Wal-Mart is going to provide more utility to more people than many thousands of small businesses, including the personal relationships built in the community. I can follow you, I am an Economics Student, majoring in economic growth and development, as well as in International Business, and basic utility is not that complicated really.

And a small business is never going to be able to provide the same low prices as a Wal-Mart is, because of Economies of Scale. That's not because they are too greedy to compete.

And has anyone heard of these US-Investors buying whole streets of nice apartment buildings in Paris, and forcing the people there to get the f*** out or pay ridiculous prices for the right to stay. It's causing quite a stir, I believe.
As for Glazer, the ManU fans should just stay out of the stadium for a few months. It's not gonna bancrupt him, but it's gonna send a clear message with empty stadiums and all.

I understand you being misinformed/ignorant of the situation in bangladesh/India relative to developed countries
How magnanimous of you. Let me put it this way: We're meant to take your comments on the issue as gospel because you live in a country neighbouring Bangladesh? Marvellous, do let me know when you need any info on France. I'm not that far away...

Bangladesh has set up Export Processing Zones specifically to attract foreign employers, which have created a stranglehold whereby the choice is either to work for wages as low as 9 cents an hour in a non-unionized workplace and thus fall short of the government mandated minimum monthly salary of roughly $20. The choice is not between working for worse wages in locally owned and operated factories, as these have largely been marginalised by international ownership. The choice is instead work for paltry wages or not at all.


I just looked at this post and I realized how funny it is. In the Capitol of Ahdra Pradesh, my uncle has a condom factory(condoms he basically sells to the UN and USA ) he pays his workers 3 times the going rate(for some types of work) because he doesnt want to lose contracts because his work is messed up. His rate is between $2-3 a person(he is decent enough to pay the same rate whether its a man or woman) per day. If he wasnt concerned about meeting certain delivery standards(as in amounts per time period), he would be paying less than a $1 a day.

even at $1 he would have a surplus of labour. Do you people not understand what that means? Do I need to refer you to various textbooks to understand reality?

I just looked at this post and I realized how funny it is. In the Capitol of Ahdra Pradesh, my uncle has a condom factory(condoms he basically sells to the UN and USA ) he pays his workers 3 times the going rate(for some types of work) because he doesnt want to lose contracts because his work is messed up. His rate is between $2-3 a person(he is decent enough to pay the same rate whether its a man or woman) per day. If he wasnt concerned about meeting certain delivery standards(as in amounts per time period), he would be paying less than a $1 a day.

even at $1 he would have a surplus of labour. Do you people not understand what that means? Do I need to refer you to various textbooks to understand reality?
What does this have to do with EPZs?

How magnanimous of you. Let me put it this way: We're meant to take your comments on the issue as gospel because you live in a country neighbouring Bangladesh? Marvellous, do let me know when you need any info on France. I'm not that far away...


Well I thought by pointing out that people from Bangladesh were dying to get into India and that they would kill to get these wages would be enough for people to understand the situation, but clearly they are people that are simple minded enough that they need things to be explicitly spelled out for them.

I am tempted, but not really. Educate yourself.

Well I thought by pointing out that people from Bangladesh were dying to get into India and that they would kill to get these wages would be enough for people to understand the situation, but clearly they are people that are simple minded enough that they need things to be explicitly spelled out for them.

I am tempted, but not really. Educate yourself.

I still fail to see the relevance of this here: I say that a worker makes a low wage in Bangladesh, and in order to show how this is justified you point out that they would much rather make a larger wage elsewhere?

Well I thought by pointing out that people from Bangladesh were dying to get into India and that they would kill to get these wages would be enough for people to understand the situation, but clearly they are people that are simple minded enough that they need things to be explicitly spelled out for them.

I am tempted, but not really. Educate yourself.
In fairness, your post was so much mangled nonsense that this point didn't really come across. That said... you've proven BWO's point.

Really, if you're going to be offensive to people and insult their intelligence, you ought to make sure your own arguments aren't in their favour.

Then why do they go out of business? If the small business here gave better services and or better pay better I'd work there and buy from there. The fact of the matter is small businesses give out crappy products at crappy prices.Simple. Mom-and-pops go out of business when WalMart comes to town because WalMart:
-can buy in bulk, thus getting the product from the wholesaler at a lower price than the MandPs
-can and does price merchandise and services under-market (even beyond the lower wholesale price). WalMart's profits derive from all WalMarts and the corporation is willing and able to take losses in one locale (for awhile).

MandPs have a very narrow safety net and can never out-wait WalMart's unethical business practices.

WalMart has been taken to court and it's been proven that they undercut local business (local pharmacies in that case) with the intention of closing the business. Once they're the only ones left, they raise their prices back up to market levels.

What's particularly sad (as seen in small Oklahoma and Arkansas towns, maybe elsewhere as well), is when WalMart comes in, runs everyone else out of business, and then decides the town (and profit margin) is just too small for them, and then just abandons the now business-less town. The MandPs no longer have the capital to do a new start-up (and since they're usually run by older people, probably don't have the energy or desire). In some cases, it's enough to kill the town.

To argue that this is bad means that you are willing to argue that customers should be willing to pay higher prices for the same goods. Do you really want to make that argument?Sure, why not. And a lot of us do. In an effort to keep our friends and neighbors in gainful employment, we avoid WallyWorld with a vengeance and frequent our local M&P businesses.

We've learned through experience that WalMart 1) provides cheapass goods, 2) doesn't maintain lower prices after they've driven everyone else out of business, 3) forces employees into part-time jobs so they (W-M) don't have to pay benefits, and 4) doesn't ever place community needs over corporate profit.

Bad taste, but corporate raiders are becoming more and more of a problem. Of those an overwhelming majority comes from the US.

Maybe the thread title should read:

"Hey look, it's the 1980's in America (in Germany) again."

Wal-Mart Uber Alles

In fairness, your post was so much mangled nonsense that this point didn't really come across. That said... you've proven BWO's point.

Really, if you're going to be offensive to people and insult their intelligence, you ought to make sure your own arguments aren't in their favour.

Whatever. Reading comprehension is a worthwhile skill to develop.

Sure, why not. And a lot of us do. In an effort to keep our friends and neighbors in gainful employment, we avoid WallyWorld with a vengeance and frequent our local M&P businesses.

