Just stirring the pot (gun related)

12/29/2005 11:31:21 AM · #26

Originally posted by theSaj:

Right, so instead they invest that money back into the economic system to create even more jobs.

If you really want to !@#$% about it, they could always raise their prices so you can pay more and they can give them adequate health care.

(Oh, yes, they may make millions a year but as you've agreed, it's not liquid cash...it's investment. Which means it's going toward making more business, and more jobs. If they did not invest their profits and merely sat on liquid cash I might agree.)

Whose economic system is Walmart investing in? Are you referring to the sweatshops they are investing in overseas in China?...where the pay is extremely low, the health care benefits and worker protections non-existent, and the working conditions HORRID. I would say that WM is probably making a good part of their huge profits off the backs of not only American workers, but even more so from abused foreign workers.

By paying their American employees so low and not providing adequate health care benefits there are that many fewer consumers with liquid cash to spend at retail stores. Not exactly what I would call a helpful boost to the US economy.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/29/2005 11:58:29 AM · #27

Originally posted by "pidge":

I don't understand your quote about asking the Chinese or Japanese. I'm assuming you mean immigrants? Can you clarify that?

I think he's referring to the fact that those are socialist governments, the Chinese to the fullest extreme. And I think few Chinese would choose their system over our capitalist system. In fact, China had to adopt capitalist concepts in order to stay viable. Their method of doing so was essentially just to make the Chinese government own 51% of all outstanding shares of stock in any company.

Originally posted by "Olyuzi":

Whose economic system is Walmart investing in?

The Walton family's profits from their investment ownership in Walmart are re-invested into the economy in various means. a) They start new companies which employee more people. b) they likely invest large portions in investment funds, this provides capital income to numerous companies to further develop economic interests (or in other words, create more jobs). c) they invest it in capital ventures (start-ups, etc) d) they provide grants and charitable donations. All of this is placed back into the economic system (the economy) thus spurring further growth.

The idea is that if I spend a dollar at your store, you spend it at Pidge's store, she spends it at another store. All throughout, that same dollar keeps travelling. Economy is based on "activity" of money. How many times do different people own that dollar.

However, if I hoarded it and locked that dollar in a bank and did nothing with it - the end result is it becomes a dead dollar. And hurts the economy.

For example, when the government & insurance companies provide money after storms that money is repeatedly spent throughout the system. It goes to the individual, who pays the contractor (providing a job), who then pays Home Depot for supplies with that money (which provides another job) which means Home Depot restocks (which means another job for the plywood mill) which means they need more wood (equating to still another job for the lumberjack).

"Are you referring to the sweatshops they are investing in overseas in China?...where the pay is extremely low, the health care benefits and worker protections non-existent, and the working conditions HORRID. I would say that WM is probably making a good part of their huge profits off the backs of not only American workers, but even more so from abused foreign workers."

Are the conditions deplorable, rather akin to our 1920's sweat shops. Yup. And yet, people work in them cause it's still better work than the agrarian labor was. Regardless, those goods made in China equate to more retail stores. Oh, might I also add that Walmart's leading edge in inventory management. In other words, numerous software and electronic developers employed so that Walmart can have a system to manage that inventory efficiently. (Actually, this is really one of the reasons Walmart out-succeeded many of it's rivals.)

Oh, btw....Walmart did not put the mom & pop hardware stores out of business. Rather, the inconvenience of mom & pop business stores allowed Walmarts.

We just started getting Walmarts in my area in the past 2-3 yrs. But guess what. All the mom & pop hardware and deli stores went out of business 10-20 yrs ago. Why?

Because frankly, I don't want to have to drive to a hardware store, find my goods, wait in line. Then drive to the department store, find my goods, wait in line again. Then drive to the clothing store, find my goods, wait in line again. Then drive to the grocery mart and find my goods and wait in line again. I'd much rather make one trip, wait in line once, and pay once. So would 98% of Americans. This is why Walmarts exist.

Walmart did not put out of business the mom & pops. We did.

Lastly, I know very very few mom & pop businesses (hardware stores, deli's, etc.) that pay any benefits what-so-ever. In fact, I don't think any of my friends and acquaintances who ever worked at such shops received anything more than minimum wage.

At least Walmart offers benefits!

