Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Target as Bad as Wal-Mart? You Decide
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
Pages: 1, 2
sky of mind
IPB Image
IPB Image
The Link

Target as Bad as Wal-Mart?
You Decide

By Kari Lydersen, CorpWatch. Posted May 1, 2006.

QUOTE
IPB Image
When it comes to wages, working conditions and effect on
communities, the two big box stores are eerily similar.



Shopping in a Target store, you know you're not in Wal-Mart. But the differences may be mostly skin deep.

Targets are spaciously laid out and full of attractive displays and promotions. While many people associate Wal-Mart with low-income, rural communities perhaps dominated by a prison or power plant, life-size photos throughout Target stores remind you that their customers are a lively, beautiful cast of multi-cultural hipsters.

"Their image is more upscale, more urban and sophisticated, sort of a wannabe Pottery Barn," said Victoria Cervantes, a hospital administrator and documentary-maker in Chicago who regularly shops at Target. "I'm not sure if their customers really are more upscale. But that's the image they're going for. They have a very good PR campaign."

In contrast to this image, however, critics say that in terms of wages and benefits, working conditions, sweatshop-style foreign suppliers, and effects on local retail communities, big box Target stores are very much like Wal-Mart, just in a prettier package.

Of more than 1,400 Target stores employing more than 300,000 people nationwide, not one has a union. Employees at various stores say an anti-union message and video is part of the new-employee orientation. At stores in the Twin Cities, where Target is headquartered, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union Local 789 has been trying for several years to help Target employees organize, with little luck.

"People ask what the difference between Wal-Mart and Target is," said UFCW organizer Bernie Hesse. "Nothing, except that Wal-Mart is six times bigger. The wages start at $7.25 to $7.50 an hour [at Target]. They'll say that's a competitive wage, but they can't say it's a living wage. We know a lot of their managers are telling people, 'If we find out you're involved in organizing a union you'll get fired.'"

Wal-Mart has about 3,800 stores nationwide and another 2,600 worldwide, employing about 1.6 million people. Target plans to open at least 600 more stores by 2010, for a total of about 2,000 in 47 states. Like Wal-Mart, a typical Target sells a wide range of consumer goods including clothing, household items, office supplies, toys, sports equipment, furniture, art, and electronics; and the stores often have photo laboratories and pharmacies. About 160 SuperTargets nationwide also sell "upscale" groceries, as the company's website describes them, and often contain banks, Starbucks, and Pizza Hut Express outlets. Total revenue was up 12.3 percent in 2005 - $52.6 billion compared to $46.8 billion in 2004.

Wage Slaves

A survey by the UFCW found that starting wages are similar in Targets and Wal-Marts -- possibly higher overall at Wal-Marts - and that Target benefits packages are often harder to qualify for and less comprehensive. (Target's media relations department refused to comment on its wages and benefits policies; individual wages and benefits policies are not included in their annual report.)

"We know that Target and Wal-Mart are constantly checking each other out and seeing how cheap they can get by," says a UFCW statement on the website Targetunion.org, urging Target employees around the country to post their wages.

A Target employee who asked that his name and store location be kept secret said he can barely make ends meet on his salary of $8.40 an hour.

"After three years, I have received less than $1 an hour in raises. I started at $7.65," said the worker, adding that he does love his job because of camaraderie with his co-workers. "We are never compensated and rarely even recognized for meeting our goals."

The starting wage he describes would put a single parent with two kids working full time at Target just slightly above the poverty line; someone with more children or working fewer hours would fall below the poverty line.

Compare that to Target CEO Robert Ulrich, who earned $23.1 million in 2005, according to Forbes, making him the second-highest paid CEO in the retail sector. That's more than 1300 times as much as the worker we spoke to.

Sweat on the Racks?

Meanwhile a glance at labels on a few racks of stylish $20 cardigans and capri pants shows that, like Wal-Mart and most major clothing retailers, Target itself sources its products in India, Indonesia, Guatemala, Mexico, Bangladesh, Kenya, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and other low-wage, developing countries.

In October 2005 representatives of a Mexican labor federation protested outside a Bronx Target to call attention to alleged child labor and illegal worker lockouts at a Mexican factory that supplies the store's Halloween costumes.