We've learned through experience that WalMart 1) provides cheapass goods, 2) doesn't maintain lower prices after they've driven everyone else out of business, 3) forces employees into part-time jobs so they (W-M) don't have to pay benefits, and 4) doesn't ever place community needs over corporate profit.

If more people agreed with your viepoint, wall mart would not be able to succeed. Democracy at work I guess.

Whatever. Reading comprehension is a worthwhile skill to develop.
And there you go again. I'm assuming that this comment isn't a general exhortation to the world at large to get their reading boots on, so I can only assume you're taking a cheap - and foolish - shot at me.

Tut, tut.

And there you go again. I'm assuming that this comment isn't a general exhortation to the world at large to get their reading boots on, so I can only assume you're taking a cheap - and foolish - shot at me.

Tut, tut.

You are correct, it was a shot at you.

I have made my points regarding Wall Mart, and industries like them.

I am tired hungry and bored now. People who argue against this sort of thing have very little understanding of economics. Probably stuck on keynes, at best. So I grow weary.

Believe as you will.

This is the internet and apparantly everyone has a connection

If more people agreed with your viepoint, wall mart would not be able to succeed. Democracy at work I guess.Interestingly enough, WalMart (I'm assuming that's who you mean by "wall mart") has been having increasingly difficult times. Attempts to build new stores in new towns meet with opposition from local government and citizens and demands for protections of all different kinds. The state and federal government's have also taken increased interest in WalMart's hiring of undocumented workers and forcing employees to work off-clock, in addition to the below-market pricing mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately enough, Wal Mart is simply a result of progress.

It is a one-stop shop for many low-cost items and high-quality items. The mom-and-pop stores, the other small buisnesses, yes, they're nicer. Yes, they have more flavor. But they won't last. They won't last because they are more expensive, and on occasion, have less selection.

America will have to adapt to this progress. The small buisnesses will take their wares to the internet and make a killing, because they have a wider range of people available to buy. Meanwhile, Wal Mart will go out of buisness within 15 years, conceeding to some other big store with a hook that Wal Mart doesn't have.

Maybe they should have lowered their prices to compete, but instead they stubbornly refuse and expect people to buy inferior products at a higher price. I buy the best quality at the best price, they should try to compete and give out better products. That isn't Wal*mart's fault, that's the small companies fault.

You sound like a wallmart commercial

You are correct, it was a shot at you.

...

This is the internet and apparantly everyone has a connection

Some even have manners.

I'm telling you people, the Vampires have their claws into everything. They are everywhere! :eek:

Unfortunately enough, Wal Mart is simply a result of progress.

A result of progress that was never necessary. False progress.

It is a one-stop shop for many low-cost items and high-quality items. The mom-and-pop stores, the other small buisnesses, yes, they're nicer. Yes, they have more flavor. But they won't last. They won't last because they are more expensive, and on occasion, have less selection.

So what if they have less selection? In most towns, there are many stores, so you'll usually find what you're looking for.

America will have to adapt to this progress. The small buisnesses will take their wares to the internet and make a killing, because they have a wider range of people available to buy. Meanwhile, Wal Mart will go out of buisness within 15 years, conceeding to some other big store with a hook that Wal Mart doesn't have.

We only have to adapt to this ludicrous "progress" because our government doesn't give a shit about small business. It's all about the corporations, because they give the biggest political contributions. A few basic protection laws can go a long way, but will we get them? Probably not.

I find walmart to be annoying for one simple reason. It doesn't have the selection that specialty stores have. Sure, it may have everything under one roof, but what does that matter when they don't have what you want.

CDs? I want Lou Reed, Black Saboth, Pink Floyd, all the other great classics of Rock & Roll and Phish!!
Does Wa-Mark have any of these? No.
DVDs? I prefer anime and series boxed sets. Perferably all the boxed sets of a particular series all at once.
Walmart has a few boxed sets but no complete series and it doesn't have any anime.
Video games? Walmart's selection makes me laugh.
Books? Just No. I'd never even consider buying anyhting from Walmart's book selection because it is so pittiful.

I did buy a nice pocketwatch from Walmart once, but it didn't have exactly wha I wanted.

SUperior products at lower prices. Not really.
What is killing businesses today is online shopping. I can go online and in minutes find the most obscure item for half the price I would pay at a store. Shipping isn't much more than taxes would be. I prefer stores where I can see and feel the merchandise. However, if I know that they won't have what I want there is little reason to bother going.

I'd like to mention again that it doesn't fully matter because Wal-Mart is dependent on a form of American society that cannot continue indefinately as is.

I'd like to mention again that it doesn't fully matter because Wal-Mart is dependent on a form of American society that cannot continue indefinately as is.

Haha, I was waiting for a comment from you! :p

I must agree with this.

A result of progress that was never necessary. False progress.

So what if they have less selection? In most towns, there are many stores, so you'll usually find what you're looking for.

We only have to adapt to this ludicrous "progress" because our government doesn't give a shit about small business. It's all about the corporations, because they give the biggest political contributions. A few basic protection laws can go a long way, but will we get them? Probably not.

Exactly. You'll usually find what your looking for, in many stores, all around town. One more reason to add onto why Wal Mart will win this battle: It's consistant. You'll almost definately find what you want there, and fast: If you want to do that with small buisnesses and you don't know where do go, you have to ride around town, going from place to place until you reach the place that has that one CD that you want.

Haha, I was waiting for a comment from you! :p

I must agree with this.

I already commented earlier but no one listened to me. :(

Sorry to interrupt the discussion of Wal-Mart, but I thought I'd just say, with regards to the political cartoons depicting America as a mosquito - well - I've seen far, far worse down through the years.

Contrasting/comparing the illustrations with an anti-semitic political cartoon from Nazi Germany seems rather unduly harsh, in my opinion. Besides, it's not as though the U.S. isn't big enough to take some taps on the chin now and again.

If there's one thing I wish the Yanks'd inherited from the Brits, it's that famed 'stiff upper lip'.

Eh, it doesn't matter. Wal-mart will go out of business in 15-20 years.

That would be very nice, indeed.

