Big corporations are not evil (1139 hits)
Category: Business & FinancialRating: -0.15 on 63 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Robert (View user info) at 2004-06-23 12:24:59 EDT
Let me put this in a way you can understand. Here are two aspects of the big, evil, corporate that are usually complained about and misunderstood.
Let's say the entire economy consists of internet forum sites such as this.
Now let's say every site charges 5 cents for every post.
Now Bart here figures out a way to obtain more server space, less electricity, and higher bandwidth.
Now Bart can afford to charge only 3 cents a post.
Suddenly hundreds of internet users realize they can afford to post much more than they could before and soon ubersite grows to be the biggest and best forum site on the internet.
All of the other forum sites are forced out of business and soon Bart is able to replace their old bandwidth, electricity, and server space with his much more efficient approach and soon the entire internet is dominated by 3 cents a post ultra-efficient forum servers.
Now we can see that the internet has suddenly become much more efficient and internet users can afford more than they could before.
As inevitably will happen some idiot will say, "But Robert!!1! Now there's a monopoly and Bart can charge 10 cents a post!!!!1!!1!"
Because this internet analogy is an analogy to a free market, hidden101 decides "screw this, Bart's charging 10 cents a minute and suddenly nobody can afford to use it, but they are forced to"
So hidden101 creates another forum site where he manages to develop even faster servers with greater capacity, and charges 2 cents a minute. After this, evil capitalist conservative pig Bart is forced to lower their prices and each compete for the market, consumers benefiting all the way.
Big corporations are not evil. They simply manage to do it better than anybody else.
Labor
As many of you will say, big corporations are evil and treat their employees like shit. Underpaying them, working poor, terrible working conditions, etc. are all the typical complaints. People need to understand that labor is a commodity. It is a limited resource that has alternative uses. Big corporations need employees as much as employees need the corporations. If a corporation was drastically underpaying their employees, than it would be a great investment to create a similar company that would pay higher wages and pull away all of the employees from the big corporations. But they don't so apparently the employees must not be in conditions all that bad. I close my argument with a link to an article about the fallacy of the "working poor".
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3720
User Reviews
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-06-24 20:03:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
WHO CARES
Submitted by Jarvis (user info) at 2004-06-24 19:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is the basics to your macro-economics class and can easily be learned from the underpants gnomes.
Submitted by Ceaser (user info) at 2004-06-24 19:42:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Lot of good points there mate, and in many ways i agree....Where big organisations become evil, is when profits of 10 bill are only 6 bill, so they cut labour (massively)....or when call centres in England are moved to India, obviously because it is cheaper....so thousands are thrown on to the scrap heap, the competition follow....oh and there is the profit b4 people issue. You also have the problem of PRIVATISATION, great! Privetly run, oh great! More effieicent, but sadly and as is proven with most services (Electricity, Gas, Rail), profit is put before safety, low investment, and in most cases just as babdly run.
What you talk about is free enterprise which is great!!
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-24 19:22:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
executives get high salaries because their skills are in high demand. Monopolies only exist when political pressure prevents rival businesses to form. Moving to mexico does cut costs because there are no silly labor laws there.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-24 09:13:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The exploits of Standard Oil led to a raft of new laws being put in place to control business.
Submitted by Kellio (user info) at 2004-06-24 00:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
What makes alot of big corporations is not that they pay their lower level employees poorly, it's that executives do it in order to increase their exhorbitant remuneration packages. Take for example the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welsh. Towards the end of his tenure he was earning $98 000 000 per year. In the meantime however he shut down a shitload of American factories and moved them down to Mexico to "cut costs". You want to cut costs? How about not paying yourself $98 million dollars a year you greedy bastard.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 23:41:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ferris,
Economics is not brain surgery, though it might as well be as much as most of you jackasses understand. People like you have no argument, you just love to "fight" for the "little guy". Go to hell you fucker.
Submitted by ferrisbeuller (user info) at 2004-06-23 19:41:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
maplefag,
does reading books allow you to be an expert on brain surgery?
fuck big corporations. phillip morris is a big
corporation. do they have the little people in mind?
