Moderator: Jesus H Christ
. Instead all you did was give it to him.So ignore it. What's so fucking hard about that? He does the same shit to my posts, so I don't even respond to any of that crap.Rather than actually addressing issues and reasonable responses, he'll reduce someone's argument to something as he did here.
Uh, I called him out for being a liar. I didn't even use many curses.Variable wrote:Detroit, BSmack had no reason to call you out for not adding anything to the thread, but by responding in the way you do, you give him exactly what he wants. You've reacted in a way both to him and to Bushice that is far lower than anything he did in his one line barb.
How about instead of responding with an "I know you are, but what am I?" post if you just ignore him and collect your
So ignore it. What's so fucking hard about that? He does the same shit to my posts, so I don't even respond to any of that crap.Rather than actually addressing issues and reasonable responses, he'll reduce someone's argument to something as he did here.
Be the bigger person. Jesus.
I didn't really need to "fact check" -- you alreay did it for me.Variable wrote: 25,000 employees
X$1500
37500000
Fact checking a conversation you're not involved in? Could you be more female?
Don't address you?Uh, I called him out for being a liar. I didn't even use many curses.
Don't address me with this crap. Delete it and promptly shut the hell up.
Seriously, where do you think you're at?Dinsdale wrote:A company (in this case GM) spends $1500 a year times 25,000 employees(I realize you were using hypothetical numbers, which is fine). According to your statements, if they didn't spend $1500 a year X 25,000, they could now afford to hire 25,000 more employees.
Bueller? Class? Anyone?
Who, exactly, were you planning on hiring at $1500 a year? And would you really want your loved ones riding around in a sled that someone making $1500 a year built?
Bueller wrote:If GM didn't pick up the healthcare costs of all their employees, they could afford to keep the 25,000 and probably hire another 25,000.
Oh yea, I'm sure the CEOs would hurry off and find ditchdigging jobs. Get real.Variable wrote:Yeah, and for that paltry sum all you could get is some idiot who graduate Yale with a "C" average who can run the company right into the ground. I wonder if John Kerry is interested...BSmack wrote:37.5 million a year eh? I bet you could find 37.5 million a year in savings REAL quick if you pared back executive compensation to a max of 500k a year.
They pay well because corporate boards are full of people who buy into the crap that it makes a difference which stuffed shirt is leading their company.The market for CEOs determines the price. The jobs pay well because there (clearly) aren't very many people who are good at running large companies.
Yea, but there comes a point when it becomes overkill. Like I need to see Tiger doing his Princess Di impersonation with the papparazi every 15 minutes. Spend that money telling me why a Buick blows the doors off the competition.Okay... And the point is... This just in: Advertising costs money.
Giving others people money away?BSmack wrote:Because it is the right thing to do.Variable wrote:It also increases the company's overhead, whichWhy?...only that full time work should be rewarded with a wage that is livable.
Convenient how you left out the part that few store workers work full time.DrDetroit wrote:I remember Diego crying about some grocery chain in Cali where its workers were striking because the employers was asking the employees to share health insurance costs. When I pointed out that cashiers were making $19/hr, Diego freaked and denied it. When shown facts, he still denied it. Then he went on with his typical profit=exploitation rant...Variable wrote:RACK.I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
I love the socialists who think profit=evil and profit=required to pay your employee $20 for chimp jobs.
It sucks that they ended up being a tampon scanner at Wal-Mart because they chose to hang out with the Megadeth t-shirt wearing skaters at the smokers' tree, sported a nice, shiny 1.8 GPA, got pregnant at 15 and/or shacked up with and had kids with some dude that shoved them down a flight of stairs. It sucks.
We are a product of our choices in life; good, bad or otherwise. I don't ask that my company subsidize my income because of my bad choices. Why are these folks any different?
Diego and his pals are of the mind that you and I shold be obligated to pick up the tab for the lifestyle choices that others make...hence his living wage argument.
If Wal-Fart is so great, why are 70% of their employees leaving before a year is up?DrDetroit wrote:There are plenty of companies that pay living wages.
Like who?