And mind you, most of these low-pay jobs are low-end jobs. That means, they are uneducated, non-trade, non-skilled jobs. Easily replaceable, low-demand. Most Walmart jobs are geared toward the part time worker, the semi-retired worker, the student, or those too unskilled to hold another job. Yes, people who may be skilled but down on their luck may find themselves working at such a place. (Perhaps their skillset has fallen into obselence. (ie: New Haven's carriage makers were no longer needed after the advent of the automobile, you either find a new career or you work a menial task that requires little skill or trade or education.)

Walmart should be a stepping stone. I mean, you can't expect Walmart to pay an unskilled stockboy the equivalent of a degreed computer programmer. Just not going to happen. Nor a cashier the equivalent of a much in demand nursing professional.

Unless you want to institute communism in which our brightest, most skilled, hardest working members of society will receive the same poverty as our most slothful, uneducated, least talented members of society.

That is NOT to say all employees of Walmart are lazy, stupid or uneducated. I am sure Walmart has one of the largest IT departments. And surely more accountants, and white collar workers than Dell Computer. More managers than Starbucks.

*shrug*

Now I will contrast Walmart to IKEA. IKEA is interesting, they are one of the only companies I know to offer benefits to part time employees of 20 hours or more. It's still not the greatest pay or the greatest job. But yeah, it may be a touch nicer. But I will also guarantee you that IKEA is a bit more picky in who it hires as well. They are also quite a bit pricier.

Many of those who live below the poverty line shop at Walmart. Those same people could not as easily sustain themselves if they had to shop at IKEA instead.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

12/29/2005 12:18:19 PM · #28

Originally posted by theSaj:

Now I will contrast Walmart to IKEA. IKEA is interesting, they are one of the only companies I know to offer benefits to part time employees of 20 hours or more. It's still not the greatest pay or the greatest job. But yeah, it may be a touch nicer. But I will also guarantee you that IKEA is a bit more picky in who it hires as well. They are also quite a bit pricier.

Many of those who live below the poverty line shop at Walmart. Those same people could not as easily sustain themselves if they had to shop at IKEA instead.

Comparing Ikea to Wal-Mart is like comparing apples to tennis rackets. If you want a fair comparison, compare wal-Mart / Sam�s club to Costco. Costco generally has lower prices than Sam�s club, treat their employees like human beings, and their stock has been doing better than Wal-Mart lately. You can�t say the impoverished can�t afford to shop there.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/29/2005 12:20:06 PM · #29

Blah, hyperfocal beat me

surista

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/29/2005 12:20:11 PM · #30

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

The high-up guys make much more money while doing much less work than the workers below them.

Before starting my own company, I spent around 15 years in finance. I started out as one of those 'workers below them' employees, making $25,000 a year. I thought I was working pretty hard, but looking back, the work wasn't that hard, and stress certainly wasn't an issue. Towards the end of my in-house career, I was making over 15x that amount, and was in charge of a fairly large team spread across three continents. I worked my fu**ing tail off. Quite frankly, I was _never_ not working. And the same was true for every mid- or senior-level manager I knew. Now, not all of them were _competent_. But quite frankly non-working managers are simply way too expensive to have on the payroll for very long, and I'll tell you, for every manager job there are 20 hungry subordinates looking to take your place.

Most managerial jobs don't 'look' like work. Stocking shelves, running a cash register - those are jobs that 'look' like work. But managers work (and stress) themselves into early retirement (like me) or an early death - since the majority of the work is in your head, you literally end up never leaving work.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

12/29/2005 12:31:22 PM · #31

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

In a lot of communities (like the one where I live specifically), there IS no Costco. We have Wal-Mart or nothing. I guess I could drive 50 or 60 miles into Dallas and find a Costco, but that's not going to happen.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

12/29/2005 12:34:01 PM · #32

Originally posted by David Ey:

what's keeping you here?
Personally, I'm happy to live in a country where I can be all I can be.
Nothing is holding me back from earning a living in the top 2 percent of all Americans. You not there? Well, thats your fault. Sorry, I see you are 17. Another victom of our public schools.

Oh the irony. First you state nothing is holding one back from being in the top 2% wage earners, then you degrade the public school system.