*Note that I didn't look through the entire thread until you mentioned you posted earlier. I definitely would've replied! I don't like it when people don't listen to me, either...

Exactly. You'll usually find what your looking for, in many stores, all around town. One more reason to add onto why Wal Mart will win this battle: It's consistant. You'll almost definately find what you want there, and fast: If you want to do that with small buisnesses and you don't know where do go, you have to ride around town, going from place to place until you reach the place that has that one CD that you want.

Not really. The chances of Wal-Mart having that oneCD that you want are slim to none.
Wal-Mart isn't a CD store it is a store that has CDs. This shows. They don't have a wide selection and there are many artists that they simply don't stock. A speciality music store, on the other hand, will have most popular artists and a few obsucre ones, as well. If they don't have what you want they can order it for you. If Walmart doesn't have what you want in stock then tough kittens. They aren't going to special order anything for just one customer.

Do you work for Walmart? :rolleyes:

Seriously, WalMart drives all the little mom and pop stores out of town, including all the good record stores. WalMart can't order in good CDs and only carries mainstream garbage, hence (reason #64 why) WalMart should die.

When WalMart or similar stores show up alot of people lose their jobs, and working for no money at WalMart is poor compensation for making a living wage at a store that was in town before WalMart came.

Didn't happen in my town.

I haven't seen the death squads of smock wearing wal-mart nazi's forcing anyone to work there. If walmart forced my buisness to close, I'd be damned if I'd go to work for them! Only a stupid shit would blame a company for their job loss and then go work for them.

Wal-mart complex brought in another bank, another MC D's, a Staples, A ShoeShow, a Fashion Bug, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Stop N' Go, a video store, a beauty salon, and a pay advance place. These are all stores that employ people on a tract of land that had a dilapidated bar and an illegal trashdump on it.

The majority of people that work at the local crapmart are previous welfare sucking leeches that were forced to get a job or starve. They decided that the low wages that you people claim they get paid is better than starving.

Our tire shop/auto repair buisness has not suffered from wal-mart coming into town a bit. As others have stated, small shops give service that crap-mart can't. We take off alot of Douglas tires every week, people try them once but never seem to go back.

I don't shop Wal-mart. I don't have a problem with people that do though. People bitch and moan about Wal-mart not being Union but stroll through one of their parking lots and see if you can keep track of how many cars and trucks have "Union Proud" and similar stickers on the back. Damn hypocrites every last one of em'. Bitch all day long to their union reps about the wrong soap for the showers and the shit paper being to rough on their hemmoroids, but have no problem buying the chinese crap that wal mart sells to them at 50% less than the same mom & pops that they drive past to get there.

Unions be dammed.
Wal-mart ain't going anywhere.
If the stupid ass Chinese want to work for .10 a week, so what.
If the working class wants to continue to screw their fellow workers by buying the crap, fine.

Class envy, thats all it is. Because a hick named Sam Walton figured a way to make a profit, you all are friggin jealous.

I find walmart to be annoying for one simple reason. It doesn't have the selection that specialty stores have. Sure, it may have everything under one roof, but what does that matter when they don't have what you want.

CDs? I want Lou Reed, Black Saboth, Pink Floyd, all the other great classics of Rock & Roll and Phish!!
Does Wa-Mark have any of these? No.
DVDs? I prefer anime and series boxed sets. Perferably all the boxed sets of a particular series all at once.
Walmart has a few boxed sets but no complete series and it doesn't have any anime.
Video games? Walmart's selection makes me laugh.
Books? Just No. I'd never even consider buying anyhting from Walmart's book selection because it is so pittiful.

I did buy a nice pocketwatch from Walmart once, but it didn't have exactly wha I wanted.

SUperior products at lower prices. Not really.
What is killing businesses today is online shopping. I can go online and in minutes find the most obscure item for half the price I would pay at a store. Shipping isn't much more than taxes would be. I prefer stores where I can see and feel the merchandise. However, if I know that they won't have what I want there is little reason to bother going.

This is exactly why the notion that wal-mart drives out little stores is a statement that may be true on a very very small scale, but in general is a lie.

According to some of the logic proposed here, if wal-mart doesn't carry the toothpaste you always bought at the "general store" in your hood, then you have to quit brushing your teeth.

:rolleyes:

Comments about Wallmart aside, I think the cartoon does rely heavily on Nationalism, the kind of Nationalism that was responsible for WW 1 and 2. However, I do think Nationalism and any other kind of solidarity that can be generated by patriotic (some might say "Anti-American") sentiments, is necessary to prevent exploitive practices of multi-national corporations.

Multi-national corporations have a habit of entering a region, using up resources, creating inflation then leaving when there is no more money to be made, often at long term expense to the locals.

Unions be dammed.
Wal-mart ain't going anywhere.
If the stupid ass Chinese want to work for .10 a week, so what.
If the working class wants to continue to screw their fellow workers by buying the crap, fine.

Class envy, thats all it is. Because a hick named Sam Walton figured a way to make a profit, you all are friggin jealous.

I agree.

What it really comes down to, in the very end, is consumer choice.

Wal-Mart dies if people say "Hey, these people are jerks, let's not shop here!"

I don't shop Wal-Mart, haven't since I found out how bad they were, and how they like to break laws.

I thought I'd mention that my former family business was ambushed by several national chains in the same industry moving in next door, but actually outlasted them both due to simple quality service and comparable product... Wal Mart doesn't drive small businesses out, it drives *certain* small businesses out.

Comments about Wallmart aside, I think the cartoon does rely heavily on Nationalism, the kind of Nationalism that was responsible for WW 1 and 2. However, I do think Nationalism and any other kind of solidarity that can be generated by patriotic (some might say "Anti-American") sentiments, is necessary to prevent exploitive practices of multi-national corporations.

.

Yup. You have to be pretty low on national virtues to have to leach off what you consider the failings of another country to boost your pride. Sort of the way North Korea depends on the U.S. as their boogeyman for propaganda pusposes. They define themselves as resisting the big, mean enemy, since they have almost nothing else to be proud of.. one reason why they hate the Six-Nation plan.

Unfortunately enough, Wal Mart is simply a result of progress.