"The way the global garment industry is, there are so few factories that respect workers' rights that there is no way Target gets its clothes from workplaces where workers' rights are being respected," said Allie Robbins, national organizer of the group United Students Against Sweatshops.

Race to the Bottom

Target doesn't differ from most major clothing vendors; you usually have to seek out small specialty companies to find union-made, American-made textiles. But as one of the country's major retailers, Target is an industry leader, fostering and profiting from the U.S.'s general culture of consumerism: We buy, buy, buy at ever lower prices in a market system sustained by very low-paid, non-union workforces in impoverished countries.

Even as American consumerism thrives, however, there is growing public awareness and critique of the problems it spawns. Wal-Mart is becoming a lightning rod for the public's increasing dissatisfaction and animosity. A recent study by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell showed that 63 percent of people would oppose a Wal-Mart opening in their community. Groups such as Wal-Mart Watch, several documentarians have harshly critiqued Wal-Mart's working conditions and its effects on communities and international labor standards.

But somehow, perhaps because of its relative small size compared to Wal-Mart, Target has largely avoided negative publicity.

In fact, it benefits from anti-Wal-Mart anger, a fact that isn't lost on company officials.

Media reports describe Target executives booing and hissing at a Wal-Mart logo during sales meetings and calling it the "evil empire." While communities often fight tooth and nail against new Wal-Marts, residents usually welcome Targets, as local governments offer the corporation generous tax breaks and subsidies to locate in their area.

That is what happened last fall in West St. Paul, Minn., where a new Target reaped $731,000 in local tax breaks, while 30 miles away, Ham Lake was fighting Wal-Mart's efforts to open a superstore. The Target in downtown Minneapolis received $68 million in public subsidies, according to the Star Tribune newspaper. In Chicago in 2004, a city-wide coalition formed to oppose two proposed Wal-Marts and the fight roiled the city council for months. Meanwhile at least three new Target stores have been built in the metro area in the last several years.

Target definitely works hard on its image. Last summer it became the first company to sponsor an entire issue of The New Yorker, with 17 pages of ads. With a 2005 advertising budget of $1.028 billion, it regularly takes out full page ads in major daily papers and magazines, promoting the company's products, and sophisticated image as well as its charity work. The company's website says that 96 percent of Americans recognize the Target logo, "more than the Swoosh or Apple." Unlike Wal-Mart's low-budget, cluttered decor, Target sports artsy, larger-than-life photos of everything from cleaning products to desserts to women in lingerie. It is the exclusive marketer of specialty items such as the Roots "retro-futurism" official gear for the 2006 Winter Olympics. Target's website notes that its average consumer has a median household income of $55,000, and 43 percent have completed college.

"It's like they're trying to be Marshall Fields or something," said Chicago high school student Stephanie Evans, shopping for a bikini for spring break. "But it's really the same things as at Wal-Mart, just at higher prices."

The first Target discount store opened in Roseville, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, in 1962. It was run by the Dayton Company, which originated in 1902 with a retail store called Goodfellows owned by George Dayton in Minneapolis. Along with the discount stores, Target Corp. runs Target Financial Services, which manages the Target REDcard credit card.

Target: We Train the FBI

Perhaps Target's oddest singularity is the fact that it boasts one of the nation's top forensics labs at its company headquarters. A product of its efforts to stop shoplifting and property destruction at its stores, its mastery of surveillance and investigative technology and strategy is now eagerly subscribed to by law enforcement agencies nationwide, including the FBI. The company provides training for police and federal agents on investigation and prevention of everything from arson and robbery to smuggling.

Target does more proportionately for the community in the form of community grants and charity than Wal-Mart does, and spends considerably less boating about it. According to the company website, which says Target donates more than $2 million a week to local and national non-profit organizations. The company gives grants of $1,000 to $3,000 to community organizations, and shoppers can donate 1 percent of Target REDcard charges to a local school. The website says more than $154 million has been donated to schools since 1997. The company also runs Target House, a luxury residential facility in Memphis where families can stay while their seriously ill children are treated at a nearby medical center.