Here we go again...Ergo, not everybody would be cutting staff. Sure, WalMart might have to give in and treat their employees like humans. But that's a small price to pay.
Who are you people to tell Wal-Mart employees that they are less than human?? Arrogant asses.
If it was soooooo bad, why is Wal-Mart the nation's largest employer??
A majority of these people can't afford a day off work when they're sick. You think they have the economic freedom to just quit? And possibly be w/o the money to pay for that leaking roof over a roach-infested studio apartment? Dumbfuck.Oh, now you're going to say that Wal-Mart are too stupid to know better? Of course... :roll:
Let's put it another way, elitist tard. They can either afford housing, food, & medicine by being solid citizens who work full time, or they can pay their bills by committing crimes. Which do you want to encourage, dumbfuck?Where does that right come from besides the empty head of a lefty?No, I'm arguing that the bottom of the food chain has a right to work a single job at a living wage.
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Yeah but see, I do have Grey Poupon.Martyred wrote:The funny thing about class struggle in the U.S. is that most Americans place themselves in a higher class strata than their actual standing.
Driving the bank's SUV doesn't make you any more nouveau-blue blood.
...Because they take the experience they earned there and took it to a higher-paying job. It's the American way.If Wal-Fart is so great, why are 70% of their employees leaving before a year is up?
Wal-Mart has to pay more money or their employees will become criminals?They can either afford housing, food, & medicine by being solid citizens who work full time, or they can pay their bills by committing crimes. Which do you want to encourage, dumbfuck?
Now you're blaming Wal-Mart for nationwide crime? Wow, even BSmack didn't reach that far. Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Do not lie, Diego. Are you now telling us that this evil grocery chain was offering health care insurance to part-time employees??Diego in Seattle wrote:Convenient how you left out the part that few store workers work full time.DrDetroit wrote:I remember Diego crying about some grocery chain in Cali where its workers were striking because the employers was asking the employees to share health insurance costs. When I pointed out that cashiers were making $19/hr, Diego freaked and denied it. When shown facts, he still denied it. Then he went on with his typical profit=exploitation rant...Variable wrote: RACK.
I love the socialists who think profit=evil and profit=required to pay your employee $20 for chimp jobs.
It sucks that they ended up being a tampon scanner at Wal-Mart because they chose to hang out with the Megadeth t-shirt wearing skaters at the smokers' tree, sported a nice, shiny 1.8 GPA, got pregnant at 15 and/or shacked up with and had kids with some dude that shoved them down a flight of stairs. It sucks.
We are a product of our choices in life; good, bad or otherwise. I don't ask that my company subsidize my income because of my bad choices. Why are these folks any different?
Diego and his pals are of the mind that you and I shold be obligated to pick up the tab for the lifestyle choices that others make...hence his living wage argument.
Now be sure not to let that pesky context get in your way.
If Wal-Fart is so great, why are 70% of their employees leaving before a year is up?
A majority of these people can't afford a day off work when they're sick. You think they have the economic freedom to just quit? And possibly be w/o the money to pay for that leaking roof over a roach-infested studio apartment? Dumbfuck.
Let's put it another way, elitist tard. They can either afford housing, food, & medicine by being solid citizens who work full time, or they can pay their bills by committing crimes. Which do you want to encourage, dumbfuck?
Because they are smart and want a job that pays a decent wage. Why are you defending the 30% that are too stupid or too lazy to leave?Diego in Seattle wrote: If Wal-Fart is so great, why are 70% of their employees leaving before a year is up?
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
To be fair, the turnover rate at WalMart is 45%. But, in 1999 it was at 65%. The national average is a mere 14%.DrDetroit wrote:You cannot answer the questions so you throw out an absurd number. 70% turnover rate? Think about that, dork.