It is a one-stop shop for many low-cost items and high-quality items. The mom-and-pop stores, the other small buisnesses, yes, they're nicer. Yes, they have more flavor. But they won't last. They won't last because they are more expensive, and on occasion, have less selection.

America will have to adapt to this progress. The small buisnesses will take their wares to the internet and make a killing, because they have a wider range of people available to buy. Meanwhile, Wal Mart will go out of buisness within 15 years, conceeding to some other big store with a hook that Wal Mart doesn't have.


Small business accounted for 80% of new employment in the 2004 fiscal year, and still accounts for 2/3 of jobs nationally, if not more, now. Wal-Mart is a great prop for unionists to use, but overall, it only forces the small guy to take on greater specialization and/or service. Adapting to circumstance is the heart of capitalism (supply and demand, sounds familiar), not some kind of evil plot.

Interestingly enough, WalMart (I'm assuming that's who you mean by "wall mart") has been having increasingly difficult times. Attempts to build new stores in new towns meet with opposition from local government and citizens and demands for protections of all different kinds. The state and federal government's have also taken increased interest in WalMart's hiring of undocumented workers and forcing employees to work off-clock, in addition to the below-market pricing mentioned earlier.

Right. When you cant compete on a price/quality basis go crying to the government(local or federal). Just like the US does/did with steel and Europe does with GM crops and everyone does with farm subsidies.

Lets leave aside that the some companies do better than others because they are more efficient...for whatever reasons, cheaper labour, better distribution methods, better technology, better infrastructure, better control over input prices ect ect ect.

Right. When you cant compete on a price/quality basis go crying to the government(local or federal). Just like the US does/did with steel and Europe does with GM crops and everyone does with farm subsidies.

Lets leave aside that the some companies do better than others because they are more efficient...for whatever reasons, cheaper labour, better distribution methods, better technology, better infrastructure, better control over input prices ect ect ect.

I.e., exploitation of the workers. Which, of course, you seem to have absolutely no problem with, since you just want your cheap products.

Do they even know how much that will effect the artist's profits? Out of a $14 CD the artist only gets about $2-3.

Only $2 or $3 to the artist? Humm...times thousands or tens of thousands of copies. Poor, poor artists I feel so sorry for them. :(

Only $2 or $3 to the artist? Humm...times thousands or tens of thousands of copies. Poor, poor artists I feel so sorry for them. :(

Yeah, like every single artist sells tens of thousands of CD's :rolleyes:.

It's exploitation, no matter how many copies are sold. They're paid a ridiculously low amount of money, just so the record companies can inflate their profit margins.

Only $2 or $3 to the artist? Humm...times thousands or tens of thousands of copies. Poor, poor artists I feel so sorry for them. :(

It's actually less. Most artists get a fixed amount as covered in their record deal. Only the high-profile ones get a percentage on sales, usually (but that depens on the record-company). Most artists get their actual financial income from performing before audiences - which is why the MP3-business is of a much more negative influence on the companies than on the artists. And that, my friends, is why it is being attacked so severely. And another thing: say an artist makes: 20.000 $ on a CD - you think that is a lot? That's before taxes, and it should last him/her/them (!) over a year: unless you can make good-selling CD's every week, there's no getting rich there IMO.

there's no getting rich there IMO.

Tell that to Babs, Michael, Garth, etc, etc. :D

I.e., exploitation of the workers. Which, of course, you seem to have absolutely no problem with, since you just want your cheap products.

What does that mean? How is a freely made choice to work a certain job for a certain wage exploitation? I have never been able to understand this concept. Someone offers a job at a certain price under certain conditions. Another person agrees to work for those wages under those conditions. Where is the exploitation?

If we are talking slaves, then I understand your gripe. But we are talking about people who have the choice to say yes or no. A good deal is one where both parties consent and are content.

Obviosly employers want the cheapest cost of labout that fits their other requirements. Obviously employees want the highest pay/benefits that fits their other requirements. Somewhere in between, employers and employees agree that they are both content(if not thrilled) to be working together.

Where is the exploitation?

Tell that to Babs, Michael, Garth, etc, etc. :D

That's where the performing comes in, the "making an appearance", not just the selling of records - they earn more through merchandise of their person than they do through selling records, believe you me. And those ARE the ones I called "high-profile". Not every musician becomes high-profile, many have to scrape to get by.

What does that mean? How is a freely made choice to work a certain job for a certain wage exploitation? I have never been able to understand this concept. Someone offers a job at a certain price under certain conditions. Another person agrees to work for those wages under those conditions. Where is the exploitation?

You're kidding me, right? I really hope you are, or you're just... You know, I'd be banned if I said that.

If we are talking slaves, then I understand your gripe. But we are talking about people who have the choice to say yes or no. A good deal is one where both parties consent and are content.

Again, what? Why? How can you possibly not see what the hell is going on?

Obviosly employers want the cheapest cost of labout that fits their other requirements. Obviously employees want the highest pay/benefits that fits their other requirements. Somewhere in between, employers and employees agree that they are both content(if not thrilled) to be working together.

Where is the exploitation?

Again... What the fuck? Your ignorance is incredible. Either you're completely blind to the fact that corporations ruthlessly exploit their employees, or you're just a selfish person who wants his extremely cheap products, regardless of what goes on during the manufacturing and selling processes.

*Cough* Malcolm Glazer *cough*

LOL

You're kidding me, right? I really hope you are, or you're just... You know, I'd be banned if I said that.

Kidding? no, I am absolutely not kidding. Say whatever you want, but back it up. I back up what I am saing by stating that my first jobs paid me crap. They couldnt keep me in beer and cigarettes. But they improved my job skills and lets me find better jobs. Thats how real life in the job market works. You dont work simply to get a pay check, you work to develop skills.


Again, what? Why? How can you possibly not see what the hell is going on?

Excuse me? Not to be too blunt, but i have been working for the past 11+ years, not included summer jobs/internships I had during high school. It is my understanding from other posts of yours that you survive by collecting welfare/disability/food stamps. And you presume to lecture me about what is going on? the few times I have been out of work I lived on savings.


Again... What the fuck? Your ignorance is incredible.

Seriously, I dont understand how an 18 yr old who has no experience in the working world has the temerity to call me ignorant of what is going on in the world.

As a side note, what life experiences have you had that make you so wise?