In comparison, Wal-Mart, with revenue of $288 billion in 2005, donated $200 million (or 7/100ths of a percent) to charities and organizations in 2005, according to its web site.

While many customers and employees praise Target's charity efforts, critics counter that the company would have more positive impact on communities by providing living wage, stable jobs to local residents.

Following the general trend in retail and the U.S. job market as a whole, Target relies on part-time workers. This schedule may work well for some students and retired people, but it contributes to a dearth of full-time, fully benefitted, stable employment - especially in communities reeling from the store's impact on small local businesses.

"If I needed a full time job I couldn't afford to work here," said "Rosa" a 57-year-old who works part time at a St. Paul Target near her house. (Her name has been changed because she fears retribution.) "It starts at $7.50 an hour and you only get a 50-cent raise once a year. So how long will it take you to even get to $10 an hour! You can't live on that."

Diversity Dilemma

Target's website says diversity is a core value for employees and customers. It says Target is above national averages in employing minorities, both in the overall workforce (21 percent) and managerial positions (38 percent).

But that may depend on the store. Hesse said that some of the many Somalis refugees employed in the Twin Cities stores complain about cultural insensitivity and discrimination.

"Entry level management people just don't know how to handle it, they seem to be insensitive to immigrant workers," said Hesse. "In one store, there's a lot of friction between managers and Somali workers. They hire these young white boys as managers, and then they run a crew of Somalis with a very condescending attitude."

An African-American employee at the flagship Roseville, Minn. store (who asked that her name not be used for fear of retribution), said she feels as if she constantly suffers racial discrimination. She said there are no black supervisors on the overnight shift she works. "There are a lot of Somalis working on the overnight shift, but no Somali team leader." She said she is tired of young white "team leaders" repeatedly telling her to work faster or do things differently.

"It's the same conversation over and over," said the middle-aged woman. "They treat us like we're kids. And they'll approach you in front of other crew members, not in the office or somewhere private."

She thinks she was unfairly given a document from management saying she needed to increase her work speed.

"I feel like I was discriminated against because I'm black," she said. "I talked to white co-workers who I was working side by side with, and I could see I was working just as fast as them. I asked them if they had to sign the paper [from management] saying they were too slow and they did not. The majority who got the "guidance" slips were Somali or African-American like myself."

Beat the Clock

Workers generally complain about a pressurized and patronizing work atmosphere where they are constantly pressed to work harder and faster and at the same time to act cheery and invested in the store's success. The company's website boasts that workers will respond with "cheetah-like" speed within 60 seconds to customer calls on the red phones throughout the store.

Rosa said employees are constantly exhorted to get shoppers to sign up for Target REDcards; some stores have weekly quotas. "They'll have little employee promotions, it's so ridiculous, you'll get candy or a liter of pop if you get two people to sign up," she said.

She said the store is generally understaffed and workers are expected to do numerous jobs at the same time.

"You're running around, feeling like you're being pulled in every direction," she said. "There's never enough people on the sales floor. You're getting calls to come up to the cash register, to do pulls [of merchandise] in the back room, to deal with returns at guest services, all at once. And the whole time you're constantly picking up and folding stuff, getting things off the floor. At my age it's a really hard day, on your feet the whole time on these linoleum floors. I'm aching when I get home. I have to take Ibuprofen just to be able to sleep."

John Hayden had a similar experience working in a Target distribution center near his home in Oconomowoc, Wisc. After quitting his Target job in 2002, he was diagnosed with a hernia which he blames on lifting up to 700 boxes a day.

"It was hard work," said Hayden, who was in his late 50s at the time. "We never produced enough to keep the middle managers happy. I think they plan it that way - they always want more."

Could it Be Different?

In today's market, could retail really be any different? Fair labor advocates think so. Hesse notes that in several unionized grocery stores in the Twin Cities, hourly wages hover around $13 to $17 an hour, roughly double Target's. Now SuperTarget's sale of groceries threatens the survival of union grocery stores.

Even other major big box retailers have managed to pay significantly higher wages and achieve higher employee retention. The prices at Costco Wholesale Corp., the nation's fifth largest retailer, are competitive with those at Target and Wal-Mart, but it pays full-time employees an average of around $16 an hour along with generous health benefits.