74% of college graduates comes from the top 1% of wage earners. Do you really think that is coincidence? And just last week congress cut another large sum of money from guaranteed student loan program (I think 18 Million, but I could be wrong).

What our consumer driven economy is doing is creating a polarization of the classes, where the rich elite get better education (i.e. jobs) and the poor under educated get the shaft.

12/29/2005 01:09:23 PM · #33

"Costco generally has lower prices than Sam�s club, treat their employees like human beings, and their stock has been doing better than Wal-Mart lately. You can�t say the impoverished can�t afford to shop there."

I know people who work at Costco, it may be better but it's not glorious. And really not all that much better. Even being a supervisor/manager is not all that grand or all that great of pay. But it is a job.

"You can�t say the impoverished can�t afford to shop there."

You're right, they just can't afford to be a member... ; )

"And just last week congress cut another large sum of money from guaranteed student loan program "

I just heard an interesting report. Since the advocation of student loans and the making available of massive amounts of loan money and grants. Tuition has gone up nearly 10x in just a matter of a few decades. In fact, people talk about evil "big business" but let's talk about "big university".

a) increase in university costs have skyrocketed, if the same inflation applied to oil it'd be around $20/gallon.

b) more and more graduates are finding themselves working at Starbucks but swamped with massive loans.

c) my fiance's brother won a $50,000 scholarship. That was enough to cover one year at Dartmouth. A few decades ago that'd have covered the whole 4 yrs, room & board included.

For example, between 1982-84 and 2002 gasoline prices increased 19 percent. But the price of bananas increased 64.5 percent; apples 131.5 percent; and college tuition and fees 276.9 percent.
//www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm511.cfm

Tuition at public four-year institutions represented 25% of income for low-income families in 2000, up from 13% in 1980. At two-year colleges, tuition increased from 6% to 12% of family income for low-income students during the same time period.
//www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-05-02-afford-college.htm

And, because universities have no profit motive, Vedder says, they are extremely inefficient. For every dollar that colleges spent on instruction in 1929, they spent 19 cents on administration. That rose to 33 cents by 1960 and 48 cents by the mid-1990s
//www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT04/04/08/23/ALT04040823-01.html

Most government solutions have been ineffective. Remember how great the new tuition tax credit sounded in the 1990s? Vedder, at the time, called the federal tax bill "the Faculty Salary Enhancement Act." And he was right -- the tax subsidy merely allowed universities to increase tuition even faster, and the money went into professors' paychecks, not parents' pockets.
//www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT04/04/08/23/ALT04040823-01.html

It seems, the more money we make available the more tuitition goes up. Rest assured, if we doubled the amount of $$$ made available for student loans, colleges would double tuition in a heartbeat. We are creating a monster.

If you make the money "available" it will get spent. Always has...always will.

Message edited by author 2005-12-29 13:09:34.

12/29/2005 01:15:10 PM · #34

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Olyuzi":
Whose economic system is Walmart investing in?

The Walton family's profits from their investment ownership in Walmart are re-invested into the economy in various means. a) They start new companies which employee more people. b) they likely invest large portions in investment funds, this provides capital income to numerous companies to further develop economic interests (or in other words, create more jobs). c) they invest it in capital ventures (start-ups, etc) d) they provide grants and charitable donations. All of this is placed back into the economic system (the economy) thus spurring further growth.

What new companies has WM invested in and how many new jobs have they created? Otoh, WMs never ending quest to reduce cost of products they pay for from vendors and manufacturers force many of these companies to reduce American jobs and export those jobs overseas to poor paying and abusive third world countries.

If the jobs that WM is helping to create are dead-end jobs where people are paid little, then they will have little liquid assets for making retail purchases, helping to put the US economy in a downward direction and will create the need for the dole.

Originally posted by theSaj:

However, if I hoarded it and locked that dollar in a bank and did nothing with it - the end result is it becomes a dead dollar. And hurts the economy.

Savings provide that money to banks who are reinvesting that money in the economy. All of the finance experts I have read or listened to recommend saving.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

"Are you referring to the sweatshops they are investing in overseas in China?...where the pay is extremely low, the health care benefits and worker protections non-existent, and the working conditions HORRID. I would say that WM is probably making a good part of their huge profits off the backs of not only American workers, but even more so from abused foreign workers."