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 16:08:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
monkey,
Read volumes on the subject and attended summer classes at Yale about it
Submitted by spacemonkey (user info) at 2004-06-23 15:47:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You can't fool us. We know you're really dick chenny.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 15:42:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what is your experience?
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 15:26:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:30:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
Microsoft only has such a control because they have such a great product. If somebody made an OS that was better than microsoft, they would not allow themselves to be bought out. Linux competes with microsoft in some markets and they don't get bought out.
I'm only a student.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 15:16:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:07:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:23:41 (#)
Ranking: -1
just out of innocent curiosity... what is your position and what is
your yearly salary?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:57:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I have put a great deal of thought into every rating I made on this and the other post, save for my first rating, which was short and soley opinion based because Passions was about to come on (which if anyone is wondering i missed because the cable is out due to the storm that's been going on since sunday)
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:55:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Very well - let me clarify. Your rating was moronic. I'm not trying to be insulting, but put some thought into your ratings when it's warranted. It just irked me.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:48:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I'm talking about domenad, who decided that personal attacks were the best approach in this discussion. Did you notice that the first thing he did upon entering was call me a moron?
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:46:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
With the internet, corporations are now being held accountable by more than just their shareholders. Companies that have bad public images (child labor, etc..) suffer in the market place.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:45:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're not talking about me ashlee I still respect you.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:44:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
human beings are not a commodity labor is a commodity,
Maximum profits is by being able to provide your good or service at a price lower than any competitor and provide the service more efficiently.
It looks to me that Rockefeller succeeded by doing it better than any competition. If he were to raise his prices too high, then it would be to high to compete in the market and would be consumed by smaller competition. If a small business owner is controlling an entire area and a big corporation that is losing business offers to buy them out, the business owner and all the investors would be unwilling as the larger corporation is failing. There is more money in a successful, rising company than a failing, outdated one. Rockefeller was not failing, he was providing his service well and better than any of the smaller competitors. Companies only agree to be bought out when it is unprofitable for them to continue or more profitable if they are bought out.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:37:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:22:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee, it has nothing to do with your views. You are rude, obnoxious, and unable to disagree without being insulting. Even disagreeing from a point of total ignorance would be preferable to the immature manner in which you act. I can go and dig up forty nasty ratings from you, all with the same theme : "I don't like what you had to say, so -2".
There has been ONE review on this users posts that has been insulting, where I called a Random Joe an idiot for saying that only people who waste money are poor.
While it's true, I *do* often -2 posts because I don't like what the author has to say, they're most often stupid posts to begin with, a'la "let's behead some camel jockeys" or "initiating sex" (I use those because they're from today and I have a short attention span). When I am involved in a real discussion, I will rarely if ever call someone a name with no reason for it. If someone tells me that we're at war with Iraq because of 9/11, yes, I will tell them that they're not too bright. However, if someone else wants to have a mature discussion about how 9/11 was handled, and they present a good argument backed up by facts, I'm happy to do so.
I find it incredibely offensive that you presume that because I call stupidity out when I see it, I am a moron or immature. I am very opinionated, something that is well known, and can admittedly be somewhat harsh in that opinion, but only when it is warrented. I don't go around saying you're a moron because you support Bush, even though I can't see how anyone with half a brain could do so in light of the facts.
There was a time when I respected you. Congratulations, you have managed to destroy that with one review.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:29:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:27:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
The truth is that as long as corporations are responsible to their shareholders, they will continue to focus on nothing but the maximization of profits.
Human beings are not a commodity. The reasons business exist in the first place, the reason for all this nonsense, is to help people survive. This has been forgotten along the way.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:27:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's true Rockefeller did undercut smaller competitors. In the end though, oil's price was always lower thanks to the efficiencies of his integration. Yes, such a structure does lend itself readily to abuse, but the economies of scale involved are undeniable. Tell that to Henry Ford, the man who built a B-17 bomber ever 8 minutes and sold his Model T in its final year for about 30% of the price in its first year.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:27:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The truth is that as long as corporations are responsible to their shareholders, they will continue to focus on nothing but the maximization of profits.