Costco pulls this off by offering fewer brands of each item, keeping infrastructure costs low and forgoing advertising; and the company also benefits financially from low employee turnover. Labor advocates also note that The Container Store is known for decent wages and good working conditions.

"We've turned into a nation of consumers, not citizens," said Hesse. "We need to make retailers and employers bring back the old social contract where if you work hard and give them full time, they have to treat you with some degree of dignity and pay you enough that you don't need to worry about your basic needs all the time."

I believe it's not the store that is bad. The store only does what they are allowed to do!
The issue, the problem is the society that does not require it's government to inact and enforce laws that protect workers!
It is my opinion, that this is why we have government!
To protect it's people.
POAC
QUOTE
I believe it's not the store that is bad. The store only does what they are allowed to do!
The issue, the problem is the society that does not require it's government to inact and enforce laws that protect workers!
It is my opinion, that this is why we have government!
To protect it's people.


I agree very much
fedup
If you want a low price, good company, go to COSCO.

Their employees get top wages and benefits.

Their CEO- founder sits in a cubicle and takes $150,000 salary.

COSCO does it right.

Both target and WalMart are bad. Less bad isn't better.
sky of mind
We don't all have a Costco in town.
More of us will have a Target, but not all.
Nearly everyone has Wal*Mart.
In many places, that's about all you got, is Wal*Mart!


So, again, the best thing to do would be to insist our government put laws on the books
to protect workers, including those who work in retail such as Wally World!

Laws have a purpose!
Many of you may feel laws confine you.
However, laws also protect you.
They protect you far and away more than they confine you.

Stores such as Wal*Mart have been allowed to pretty much self govern.
The rule pretty much has been, to let the market dictate it's own terms.
Well, unless you're a corporatist, clearly that does not work!
It didn't work last century, or the century before that!
In what ever century, a robber baron is a robber baron!

Government OF the people, and BY the people,
is supposed to work FOR the people!
But it will not, unless the people insist on it.
rcorporon
Gotta disagree sky.

By the nature of capitalism, the company is an evil entity, existing only to make money regardless of the cost.
sky of mind
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Tuesday, 2 May 2006, 1:50 am) [snapback]54754[/snapback]

Gotta disagree sky.

By the nature of capitalism, the company is an evil entity, existing only to make money regardless of the cost.




And I'm trelling you that the Corporation is the innanimate object!
It has no life of it's own, onlt that which people give it.
And we as people can limit and control what the corporation can and cannot do,
through legislation!

Thus it has happened time and again for almost 200 years.
This is the core of the American Progressive Liberal Movement!

The issue of worker right and workers issues.
If you do not recognise this on going fact,
then you choose to ignore history!
rust123
ah, im gettin a summer job at target pretty soon, ill get everyone to organize...dont worry.
rcorporon
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Tuesday, 2 May 2006, 11:37 pm) [snapback]54778[/snapback]

And I'm trelling you that the Corporation is the innanimate object!
It has no life of it's own, onlt that which people give it.
And we as people can limit and control what the corporation can and cannot do,
through legislation!

Thus it has happened time and again for almost 200 years.
This is the core of the American Progressive Liberal Movement!

The issue of worker right and workers issues.
If you do not recognise this on going fact,
then you choose to ignore history!


Corporations in the US have the same rights, and are recognized under the law, as individuals.

A corporation can buy and sell land, aquire assets, sue people, be sued, etc.

If you think that corporations are harmless and not nasty things, you are ignoring reality!
Max-1
I try to look for this:

IPB Image

=====================
NOT THIS

IPB Image

=====================
Found this one

IPB Image

=====================
And then what's wrong with this picture?

IPB Image
Chinese manufacturer of American flags


=====================

And then don't forget this one too

IPB Image
Boxes covered over that read, "Made in China"
MasterMind
Am I the only one that thinks $8.50/hr is good?
Max-1
QUOTE(MasterMind @ Wednesday, 3 May 2006, 10:04 pm) [snapback]55138[/snapback]

Am I the only one that thinks $8.50/hr is good?