Originally posted by theSaj:

Are the conditions deplorable, rather akin to our 1920's sweat shops. Yup. And yet, people work in them cause it's still better work than the agrarian labor was. Regardless, those goods made in China equate to more retail stores.

Better work than agrarian labor, or are those kinds of jobs not open to the Chinese workers who are living in cities? It sounds like you condone abusive working conditions in the name of profits...massive profits, at that.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Oh, btw....Walmart did not put the mom & pop hardware stores out of business. Rather, the inconvenience of mom & pop business stores allowed Walmarts.

We just started getting Walmarts in my area in the past 2-3 yrs. But guess what. All the mom & pop hardware and deli stores went out of business 10-20 yrs ago. Why?

Because frankly, I don't want to have to drive to a hardware store, find my goods, wait in line. Then drive to the department store, find my goods, wait in line again. Then drive to the clothing store, find my goods, wait in line again. Then drive to the grocery mart and find my goods and wait in line again. I'd much rather make one trip, wait in line once, and pay once. So would 98% of Americans. This is why Walmarts exist.

Walmart did not put out of business the mom & pops. We did.

WM is helping to put M&P stores out of business because when wages are low and people are living in poverty their spending power in reduced and so little money is recirculated into the local economy. The local stores go out of business or move out to more lucrative locations. Then the big companies like WM move in to those vacancies and provide even more low wages. In the past, people drove their cars to "Main Street," and walked to the different stores of their communites to get the goods they needed. Was not an inconvenience, they got exercise in the form of walking, and met and socialized with their fellow neighbors.
[/quote]

12/29/2005 01:29:47 PM · #35

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "pidge":
I don't understand your quote about asking the Chinese or Japanese. I'm assuming you mean immigrants? Can you clarify that?

I think he's referring to the fact that those are socialist governments

For the record, neither Japan nor China is a socialist government.

Japan has a well-established "democracy" at least since the WW2. There is debate as to whether Japan is a constitutional monarchy, or a republic. The Diet, or Japan's parliament, consists of a "House of Representatives" whose members are elected every four years or whenever this body is dissolved, and a "House of Councillors" whose members serve six year terms.
If these houses of the diet bear some key resemblances to the American version of the Congress, it's for good reasons as the Americans played a key role in the writing of Japan's "pacifist" constitution. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power in Japan since 1955, with the exception of a brief stint in 1993 during which a coalition of opposition parties ruled the country. The Emperor of Japan claims direct descent from Jimmu, Japan's founder in 660 BC, but is now a symbol of state and holds largely ceremonial and spiritual roles.

China is technically a republic, and has been ruled by the Communist (not to be confused with Socialist) party since 1949. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has been a dictatorial one-party state since that time. The Communist party since 1978 has gradually liberalized various aspects of Chinese society, including its economy. The Chinese would take umbrage at the idea that their version of capitalism is in fact an "American" version. Privatization and economic liberalization have been taking place in China, and to say that the Chinese brand of capitalism aims at "essentially just to make the Chinese government own 51% of all outstanding shares of stock in any company" is simplistic.

In short, though, neither the government in Japan, nor the one in China, is socialist.

12/29/2005 01:30:45 PM · #36

fmd_ApptBook :: frame1 :: Line 174 :: reloadPage

"It sounds like you condone abusive working conditions in the name of profits...massive profits, at that."

Yes, I like to see children worked to death *mwaaahaaahaa*

*sheesh*

I'm saying, WHY THE HECK are they moving to the city? and leaving the agrarian jobs & lifestyles they've had for thousands of years?

There is a reason...but I'll let you figure that out. And it's not just happening in China but free asia as well.

The fact of the matter is the United States is no longer a manufacturing nation but rather an information nation. Cry for the poor man who lost his job when we switched from gas to electric lamps. He is no longer need. He is OBSOLETE. So is much of our manufacturing industry.

"In the past, people drove their cars to "Main Street," and walked to the different stores of their communites to get the goods they needed. Was not an inconvenience, they got exercise in the form of walking, and met and socialized with their fellow neighbors. "

Have you BEEN to !@#$%ing Main St. lately? I have...!!! First off, there are a lot more people now. Second, there is not enough parking on Main St. Third, the cost of buying your goods on Main St. is 4x as much because you are paying multiple "overhead" costs.