Human beings are not a commodity. The reasons business exist in the first place, the reason for all this nonsense, is to help people survive. This has been forgotten along the way.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You do NOT know history:
http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/consolid.htm
There's a history of how Rockefeller pushed his competitors under by underselling them (among other tactics).
I don't care if some economics professor with a pro-business slant called it nonsense, the facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:22:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee, it has nothing to do with your views. You are rude, obnoxious, and unable to disagree without being insulting. Even disagreeing from a point of total ignorance would be preferable to the immature manner in which you act. I can go and dig up forty nasty ratings from you, all with the same theme : "I don't like what you had to say, so -2".
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:18:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Disagreeing with your opinion does not make me a moron, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd save the mudslinging for someone who deserved it, instead of aiming it at me, who is merely discussing a political issue with someone with a different viewpoint. I'm not saying that my way is the only way, I'm saying that it's the way -I- see as the best way.
This is why I avoid having political discussions for the most part. I consider myself well-read, well-educated, and at least marginally a bright person. When I'm involved in a serious discussion, I RARELY resort to personal attacks, and when I do, it's out of frustration more than anything else. However, I've noticed that when I argue with republicans (Robert aside, which I beleive I've noted and expressed appreciation for), one of the common tendancies is for them to resort to potshots and name calling. Socrates once said "when the debate is lost, slandar becomes the tool of the loser." You might want to keep in mind that when you immediately start name-calling with someone from the other side, it just looks like you've got no actual argument for what they're saying.
That said, if you or anyone else insists on calling me a moron with no basis behind it, or feels they need to resort to attacking me because I don't share their views, I'm not going to be a part of this discussion. I don't need to be attacked because of my views.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:17:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
domenad maybe i should write one about economies of scale...
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:16:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Munky....why is my argument stupid and ignorant?
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:15:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor,
pg 323 "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell Copyright 2000
"PREDATORY" PRICING
One of the popular fallacies that has become part of the tradition of anti-trust law is "predatory pricing." According to this theory, a big company that is out to eliminate its smaller competitors and take over their share of the market will lower its prices to a level that dooms the competitor to an unsustainable loss and forces it out of business. Then, having acquired a monopolistic position, it will raise its prices-not just to the previous levels, but to new and higher levels in keeping with its new monopolistic position. Thus, it recoups its losses and enjoys the above-normal profits thereafter, at the expense of the consumers....
[says those who advocate never provide examples, even in courts. then brings up court cases where they have said that the lower prices were there with the intent to drive competition out of business though had yet to be achieved. next paragraph says it is risky and even if it could be achieved...]
Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its physical equipment and skills of the people who once made it viable do not vanish into thin air. A new entrepreneur can come along and acquire both-perhaps at low distress sale prices, enabling the new competitor to have lower costs than the old and hence be a more dangerous rival.
[The rest of the section gives examples of resurrection of bankrupt equipment and skills]
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Robert, don't even bother. Try to mention something like "economies of scale" to morons like Ashlee and you'll get nothing but glazed-over looks. People like to believe that corporations make their lives hell because if they ever realized just how much control they had and how shitty the outcome was, they'd just get the nickel plated revolver, put the barrel in their mouth, a crisp salue and BLAM!
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 14:07:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:23:41 (#)
Ranking: -1
just out of innocent curiosity... what is your position and what is
your yearly salary?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:59:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:30:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
Microsoft only has such a control because they have such a great product.
_________
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*breath*
AHAHAHAHASHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Excuse me. The commercial break is almost over
*snicker*
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:53:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:33:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
As far as 60 work weeks go...If you don't like it, walk out. After enough people walk out, the businesses would have to change their habits. But corporations will never have to worry about that, people who bitch usually don't have the balls to speak out or walk out. Its easier to bitch than to try to make a change. Its easier to tell the government you want them to make decisions for you.