Kidding? no, I am absolutely not kidding. Say whatever you want, but back it up. I back up what I am saing by stating that my first jobs paid me crap. They couldnt keep me in beer and cigarettes. But they improved my job skills and lets me find better jobs. Thats how real life in the job market works. You dont work simply to get a pay check, you work to develop skills.

Yeah, but it all depends on the job provider. Most corporations *do* exploit the grunt employees.

Excuse me? Not to be too blunt, but i have been working for the past 11+ years, not included summer jobs/internships I had during high school. It is my understanding from other posts of yours that you survive by collecting welfare/disability/food stamps. And you presume to lecture me about what is going on? the few times I have been out of work I lived on savings.

This could be a subliminal insult. This could also just be a regular comment. I'll have to think it over.

Seriously, I dont understand how an 18 yr old who has no experience in the working world has the temerity to call me ignorant of what is going on in the world.

As a side note, what life experiences have you had that make you so wise?

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is home.

In reply to Isanyonehome (too much text to quote, so I'll just do it this way).

have you ever heard of Immanuel Wallerstein? (look here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein) ) He argues the existence of an "economic world system", where the periphery (that's most of the Western world) profits from the labour and production of the periphery (that's low-wage countries and places, like in South-East-Asia or some parts of Southern-America). They do so, by extracting the surplus created by the low-wage countries and not giving anything in return, i.e. by maintaining the low-wages.
In essence, it boils down to this. Adiblas, a well-known sportswear company (any similarity to real-life companies is purely accidental :p ) manufactures shoes a rato of 1 $ per pair in Thailand, 50 cents is material cost, 50 cents to wage labour. It then transports those shoes to "the West", where they sell for 50 $. The difference is 49 $ - 9 $ involve transport (by mostly Western companies), so that makes 40 $ profit. 0f those 40 $, a maximum of 0.50 $ is invested into said low-wage country (for infrastructure, and the like) - the rest is spent in the West, be it in advertising and promotion, or wages for cadre-workers in Adiblas, or stock-holders, or whatever. No other products are bought from the low-wage country (foodstuffs, or raw materials) - they all get imported at below-market price to keep prices in locus low.
Of those 50 cents wage, those labourers spend 90-100% on food, clothes, and housing. A ratio that is VERY unlike the one we have here. The low-wage is maintained, for instance, by importing foodstuffs below the market price in a low-wage country (thanks to subsidized agriculture in the US and Europe, created by an affluence by, for instance, highly prized footwear), forcing farmers out of a moderately-paying job into a bad-paying job (a.k.a. the Adiblas factory), with no prospect on improving the situation.

That clear enough for you?

Yeah, but it all depends on the job provider. Most corporations *do* exploit the grunt employees.


How is it exploit when even the "grunt" employees chose to work there?


This could be a subliminal insult. This could also just be a regular comment. I'll have to think it over.

Well, it isnt an insult to people who require welfare/food stamps/disability. It is an insult to those who do not require it but use those services anyway. Where you fit into that I have no idea because I do not know you.

However, people who do avail themselves of these govt programs probably have less understanding of how the job market world works(unless they have at some point participated in it).. Given your age, I would venture to say that you have no idea.


I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is home.

Wonder what you will. I dont blame the world for my failures nor do I credit the world with my successes.

I also dont dodge the jist of the posts I am replying to

In reply to Isanyonehome (too much text to quote, so I'll just do it this way).

have you ever heard of Immanuel Wallerstein? (look here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein) ) He argues the existence of an "economic world system", where the periphery (that's most of the Western world) profits from the labour and production of the periphery (that's low-wage countries and places, like in South-East-Asia or some parts of Southern-America). They do so, by extracting the surplus created by the low-wage countries and not giving anything in return, i.e. by maintaining the low-wages.
In essence, it boils down to this. Adiblas, a well-known sportswear company (any similarity to real-life companies is purely accidental :p ) manufactures shoes a rato of 1 $ per pair in Thailand, 50 cents is material cost, 50 cents to wage labour. It then transports those shoes to "the West", where they sell for 50 $. The difference is 49 $ - 9 $ involve transport (by mostly Western companies), so that makes 40 $ profit. 0f those 40 $, a maximum of 0.50 $ is invested into said low-wage country (for infrastructure, and the like) - the rest is spent in the West, be it in advertising and promotion, or wages for cadre-workers in Adiblas, or stock-holders, or whatever. No other products are bought from the low-wage country (foodstuffs, or raw materials) - they all get imported at below-market price to keep prices in locus low.
Of those 50 cents wage, those labourers spend 90-100% on food, clothes, and housing. A ratio that is VERY unlike the one we have here. The low-wage is maintained, for instance, by importing foodstuffs below the market price in a low-wage country (thanks to subsidized agriculture in the US and Europe, created by an affluence by, for instance, highly prized footwear), forcing farmers out of a moderately-paying job into a bad-paying job (a.k.a. the Adiblas factory), with no prospect on improving the situation.

That clear enough for you?

Crystal.

I wonder though.

Why doesnt it explain why wages have gone up almost 10x for skilled english speaking workers in BPO cities like Bangalore and Delhi in the last 5 years.

Wallerstein must have a great explanation for why my grandfather's brother's driver (fluent in english and a black belt) quit his job(that he got only because his cousin was also a driver for us) to make INR 30,000/month when he was being paid INR 4,000/month. The 4K was from a local employer(my grandfathers brother) and the 30K was from some random FOREIGN BPO. He also gets to work 1-2 days less a week now.

wallerstein must have written a great disertation. I would love to see him explain it in terms of developing countries and "sweatshops"

INR 30,000 roughly equals $650 month BTW. guess what INR 4k a month equals.

Edit:

In all fairness, I did not read your links yet. I will sometime tomorrow.

Crystal.

I wonder though.

Why doesnt it explain why wages have gone up almost 10x for skilled english speaking workers in BPO cities like Bangalore and Delhi in the last 5 years.