4 electric bills
4 management offices
4 inventory and control systems
etc.

So what happened. I could go to one store and buy my wrench for 1/3 the cost, get my milk for 1/2 the cost, buy a sweater for $10 instead of $30, and get a new microwave for about 20% less. Park in one place. Not spend 45 minutes trying to find a free parking spot on Main St. And wait in one line for 20 minutes, instead of 4 lines for 20 minutes.

All in all, I saved about 25% the cash and 2 hours time. Sorry M&P...

Yes, the M&P went out of business and my 16 yr old brother lost his part time minimum wage job. He now works at Walmart. Very little difference between the two.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

12/29/2005 01:31:42 PM · #37

Thanks theSaj, you helped me make my point about the polarization of the classes in America by your stats on the high cost of education.

As far as costco treats their employess, Its turnover is five times lower than Wal-Mart. And Costco pays higher than average wages � $17 an hour � 40 percent more than Sam's Club, the warehouse chain owned by Wal-Mart. 89% of costco employees have health insurance coverage, while only 47% of wal-mart employees are covered (the national average is around 65-67%).

Having spent over 15 years in retail, I can tell you that no retail jobs are wonderful. Some are obviously better than others, but wal-mart has to be the worst.

12/29/2005 01:33:54 PM · #38

Originally posted by David Ey:

Ask one of the Chineese or Japaneese or other emegrants how they feel about this.

Ey, David,
If you have any coherent or in-any-way intelligent line of query to ask of CHINESE or JAPANESE or other IMMIGRANTS to the US, do please post them. As an American of Chinese ethnicity, you've piqued my interest.

Or are you possessed of the habit of racial profiling and mis-spelling nationalities (not to mention other words) in public forums? In which case, I'd suggest some re-education would do some good.

12/29/2005 01:39:51 PM · #39

RGO, I think you have your political parties mixed up with your political science.

Socialist does not mean a country is not a democracy, or capitalist nation. Socialist is where the government takes and active role in the society.

Japan has a well-established "democracy" at least since the WW2.

You can have a Democracy and a socialist government. Much of europe is made up of democratic socialist governments. And I do believe Japan is both a democracy and a socialist government (at least a semi-socialist government).

The U.S. is a democracy, a capitalist nation and a semi-socialist government.

"China is technically a republic, and has been ruled by the Communist (not to be confused with Socialist) party since 1949."

Communism is the full form of socialism, which is really seen as a hydrid capitalist/communist system. A republic or democracy just means people controlled. In fact, China has implemented many capitalist concepts back into it's system moving it a bit away from communism and closer to socialism.

You can have a communist republic, a capitalist republic or a socialist republic. You can have a communist dictatorship (Cuba), a capitalist dictatorship (much of the middle-east) or a socialist dictatorship.

"In short, though, neither the government in Japan, nor the one in China, is socialist."

In short, you are quite wrong.... ; )

When America began social programs, and began mandatory collection and taxing of funds and social management. It began to moved toward a socialist government. Now, we are much less socialist relatively speaking than much of Europe. But we are still a socialist government.

so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

12/29/2005 01:58:26 PM · #40

Originally posted by theSaj:

When America began social programs, and began mandatory collection and taxing of funds and social management. It began to moved toward a socialist government. Now, we are much less socialist relatively speaking than much of Europe. But we are still a socialist government.

I'm fascinated. Do educate further. Which government today is NOT socialist, then, by your definitions?

12/29/2005 01:59:24 PM · #41

"Thanks theSaj, you helped me make my point about the polarization of the classes in America by your stats on the high cost of education. "

Naw...what we need to do is return our universities to academics. When most of the scholarships go to sports and very little scholarship monies are available for academic achiever's. Something is wrong!

When a state university raises tuition astronomically over 30 yrs but wants to build a $30-$70 million basketball stadium. I say WTF?

Let people watch the NBA. Take College Basketball off the TV screen.

For example "[UCONN's] new $90 million stadium is helping put football on the map." (why are we spending $90 million on a college football stadium? for that money we could send 1,500 students to UCONN for 4 yrs with room & board. But instead we play a game...???)