Oh yeah, lets head this one off at the pass....."What if you have a family and cannot afford to walk out?" Well, should have thought of that before starting a family, eh?
There are a few exceptions to the "I can't afford not to work" people. Those with sick children, and those who are supporting a family due to a parent or spouse also being ill. But as for the rest....go to Planned Parenthood!
___________________________________________________
THAT IS THE MOST STUPID AND IGNORANT ARGUMENT I HAVE HEARD ALL WEEK
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:51:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Mapleburner, you have no sense of history.
These things you claim corporations would not do, they USED TO DO, until there were labor laws put in place to stop them.
Also, the example cited in the original post is a perfectly legitimate way to do business, but it doesn't stop there.
The internet is a bad example, because it's accessible around the world, but an example would be that bart can't drive someone out of business through normal competition, so he goes into their neighborhood and offers pages at 1 cent apiece, taking a huge loss the whole time. He can afford to take the loss, because he has a ton of capital to spare. His competitors are smaller, and they can't match prices, so they go out of business. bart then raises prices across the board to 6 cents a page to cover his losses.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:45:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As R&D goes, some systems do not require any, such as the Wal Mart idea, which was to introduce stores that sell most anything in large quantities so they can sell cheap. The stocking and other incurred fees are soon paid back by the sheer quantity of sales. R&D such as pharmaceuticals are incurred by all pharmaceutical companies and when they can develop at lower costs, they can again profit by controlling the market. In my analogy, the R&D is assumed that they are making a profit and 3 cents covers the R&D as any company would assure. I just assumed you would assume that.
For Christ sake, all companies are profit driven. It is what a free market economy is. We trade are own goods and services for money which we exchange for other goods and services. There is no need for "good human nature" as any necessity that people can't afford, is a good investment to create a business that can cater to these people. If there was no medicade/medicare, then many poor people would not be able to afford health care. Health care however is a necessity and soon doctors would lower their prices to the point that poor people could afford. Medicade/medicare creates no incentives for doctors to lower their prices and the result is high cost medicine. Government monopolies do not allow efficient goods and services as they are not profit driven. Profit driven just means they have incentive for providing a better service.
Submitted by Dave3811 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:33:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
From a very narrow perspective your argument makes sense, but viewed from a classical economic approach you're missing some big pieces.
First, there is nothing wrong with a benevolent monopoly, that is one that is not driven by pure profit but rather by serving their fellows. In this country it is limited mostly to goverment entities. Think of it; you're taxes are simply "fee's and charges" for the privelige of living in this country. Unfortunatly, most non-goverment monopoly's are profit driven, which 99% of the time causes good human nature to fly out the window (I'm sure there are exceptions).
Second, the problem with most your internet analogy is that you completly left out the cost-benefit ratio's, research and development costs, and other intangible costs. Did Bart just magically stand up and watch "more server space, less electricity, and higher bandwidth" fall out? Of course not. He would have had to invest untold #'s of dollars to R&D his product, which he can then market. Now after all this you suggest that all that needs to happen is "hidden101 creates another forum site where he manages to develop even faster servers with greater capacity?" Where is he getting his capital? To use existing technology, nobody is going to invest in a small startup that will fight a bigger corporation on the same battlefield. If you need to invent a new technology to do it, then you're not really competing on the same field anymore, and you're starting a new sub-sector of industry, at which point the whole monopoly thing is kind of moot.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:33:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why is it anyone that doesn't agree with left wing views is considered a Nazi or called Hitler?
Last time I checked, we weren't slaughtering innocent people because they are Jewish.
As far as 60 work weeks go...If you don't like it, walk out. After enough people walk out, the businesses would have to change their habits. But corporations will never have to worry about that, people who bitch usually don't have the balls to speak out or walk out. Its easier to bitch than to try to make a change. Its easier to tell the government you want them to make decisions for you.
Oh yeah, lets head this one off at the pass....."What if you have a family and cannot afford to walk out?" Well, should have thought of that before starting a family, eh?