Wal-Mart spokesperson Mona Williams admitted to the Los Angeles Times that Wal-Mart might not be the right job for a family breadwinner: "Wal-Mart is a great match for a lot of people," she said. "But if you are the sole provider for your family and do not have the time or the skills to move up the ladder, them maybe it's not the right place for you."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... otest.html
Not a great place to work...if only we all the had the opporunity to work our preferred jobs earning our preferred salary, eh??Hapday wrote:Because they are smart and want a job that pays a decent wage. Why are you defending the 30% that are too stupid or too lazy to leave?Diego in Seattle wrote: If Wal-Fart is so great, why are 70% of their employees leaving before a year is up?
I don't think that anyone said Wal-Mart was a great place to work, we just said they aren't forced to work there.
Sheesh, I'm trying to help YOU out. The PBS link backs up the 45% number and my own personal experience with WalMart backs up that they have made a concerted effort in the last 5 years to reduce turnover.DrDetroit wrote:Why doesn't yourt source cite its source for the 45% and 65% numbers? They don't even indicate how they got the figures...whether from Wal-Mart or another third-party organization.
Maybe for general managers who manage multiple "big box" locations. I can assure you that store managers are making half that number at best. And that includes bonus money. Nobody else in WalMart is within shouting distance of that kind of money.Hmm, that's curious because the first link you posted indicated that Wal-Mart pays Managers up to $105,000/yr. I'd say that paying well...for Managers.
Did you read about where WalMart managers help employees file for welfare benefits? Also, did you read this?You then post a PBS link that says, "Wal-Mart spokesperson Mona Williams admitted to the Los Angeles Times that Wal-Mart might not be the right job for a family breadwinner..."
That comment does not suggest that Wal-Mart doesn't pay well generally, but that Wal-Mart might not be the right job for a head of household. That exec is absolutely correct. It's no different than saying that a head of household probably shouldn't be working a minimum wage job.
Basically, WalMart is admitting that their hiring practices are parasitical."One of the most significant facts is that about two-thirds of Wal-Mart associates are senior citizens, college students or second income providers, which also means that many of our associates receive their healthcare coverage from a parent, spouse or even Medicare,"
I understand what you did, however, you could have posted: "Wal-Mart's labor turnover rate is 44 percent per year -- close to the retail industry average."Sheesh, I'm trying to help YOU out. The PBS link backs up the 45% number and my own personal experience with WalMart backs up that they have made a concerted effort in the last 5 years to reduce turnover.
And no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that. Believe me or don't believe me. I really don't fucking care.
As for the 65% or 70% numbers, the information I gathered in 15 minutes of searching was inconclusive. So I went with the lower number to be fair.
Maybe for general managers who manage multiple "big box" locations.
I can assure you that store managers are making half that number at best.
If you say so... :roll:And that includes bonus money. Nobody else in WalMart is within shouting distance of that kind of money.
No, I didn't read that...so what?Did you read about where WalMart managers help employees file for welfare benefits? Also, did you read this?
Krugman says what??Basically, WalMart is admitting that their hiring practices are parasitical.
But that would have been a tacit endorsement of the retail industry's parasitical hiring an labor practices.DrDetroit wrote:I understand what you did, however, you could have posted: "Wal-Mart's labor turnover rate is 44 percent per year -- close to the retail industry average."
And he would be correct.So I suspect we'll see Diego now loudly complaing about the entire retail industry regarding high turnover and that being indicative of the employers being exploitive... :roll:
Sorry, I guess I know more about the retail "industry" than you. The term "manager" in the retail world is a very broad term. It can refer to a department manager or a general manager who manages many big box locations. Obviously the pay scale will vary greatly.Maybe for general managers who manage multiple "big box" locations.
Your link simply says "managers."
For one person it is quite average. Hardly outstanding and hardly worth what the average retail manager has to put up with. And don't expect to have much of a family life.$50,000/yr is pretty good money.
I'm not sure if you are aware that 1/3 of WalMart's workforce is a fairly substantial number.Re: the two-thirds of employees being seniors, college students, or second income providers...more evidence that the typical employee is not a head of household, hence any considerations of pay related to being the primary breadwinner is irrelevant and only services to divert from the real issues.
And yet 1/3 of their employees are not retirees, students or 2nd income providers.How are they supposedly admitting this, B? A job at Wal-Mart is not intended to be a career job that supports a family. Hence, a great place to work for people who don't want to work full-time or need additional income.