Wallerstein must have a great explanation for why my grandfather's brother's driver (fluent in english and a black belt) quit his job(that he got only because his cousin was also a driver for us) to make INR 30,000/month when he was being paid INR 4,000/month. The 4K was from a local employer(my grandfathers brother) and the 30K was from some random FOREIGN BPO. He also gets to work 1-2 days less a week now.

wallerstein must have written a great disertation. I would love to see him explain it in terms of developing countries and "sweatshops"

INR 30,000 roughly equals $650 month BTW. guess what INR 4k a month equals.

Edit:

In all fairness, I did not read your links yet. I will sometime tomorrow.


First: My point wasn't about skilled workers. Second: the fact that they work for a foreign company makes it so that the surplus they produce directly flows to their employer and greatly outweighs the "larger fee" they get - i.e. although he might be payed 30.000 INR, the surplus he creates is worth 10 times that on the Western market (where the products he creates eventually wind up).
The biggest problem is not how much a labourer earns, it is how much everything around him costs AND where the surplus of said labour is being invested. Most of the time, it is NOT being invested in products that are sold on the market where the cheap-labour factory is stationed, but instead invested in the place where the products are marketed and sold (in this case, the West).
By offering 30,000 INR, the foreign company is effectively outgunning local companies, that can only offer for instance 4,000 INR (because they only have a local market, for lack of capital on an international scale), thus putting them out of business, and further decreasing the economic strength of the region, and in the long-term effectively putting down wage-levels. So they ARE helping your grandfather's brother's driver, but in doing so are creating a lobsided market - the extra wage that person earns, will most likely be spent on goods made by Western companies (luxury goods), thus again be siphoned away from the local market. In the end, money always comes back to where money is. ("You got to have money to make money", in essence) It would be a whole other thing, if your grandfather's brother's driver uses his newly-found capital to start his own company in his locality, and start producing stuff that is also sold by Western companies - he'll be out of business (he can never compete with their capital), but the person after the person after the person after him just MIGHT succeed... So, in the end, skilled labour in low-wage regions is IMO the only way they will ever (albeit eventually) break the capitalist-syphoning cycle. And for that, they need to have access to technology and means of education that are for the most part in Western hands. You figure out the math... Thankfully, many of them get the chance to study at fine schooling facilities inside and outside their home-region, so I guess it is going the right way, but there's still a lot of work to be done...

What does that mean? How is a freely made choice to work a certain job for a certain wage exploitation? I have never been able to understand this concept. Someone offers a job at a certain price under certain conditions. Another person agrees to work for those wages under those conditions. Where is the exploitation?

If we are talking slaves, then I understand your gripe. But we are talking about people who have the choice to say yes or no. A good deal is one where both parties consent and are content.

Obviosly employers want the cheapest cost of labout that fits their other requirements. Obviously employees want the highest pay/benefits that fits their other requirements. Somewhere in between, employers and employees agree that they are both content(if not thrilled) to be working together.

Where is the exploitation?

You are absolutely correct. However the liberals, socialists, and other non-believers in Capitalism see all workers being exploited by big business that lines their pockets with gold on the sweat and blood of the exploited workers.

They don't understand that in counties that have capitalism have prospered while workers in countries that have other than a capitalistic economy are very poor. For example compare the workers in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea with those in Viet Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and China.

Some day the liberals et al will wake up and realize where their bread and butter comes from.

You are absolutely correct. However the liberals, socialists, and other non-believers in Capitalism see all workers being exploited by big business that lines their pockets with gold on the sweat and blood of the exploited workers.

As much as you refuse to believe that exploitation exists, it does, and it's rampant in major corporations. Wal-Mart, anyone?

They don't understand that in counties that have capitalism have prospered while workers in countries that have other than a capitalistic economy are very poor. For example compare the workers in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea with those in Viet Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and China.

Pfff. Most of Europe is very Socialist compared to the States. And the only reason Cuba's economy is so poor is because our dickheaded leaders refuse to trade with them, simply because they're Communist.

Some day the liberals et al will wake up and realize where their bread and butter comes from.

Yeah, it comes from factories that produce it at an extremely cheap price, pay their workers very little, and sell it for a hundred or more times than it's worth.

Pfff. Most of Europe is very Socialist compared to the States. And the only reason Cuba's economy is so poor is because our dickheaded leaders refuse to trade with them, simply because they're Communist.

Yes, most of Europe is more Socialist than the US, however their economic system is mostly Capitalistic. As far as Cuba goes, yes the US refuses to trade with them, but the US is only one country. The reason they are so poor is they do not produce anything except sugar.

So let's look at an entire continent, the richest continent in the world as far as natural resources. With the possible exception of South Africa it contains some of the poorest nations in the world. Why? Capitalism is missing there.

Yes, most of Europe is more Socialist than the US, however their economic system is mostly Capitalistic. As far as Cuba goes, yes the US refuses to trade with them, but the US is only one country. The reason they are so poor is they do not produce anything except sugar.

So let's look at an entire continent, the richest continent in the world as far as natural resources. With the possible exception of South Africa it contains some of the poorest nations in the world. Why? Capitalism is missing there.

You know what's really missing? Reasonable management and good laws.

So let's look at an entire continent, the richest continent in the world as far as natural resources. With the possible exception of South Africa it contains some of the poorest nations in the world. Why? Capitalism is missing there.

Ever heard of colonialism? Could be that's a reason for some of the problems people are having there today. And there is capitalism all over africa, there are even international corporations, that are exploiting children slavery to get you a cheap coffee, you know?
They do not even need to employ those practices themselves, 'cause there is alway someone at hand, whol will do that for any payroll.
From a capitalist point of view war is profitable, too. So they support the regional groups in there conflicts to keep the prices low.

And in speak of China, I don't think you can call them unsuccessfull anymore. And the hundred years or so of depression and mistreatment, were propably mostly caused by the britains smuggling opium into a country, they could not sell any other goods to. Resulting in the Opium war, and you know, colonialism.

Just my few thoughts on that issue! ;)

So let's look at an entire continent, the richest continent in the world as far as natural resources. With the possible exception of South Africa it contains some of the poorest nations in the world. Why? Capitalism is missing there.