No. I happen to think $8.50 is hella good compared to the Federal Minimum wage standards set back in 1997 at $5.15/hour. Hell, that's three thirty five more than the law thinks you need to live off of. You're rollin' in the dough, man. rolleyes.gif

With that extra $3.35 you should be able to afford your own health insurance, you're own personal Soc.Sec. Fund, AND the extra increase in fuel costs passed on to the consumer while the Big Oil companies get a refund so that their profits can be padded even bigger and aford a half million dollar retirement allowance.

leftinrightsouth
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 12:25 am) [snapback]55141[/snapback]

No. I happen to think $8.50 is hella good compared to the Federal Minimum wage standards set back in 1997 at $5.15/hour. Hell, that's three thirty five more than the law thinks you need to live off of. You're rollin' in the dough, man. rolleyes.gif

With that extra $3.35 you should be able to afford your own health insurance, you're own personal Soc.Sec. Fund, AND the extra increase in fuel costs passed on to the consumer while the Big Oil companies get a refund so that their profits can be padded even bigger and aford a half million dollar retirement allowance.


Ok, was that a little sarcasm I sense here, Max??

MM, $8.50 is better than bad. I make like $9.31 (when you break down my salary per hour). I live in one of the most economically depressed and poorest counties and states in the country and my $9.31 is only enough to pay daycare ($325 per month), car ins., gas & electricity and a very small amount of groceries. I have a roommate who pays the rent ($750 a month for a very modest house). If it weren't for finding my roommate, my son and I were going to have to go on the street. In fact, for several years, I took grad classes ONLY for the student loans I would qualify for so that I could have enough money to pay rent. I don't spend extra on anything. I am frugal as frugal can be. We don't eat (and therefore don't buy) meat. Our meals are commonly a vegitable or 2 and a protien or carb of some sort and fruits. I'm talking cheap as cheap can get (without giving him boxed meals that are full of chemicals and hydrogenated fucking killer oils). After my manditory retirement, health insurance (also manditory, can't opt out of either), I bring in less than $1100 a month. $8.50 an hour is good if you have no bills and your rent is $60 bucks a month. I'm not knocking $8.50. I nearly make that. I am saying that even what I make is deplorable and not a living wage.

Um, stepping down and walking off now. Sorry, this is a super sore subject for me, considering I am a college grad with excellent skills and credentials and still can't afford "luxuries" like the occasional movie or super luxuries like a new shirt from Wallyworld.
POAC
QUOTE
Um, stepping down and walking off now. Sorry, this is a super sore subject for me, considering I am a college grad with excellent skills and credentials and still can't afford "luxuries" like the occasional movie or super luxuries like a new shirt from Wallyworld.


Don't forget that you work for the POAC for free! redface.gif

But anytime you need a shirt, just ask.

Thank god I have a sugar-mamma, or there'd be no POAC. Technically, my office is a sweatshop. bawling.gif
leftinrightsouth
QUOTE(POAC @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 10:29 am) [snapback]55171[/snapback]

Don't forget that you work for the POAC for free! redface.gif

But anytime you need a shirt, just ask.

Thank god I have a sugar-mamma, or there'd be no POAC. Technically, my office is a sweatshop. bawling.gif


Hey, I love working for POAC for free! Its my happiness.
soon2b
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Wednesday, 3 May 2006, 9:12 pm) [snapback]55083[/snapback]

Corporations in the US have the same rights, and are recognized under the law, as individuals.

A corporation can buy and sell land, aquire assets, sue people, be sued, etc.

If you think that corporations are harmless and not nasty things, you are ignoring reality!


True enough Scorp. This article might interest you Sky:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/051600-101.htm
rcorporon
QUOTE(soon2b @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 12:46 am) [snapback]55175[/snapback]

True enough Scorp. This article might interest you Sky:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/051600-101.htm


There's an excellent documentary called 'The Corporation' done by a Canadian film company not too long ago. It traces the history of the American corporation, and, seeing as how the corporation is an individual in the eyes of US law, psychoanalyses the type of person a Corporation is. LINK

The conclusion is that the corporation exhibits all of the personality traits of a psychopath.