There are a few exceptions to the "I can't afford not to work" people. Those with sick children, and those who are supporting a family due to a parent or spouse also being ill. But as for the rest....go to Planned Parenthood!
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:30:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Microsoft only has such a control because they have such a great product. If somebody made an OS that was better than microsoft, they would not allow themselves to be bought out. Linux competes with microsoft in some markets and they don't get bought out.
I'm only a student.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:23:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
just out of innocent curiosity... what is your position and what is
your yearly salary?
Submitted by Mentor (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:22:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The problem is when you get those big corporations that buy out the new corporations as soon as they pop up. *cough cough*microsoft*cough cough*
So, since we're full of hypothetical situations, let's say every facet of business is taken over by individual conglomerates. Eventually, each conglomerate starts buying the others out. This hypothetical situation turns into one company controlling everything. (De facto communism) When this monopoly's stock tanks? Kaboom. So does the economy.
Big corporations are the big satan. But Wal-Mart does carry some nice clothes. Ooh!
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:21:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
okay ashlee
wazzawazzayo,
Fuck You
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:17:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Mapleburner21 = Capitalist Hitler
You make me sick.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:17:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sorry bud, I just don't have it in me right now. Plus, Passions is on in 20 minutes, and I don't want to get myself into an argument that will make me miss it.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:08:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Elaborate ashlee so I have any substance to argue please.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:07:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's spelled cartel and it is not a cartel in any form, cartels do nothing except create artficially high prices for consumers and would not exist in a free market. Cartels keep their prices higher than they would in a free market by promising not to lower prices. Normally they would be phased out by competition but things like OPEC exist because it is virtually impossible for new businesses to form in the middle-east.
If companies were squeezing workers within an inch of their life, they wouldn't work there anymore. If their are no alternatives it is only because the high cost of business due to labor laws, taxation, and other governmental restrictions have made in unprofitable to invest a new business in the same sector when a company is mistreating employees.
Labor laws just keep the cost of business high and prevent many from rising out of poverty as it restricts the number of opportunities (refer to my last post). Labor laws actually do lots to keep people in poverty and miserable working conditions.
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:06:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:55:13 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:52:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bullshit. Big corporations would squeeze every last drop of life out of each and every employee if it wasn't illegal. The only thing protecting the working class is labour laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...thats right! I forgot how jobs are assigned to us by the government.
-----------------------------------
What, you don't think that most corporations would force a 60 hour workweek on their employees if they could get away with it? Wake up.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 13:04:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So basically what you're doing here is trying to prove that you know literally nothing about the way working America functions.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:55:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:52:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bullshit. Big corporations would squeeze every last drop of life out of each and every employee if it wasn't illegal. The only thing protecting the working class is labour laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...thats right! I forgot how jobs are assigned to us by the government.
Submitted by wazzawazzayo (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:52:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bullshit. Big corporations would squeeze every last drop of life out of each and every employee if it wasn't illegal. The only thing protecting the working class is labour laws.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:50:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
depends which
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:49:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
'kartel' in English.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:44:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Tom,
How about we argue about the topic on hand. You can write another post about my attitude if you want to discuss that.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:43:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If people don't like the way they are being treated at a job, they can walk their disgruntled asses out the door to find a better job.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me put this in a way you can understand.
He's even more condescending than me.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
okay. i take the -2 back
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:34:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i love the people greeters
Submitted by facehead (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Very well written and well thought out with a good presentation. Need to see lots more of this -the bitching from idiots like munkypants.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:33:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
thanks fat man
I should also add that wal mart pays higher than minimum wage voluntarily
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:33:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Go corporations.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:32:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wal-Mart is the only evil corporation...pure unadulterated evil disguised as a smiley face that lowers prices randomly while pretending to be Robin Hood. Not to mention those minions that they refer to as 'people-greeters'.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:30:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good arguement...explained well.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love arguing with people like monkeypants when they write such concise and well-thought of replies.
Jackass
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:28:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
But they don't so apparently the employees must not be in conditions all that bad
just for that line