Nope. Capital is missing there - they are VERY MUCH under the influence of capitalism. They get their economic and social laws dictated by Western companies, who are smart enough to recognize local tribal chiefs as powerful enough to be able to fight their retainers to the resources they need. Take Siemens Electronics; supplying Rwandan warlords with weapons so they can get control of ore-mines in the North of Rwanda - take a guess about who gets to keep the ore? Shell Oil: retaining partizan fighters in Nigeria to drive farmers out of their lands in order to have a "pristine" drilling area. And the list goes on...
The capital that is used to "dig out" the resources comes from the West. The profits go to the West. Part of the profit goes from the Western companies to local warlords and fighting parties, who use said profit to buy Western luxury-items and, of course, arms. Which they use to fight... for the Western bosses. It's Wallerstein's system applicated in real life, folks! End result: the West: 1 - Africa: 0.

So, yeah... They lack capitalism, uh-hu-hu. *sigh* :rolleyes:

Druidvale please take University level Economics 102 and 102. Then we will talk about economics both on the local and world level.

Ever heard of colonialism?

Yes, and it has been gone from Africa for about 50 years or more. :headbang:

No it does not look like Germany in the 1930's.
They are just saying it how it is, I wouldnt trust an American major company, they lack morals.

Exatly my thought. Under which have you been resting, Armed Bookworms? Your comparison is just plain stupid!

I mean, seriously, if U.S. investors think they can build a fond with 40% revenue for retirement people, and they only make those horrendous sums by buying, splitting and selling European firms - how stupid do you think we are before we notice that kind of Scheiße, huh?

Druidvale please take University level Economics 102 and 102. Then we will talk about economics both on the local and world level.Why does this crack me up every time I see it?

To argue that this is bad means that you are willing to argue that customers should be willing to pay higher prices for the same goods. Do you really want to make that argument?
I'm arguing that they should be willing to pay higher prices to defend their culture from corporate communism. I don't like monopolies, that's it. Also, culture means something to me, and if I have to restrict monopolies that's what I'll do. No ideology is worth committing cultural suicide.

When a Walmart opens, it pretty much eliminates a local citizen's right to set up a business, because there's no way they can succeed. Other civil rights are also threatened by Wal-Mart's monopoly. I've read about this. Corporate monopolies can worthily be compared to government monopolies. When Wal-Mart decides that a magazine is unsuitable and basically forces its editors to change content, that is almost as bad as government censorship.

Oh, and all this stuff about "higher quality products at Walmart" is horseshit. I visited their site and they sell the same cameras that we do. (I work in a camera shop.) In fact, I could argue for the superiority of my shop. If you want to buy a vintage old SLR for whatever reason, Walmart could not meet your needs, but my shop could.

These are going rates after the ridiculous boom in wages. Just because you are too provincial to understand, doesnt make the world revolve around your limitted view.

It would be better if people who just didnt know, kept quite and let these problems get fixed by people who do know. It is because of people like you that India suffered for so long till we threw off the yoke of socialism in 1990. 50 years of stagnation( the hindu growth rate it was called), and in only 15 of capitalism, look at us now.
1. I have no reason to believe that my country's economy will suffer without Wal-Mart.

2. I am not asking for Wal-Mart to be banned globally. I only want it to stay out of my country. Given that Ireland has laws restricting the maximum size of a shop, I doubt Walmart could get in here.

3. Yeah, just leave it up to the right-wing economists, they know all about quality of life. :rolleyes:

Not wanting Walmart here doesn't make me a socialist. It's not as if I think small businesses should be subsidised by the government. My country also threw off socialism in the 1990s and boomed. But we didn't have to commit cultural suicide and give in to Walmart to do so.

So, ethically, why is the mom and pop charging the customer more than others are for the same product?
It's not an ethical matter there. Wal-mart buys in millions of a product, whereas the small business buys less. When you buy in bulk you get discounts. Answer: small business charges more than big business because they have to.

And in India, we love American an European so called "sweatshops".
I've read about sweatshops. Employers constantly threaten workers and make them work in unacceptable conditions. Workers that try to unionise are paid a visit by some rough henchmen. I don't think that's OK.

As far as Cuba goes, yes the US refuses to trade with them, but the US is only one country. The reason they are so poor is they do not produce anything except sugar.


Rum? Cigars?

I'd like to mention again that it doesn't fully matter because Wal-Mart is dependent on a form of American society that cannot continue indefinately as is.
Elaborate.

If you want to do that with small buisnesses and you don't know where do go, you have to ride around town, going from place to place until you reach the place that has that one CD that you want.
So I'm told, Wal-Mart does not have a good selection of CDs. (Yes, I mean beyond mainstream sludge.)

Wal Mart doesn't drive small businesses out, it drives *certain* small businesses out.
Such as the *certain* vast majority?

What kind of business was it that survived Wal-Mart's onslaught? Let me guess, they sold products/services that Wal-Mart did not.

Wal-Mart is a great prop for unionists to use, but overall, it only forces the small guy to take on greater specialization and/or service.
Most of the time greater specialisation is not enough to keep a business afloat. Take my camera shop, we sell arrays of compact digital cameras as well as the vintage SLRs. Our specialisation would be better than Wal-Mart's, but without the digital compact market the business could not survive.

Same with music shops. Most sell both mainstream and obscure stuff. Those shops are valuable because they sell the obscure stuff, even though most of their profits come from selling the mainstream music.

Yeah, like every single artist sells tens of thousands of CD's.

It's exploitation, no matter how many copies are sold. They're paid a ridiculously low amount of money, just so the record companies can inflate their profit margins.
Musical artists aren't paid too little in most cases, nor are most record companies EMI, raking in billions. Most companies are also small businesses with a few obscure artists signed. It is not an easy line of work. That's what they're getting themselves in for.

Reading this thread is more fun than a root canal, but much worse than migraine. The incredible ignorance of the Big Business defenders in this thread is of a breadth and scope so mind-boggling that I am unable to think of a metaphor to describe it.

Druidvale please take University level Economics 102 and 102. Then we will talk about economics both on the local and world level.

I did :D But I didn't stop there...

First: My point wasn't about skilled workers.

His only skill was that he could speak English. He is also a black belt but that probably helped him more as a driver than it does answering phones.


[QUOTE=Druidvale]
Second: snip QUOTE]

Without going into the details of Wallerstein's economic theories(which I still havent read), based upon the success of India recently I would have to say he is wrong. Many local industries have been forced out, but many more have boomed. Wages have gone up across the board. There are many new products available for people to spend their money on. Thing a person could only dream about 15 years ago. India is a net exporter of food btw. And there is a ton of spending on India's infrastructure.