And ignored by the mainstream media and the zealous anti-WalMart freaks.Variable wrote:Something else to add to the debate...
Wal-Mart is currently running ads in SoCal with voice-overs by real employees stating how much they love working there, in an effort to boost their image. One of the stats mentioned is that 70% of managment and executives are promoted from within. Say what you want about their low-paying positions, but that's a strong number.
Considering that most college graduates start at roughly $40,000/year, $50k is good money. Nobody's saying that you're going to be neighbors with Bill Gates making that, but it's middle class unless you're the only breadwinner in the family and you've got three or more kids.For one person it is quite average. Hardly outstanding and hardly worth what the average retail manager has to put up with. And don't expect to have much of a family life.
But that would have been a tacit endorsement of the retail industry's parasitical hiring an labor practices.
:roll:And he would be correct.
But your link said "manager" referring only to WalMart.Sorry, I guess I know more about the retail "industry" than you. The term "manager" in the retail world is a very broad term. It can refer to a department manager or a general manager who manages many big box locations. Obviously the pay scale will vary greatly.
"Average?" Okay...if you say so.For one person it is quite average.
:roll:Hardly outstanding and hardly worth what the average retail manager has to put up with. And don't expect to have much of a family life.
Hmmm, seeing that I have cited WalMart as the nation's largest employer several times, well, yeah, I am aware.I'm not sure if you are aware that 1/3 of WalMart's workforce is a fairly substantial number.
This is supposed to demonstrate that WalMart is a parasitic employer??And yet 1/3 of their employees are not retirees, students or 2nd income providers.
Can you afford a house on 50k a year?Variable wrote:Considering that most college graduates start at roughly $40,000/year, $50k is good money. Nobody's saying that you're going to be neighbors with Bill Gates making that, but it's middle class unless you're the only breadwinner in the family and you've got three or more kids.For one person it is quite average. Hardly outstanding and hardly worth what the average retail manager has to put up with. And don't expect to have much of a family life.
Yes. My wife did. She bought a 3-bedroom, 2-bath $110,000 bungalow in suburban Detroit while making less than $50,000 as a teacher in Detroit.BSmack wrote:Can you afford a house on 50k a year?Variable wrote:Considering that most college graduates start at roughly $40,000/year, $50k is good money. Nobody's saying that you're going to be neighbors with Bill Gates making that, but it's middle class unless you're the only breadwinner in the family and you've got three or more kids.For one person it is quite average. Hardly outstanding and hardly worth what the average retail manager has to put up with. And don't expect to have much of a family life.
I was asking MIKE the question. Obviously 50k will go a lot further in the wasteland of metro Detroit than it will in SoCal.DrDetroit wrote:blah blah blah blah!
I don't care who you asked, B. But I do apologize for bursting your hypothesis.BSmack wrote:I was asking MIKE the question. Obviously 50k will go a lot further in the wasteland of metro Detroit than it will in SoCal.DrDetroit wrote:blah blah blah blah!
That depends on what you're willing to sacrifice.I was asking MIKE the question. Obviously 50k will go a lot further in the wasteland of metro Detroit than it will in SoCal.
No, I was simply countering the assertion that 50k was "middle class" level income.DrDetroit wrote:I still haven't seen B's point here.
Apparently he's suggesting that WalMart is a parasitic employer because a manager earning a paltry $50,000 can't afford to own a hme in SoCal.
:roll:
Determining whether you are in the middle class is based on whether you can afford to buy a home on $50k/yr??BSmack wrote:No, I was simply countering the assertion that 50k was "middle class" level income.DrDetroit wrote:I still haven't seen B's point here.
Apparently he's suggesting that WalMart is a parasitic employer because a manager earning a paltry $50,000 can't afford to own a hme in SoCal.
:roll:
If you can't afford a home of your own, you are not in the "middle class".DrDetroit wrote:Determining whether you are in the middle class is based on whether you can afford to buy a home on $50k/yr??
I would say that $50,000 is solidly in the middle class.