Those who bust their butts in school academics have no chance to get scholarship monies. So those who often skimp on school and focus on their athletic talents receive much of the scholarship money.

Now, these athletic kids could, if talented enough, play major league sports. These academically inclined students who are not athletically inclined but rather intellectually inclined find themselves unable to advance their talents. (Yes, there are a few with talents in both areas but that is not the norm and there is often little pressure to see the "athletic college attendee" succeed "academically".)

12/29/2005 02:00:41 PM · #42

"Which government today is NOT socialist, then, by your definitions?"

Very few are non-socialist. Perhaps a few former eastern block and asian nations. Most westernized nations have all become socialist.

12/29/2005 02:09:30 PM · #43

Originally posted by theSaj:

So what's your point to pidge below?

Originally posted by theSaj:

If very few governments are non-socialist, then what's the point in pointing out that any country IS socialist?

Do draw us deeper into that confused state you call "everyday life." Please...It's always so enlightening.

Message edited by author 2005-12-29 14:10:00.

12/29/2005 02:11:59 PM · #44

Originally posted by theSaj:

originally posted by Olyuzi
"It sounds like you condone abusive working conditions in the name of profits...massive profits, at that."

Yes, I like to see children worked to death *mwaaahaaahaa*

*sheesh*

I'm saying, WHY THE HECK are they moving to the city? and leaving the agrarian jobs & lifestyles they've had for thousands of years?

There is a reason...but I'll let you figure that out. And it's not just happening in China but free asia as well.

What's the difference whether the Chinese worker is abused in the fields or the factory? Abusive working conditions in China is abuse no matter how you look at it. Abuse is abuse is abuse! Do you really think a Chinese woman's life is that much better off for working in a WM sweatshop rather than out in the fields? WM makes a good portion of their profits from these kinds of working conditions.
[/quote]

12/29/2005 02:19:39 PM · #45

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Let's just face it that the developed nations of this earth can no longer exploit workers within their own borders, so they go abroad to do so. There are justifications they make, the most common of which goes something like: "Oh, without our exploitative businesses opening up sweat shops in other countries, then the poor people of those other countries would have no other options and would be starving to death."

Globalization is simply the new acceptable term for what is in fact colonialism, which in its day was simply the acceptable term for what was in fact slavery.

A related kind of exploitation, from the NY Times: Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste

Message edited by author 2005-12-29 14:25:18.

12/29/2005 02:40:14 PM · #46

Originally posted by rgo:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What's the difference whether the Chinese worker is abused in the fields or the factory? Abusive working conditions in China is abuse no matter how you look at it. Abuse is abuse is abuse! Do you really think a Chinese woman's life is that much better off for working in a WM sweatshop rather than out in the fields? WM makes a good portion of their profits from these kinds of working conditions.

Let's just face it that the developed nations of this earth can no longer exploit workers within their own borders, so they go abroad to do so. There are justifications they make, the most common of which goes something like: "Oh, without our exploitative businesses opening up sweat shops in other countries, then the poor people of those other countries would have no other options and would be starving to death."

Globalization is simply the new acceptable term for what is in fact colonialism, which in its day was simply the acceptable term for what was in fact slavery.

A related kind of exploitation, from the NY Times: Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste

Bingo! You hit the nail squarely on the head. And, these exploitive companies are not going overseas for the technolgical advancements either, like has been stated above. Globalization is what it's all about and that's what the big struggles today are really about.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/29/2005 02:49:56 PM · #47

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I visited a factory that makes bras earlier this month. The factory has 12,000 workers, and they churn out a total of 12 million pieces of bras each year. Each worker makes the equivalent of US$50 a month. Each bra made in this factory can retail as high as US$50 or more a piece, including at Victoria's Secret and other high-end retailers.

The workers understand very well what they're worth, and one day, there'll be a reckoning of some sort.

Yes, it's true that without the US$50 a month pay they get, the workers would starve. But it's simple enough to calculate how much profit the factory and the retailers it supplies are making off the sweat of the workers. What's wrong with insisting that the workers get MORE and the corporations less?

Message edited by author 2005-12-29 14:50:20.

Dirtypainter

Canon EOS-40D

12/29/2005 03:04:57 PM · #48

hmmmmmmmm gun related now is wal-mart related