Do you not realize that the only thing developing countries have to offer is cheap labour. This is the advantage they have and it needs to be used inorder for the country to prosper.

Yup. You have to be pretty low on national virtues to have to leach off what you consider the failings of another country to boost your pride. Sort of the way North Korea depends on the U.S. as their boogeyman for propaganda pusposes. They define themselves as resisting the big, mean enemy, since they have almost nothing else to be proud of.. one reason why they hate the Six-Nation plan.

Exactly. Just like the way the Americans are using Saddam Hussein, drug addiction and terrorists as a boogeymen to mobilize their country to take a militant stance against non-aligned governments.

When a Walmart opens, it pretty much eliminates a local citizen's right to set up a business, because there's no way they can succeed. Other civil rights are also threatened by Wal-Mart's monopoly. I've read about this. Corporate monopolies can worthily be compared to government monopolies. When Wal-Mart decides that a magazine is unsuitable and basically forces its editors to change content, that is almost as bad as government censorship.
So Walmart is in the buisness of installing Air Conditioners, roofing houses, creating advertising, law (lawyers), auto body, auto repair, sound systems, meat cutting, and so many other buisnesses that I could never even think of?

As far as the magazine statement, if a magazines editors cave to walmart with their piddly ass selection of rags, then they deserve to be pushed around. You wouldn't know how shitty the selection of mags are at most crapmarts, but you can get the same shit at any gas station or bookstore that you can get at a walmart.

Oh, and all this stuff about "higher quality products at Walmart" is horseshit. I visited their site and they sell the same cameras that we do. (I work in a camera shop.) In fact, I could argue for the superiority of my shop. If you want to buy a vintage old SLR for whatever reason, Walmart could not meet your needs, but my shop could.
This is the exact reason that small shops still exist in communities with walmarts. Service. I'd not go to walmart for home decorating supplies but I do go to the local lumber/home improvement store.


1. I have no reason to believe that my country's economy will suffer without Wal-Mart.
Of course it won't, but adding jobs couldn't hurt.

2. I am not asking for Wal-Mart to be banned globally. I only want it to stay out of my country. Given that Ireland has laws restricting the maximum size of a shop, I doubt Walmart could get in here.
So if your camera shop needs to expand greatly in order to meet demand, it can't?
Wow, seems strange that someone wanting to open a store that requires a great deal of space could not do it because the gov't imposes a size limit. What if I wanted to open a bicycle manufacturing company with retail sales, could I not have a research and development department?

His only skill was that he could speak English. He is also a black belt but that probably helped him more as a driver than it does answering phones.

Then why did you use the word "skilled"?


Without going into the details of Wallerstein's economic theories(which I still havent read), based upon the success of India recently I would have to say he is wrong. Many local industries have been forced out, but many more have boomed. Wages have gone up across the board. There are many new products available for people to spend their money on. Thing a person could only dream about 15 years ago. India is a net exporter of food btw. And there is a ton of spending on India's infrastructure.

Do you not realize that the only thing developing countries have to offer is cheap labour. This is the advantage they have and it needs to be used inorder for the country to prosper.

Did I say they weren't allowed to use that advantage? No I didn't, because that's not the point. The point is: they don't get to keep the surplus of their "cheap labour", since most of the profits DO NOT get invested back into the country, and are instead retracted to the place of origin of the capital, i.e. the West. That has indeed changed since recently, but that's mostly because of a slight mentality change in certain parts of the Western business community, and ONLY after several research projects had shed their spotlight on the social bloodbaths that have been happening in South-East-Asia. FYI, I wasn't talking about India in particular, since that region has had a very peculiar economic history ever since British occupation. My focus was on Taiwan, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, etc.

This is the exact reason that small shops still exist in communities with walmarts. Service. I'd not go to walmart for home decorating supplies but I do go to the local lumber/home improvement store.

Of course it won't, but adding jobs couldn't hurt.

So if your camera shop needs to expand greatly in order to meet demand, it can't?
1. I doubt that a small shop could survive on its specialties alone. Most of any small shop's profits are made by selling the same stuff that anyone else sells.

2. On the contrary, I think a greater number of small businesses employ more people than a single large Walmart would.

3. Yes, it can. Maybe I gave you a wrong impression. Yes there are legal limits to store size, but they are quite large. It's not as if supermarkets are illegal. Only what could be described as "hypermarkets" are not allowed.

It is quite unrealistic to think that demand for cameras and photographic services could increase so much as to require the building of a hypermarket.

http://www.irishhardware.ie/press_release/Double%20Edge.htm
The argument most often levied against the Retail Planning Guidelines is that they are protectionist and prevent international retailers from entering the Irish market. This is simply not true. Any retailer can enter Ireland, provided that they obey laws of the Irish State. In the case of retail operators, that means restricting the size of their outlet to 6,000 square metres or 64,000 sq.ft. To put it into context, that is about 5 times the size of a soccer pitch, which is a sizeable outlet by any international standards. Indeed across Europe there is a swing away from large retail developments to smaller outlets similar in size to those allowed in Ireland.

If you're interested, read this (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:-JqDIAv4hncJ:www.rgdata.ie/Env%2520Committee%2520Submission%252016.2.05.doc+size+limits%2BIKEA&hl=en). It relates to the recent change in the size limit for non-grocery retail stores. The government made it in order to accomodate plans for an IKEA store in Dublin. Now, the store is to be located near a very deprived area of the city called Ballymun. There are few businesses there, and the area, which has been a cesspool of drugs and crime for 40 years, needs jobs desperately. For this reason I am in favour of the IKEA development. It will provide jobs without killing (many) small businesses.

Reading this thread is more fun than a root canal, but much worse than migraine. The incredible ignorance of the Big Business defenders in this thread is of a breadth and scope so mind-boggling that I am unable to think of a metaphor to describe it.
I don't think they are ignorant, I think that some of them just have trouble bending their free-market ideology to suit reality.

Yes, and it has been gone from Africa for about 50 years or more. :headbang:
It's not that simple. The colonialists may have gone but their legacy is enduring.