<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9IKVj4l5GU4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There was a story on NPR about the stores closing. They interviewed someone that said it was a labor issue but said the WM spokesman said it was plumbing.

So who here tipped off NPR to the story???:D
Is NPR trolling PPOT for stories?:p
What does The National Enquirer have to say about this?:confused:

Thanks,

It needs to be restored but I can't make up my ind to enjoy it, or preserve it. My sense is there's enough out there that I don't need to be a concourse weenie with it. ...but it's only got 7000 miles.

How does that work? They have 75% of hired employees managing the other 25%?

Technically, I think that is the way it's supposed to work out. The end-game of Capitalism is to have very, very few winners at the top and everyone else at the bottom.

Manager of Waste Elimination Sanitation Services.

AKA; the guy who cleans the bathrooms.

Sounds like positive PR spin on a high turnover rate.

Start with 100 employees, 25 (25%) are managers.

Managers quit so you promote 25 of the staff and hire replacements.

You have know hired 125 people and 50 (40%) of them are / were managers.

Another 25 managers quit so you promote 25 more staff and hire replacements.

You have know hired 150 people and 75 (50%) of them are / were managers.

Rinse / repeat.

It is sure looking that way. The USA, for a long time, had a situation where almost anyone could make a decent wage and get by in relation to the cost of living where they lived. There was a demand and plenty of customers for whatever you were selling or doing as a trade.

There have been so many changes, from the nature of farming and manufacturing in this country to the cost of housing and education, that have shifted the distribution of wealth to fewer and fewer people at the top. I suppose you could say that Walmart is just a symptom of this decline in what used to be such a great standard of living but they are major players in this mercenary capitalism. :cool:

You just described communism perfectly.
EVERYONE is dirt poor, except the few ruling elite who are wealthy.

As far as capitalism goes, you couldn't be further off the mark.
In a true capitalist society there are some wealthy barons of industry, but everyone who works hard and earns it enjoys a very high standard of living, and are considered extremely wealthy by those in communist countries.
Those who cannot support themselves are taken care of by private charity in the communities.
It is historically the most successful and rewarding economic system ever employed. The exact opposite is true of communism.


Remember in 1959 when Khrushchev visited the United States for the first time and asked for a tour of the fabled "US supermarket" where people could buy anything they wanted?
He considered it propaganda and was shocked when they walked into a real supermarket and everything was right there in front of them. They were SHOCKED!!!!!

Ironically news of that visit was forbidden in the mother USSR as people would revolt if they knew that the capitalist pigs had it soooo good.

Like Yackoff Smirnoff says, "WHAT A COUNTRY".

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1429631173.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1429631233.jpg


That's the problem with closet communists, they often don't even realize that they are idolizing communism and rarely have enough real knowledge about the subject to form a rational opinion that isn't based solely on FANTASY.

And before anyone starts screaming PARF, this is a discussion of economic philosophies.

But Wallmart's products primarily support the economy of a Communist country. ;)

This statement is not correct and I suspect that you are mistaking capitalism for corporatism. Corporations are not a required component of capitalism, and in fact are designed to defeat some characteristics of capitalism (for example, "branding" their products).

Capitalism is a system where everyone is free to buy and sell as they choose. Buyers gravitate towards sellers with the lowest prices, and sellers who are most efficient at producing goods are rewarded with the most customers. That's it.

And the end result is one giant store for everything. no competition.

The idea that competition can spring from nowhere is a fable. At least in a country with so much regulation.

True. And that's were regulation comes in. We need more of it.

Lowest prices or the best product?

It seems naturally inconceivable that people in the midst of a national catastrophic economic crisis would continue to drive many miles and wait in line, every day, in order to order to purchase cups of coffee for $5/cup.

Less. We need less. More regulations just push smaller players out of the market. You know, the "mom and pop stores" that statists claims to love so much are the first to be crushed under the regulatory boot of the state.

Back on topic....


Group seeks rehiring of Wal-Mart workers at five closed stores | TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune

Big corporations can afford to buy the politicians. Small businesses can't. It really is that simple.

What we have in the United States today is a form of plutocratic corporatism , not capitalism. It clearly favors the 0.1% investor class and the huge mega-corporations. We do not have communism or socialism (yet) but we're certainly heading that way. The "solution" put forth by the left is exactly that - a communist society. They would crush / nationalize businesses that today are largely corporate in nature and the pendulum would very quickly whip the other direction.

We definitely do NOT need more regulations on businesses - we need fewer. We need incentives for small businesses to start up and thrive and we need a simpler tax code that doesn't crush motivated people trying to start businesses.

Basically, we need services to be provided by many smaller competitive businesses - not huge corporations that operate largely outside of the law and / or internationally and not the government doing it by force. This is the way that America functioned (quite well) for many decades. The biggest issue as I see it is anti-competitive practices, whether at the hands of big corporations or big government. Either one doesn't help.

The only positive aspect that I see is that government was already contributing towards those employees through welfare, so instead of the taxpayer paying half of the employees salary, now they get to pay a tad more.

Walmart, where dreams go to die.

Another great post POP.

The difference between a communist society and a free one is very, very small as related to your last paragraph.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

These regulations against which the Free Market crowd rails were not conjured capriciously from thin air; they were designed to combat specific abuses. The bygone golden age was only golden for those who held the gold; it was pretty much 5hit for everyone else.