Corporations are BAD.
Jack
I worked at a Target for about four months. I would say that it is better than Wal*Mart by far. Sure the pay sucks but the pay always sucks if you are a part-time high school student doing work that takes little to no skill or education. At the store that i worked at, they never treated us like shit, they never tried to lock us in at night, they never made us work without pay, they never did anything that seemed abusive to their employees. I am not saying that it is a great place to work but it sure as hell isn't bad for retail. Plus i got all the free pop and food that i wanted. Also, who wants to join a union? I have no problems with unions, when they are needed but they aren't always needed.

Also, one thing that i like about shopping at Target over Wal*Mart is:

1. How clean it is.
2. How it isn't crowded.
3. There isn't load music and advertisements everywhere
4. The fact that people can speak english
5. Their products are complete crap


I am sure that Target isn't a great company but no company really is. I think that one of the problems with our society is that we see any change as being bad. We think just because there is a target down the street, instead of a ma and pa business, suddenly we are doing something wrong. That is progress and i think that we need to recognize that our society does need corporations. Small businesses are probably far less evil than corporations but much more expensive and less selections. If i shop at Target or any of these other large stores, that does not make me a bad person and just because these large businesses thrive, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with our society.

By the way, going along with Cost Co. another great corporation out there is Steve and Barry’s. It is a clothing store, where their employees make decent money and all of their cloths are under $8. You can get a leather jacket, which is pretty good quality, for $8. Also, a lot of their products are made in-store. There are not many of them around but if you find one, go in and spend about $100 and you can get a whole new wardrobe. The company actually started a few years back by a couple of college students who were sick of getting ripped off by the college clothing store.
sky of mind
I say it again,
A corporation is an innanimate object.
It of it's own "will" cannot be good or bad.

You might as well blame a brick for hitting a person up side the head.

However, we can pass laws to make it illegal and a punnishable offence for putting a brick upside someone's head!

This is why we have laws. To control what people do with these innanimate objects!
And we can legislate what is acceptable behavior for corporation,
just as we do for the people of a society!

And we will, just as soon as we realize that we can, and that we should!


Yes, left alone the people who control the corporation will always yield to greed and run amuck.
That's why we have laws.
Republican DEREGULATION has been one of the most damaging aspects working against workers rights in modern history.
The corporation didn't make that happen, people did.
And people can let it not happen.

That's why we have laws!
rcorporon
QUOTE(Jesus of Suburbia @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 1:56 am) [snapback]55190[/snapback]

I am sure that Target isn't a great company but no company really is. I think that one of the problems with our society is that we see any change as being bad. We think just because there is a target down the street, instead of a ma and pa business, suddenly we are doing something wrong. That is progress and i think that we need to recognize that our society does need corporations. Small businesses are probably far less evil than corporations but much more expensive and less selections. If i shop at Target or any of these other large stores, that does not make me a bad person and just because these large businesses thrive, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with our society.


There's a difference between "progress" and allowing a mega-corporation to stomp out competition and create a monopoly.

The image of small ma/pa shops being more expensive and having less selection is a smokescreen. The quality is often better, and the people who work there actually know what they are talking about.

I bought my bike (bicycle) at a real, local, bike shop here. The guy who runs it is a bike enthusiast himself, and knows his stuff. He helped me make an informed choice and really knew what he was talking about. The jokers at the large box stores don't know shit about the departments that they work in, and usually don't care either.

Local business, for anything, is superior to the national box-store crap.

QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 2:09 am) [snapback]55193[/snapback]

I say it again,
A corporation is an innanimate object.
It of it's own "will" cannot be good or bad.


If it's an inanimate object, how come it can be sued, sue others, own property, buy and sell assets, etc?

A corporation, while not being a true living thing, is a living thing in the eyes of the law.

It's made up of a group of men, but the men act in the best interests of THE CORPORATION, not themselves or the betterment of soceity.

In this way, the corporation is very much a living thing, capable of much evil.
sky of mind
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 10:25 am) [snapback]55195[/snapback]



A corporation, while not being a true living thing, is a living thing in the eyes of the law.

It's made up of a group of men, but the men act in the best interests of THE CORPORATION, not themselves or the betterment of soceity.

In this way, the corporation is very much a living thing, capable of much evil.



What you think you see is there because in recient years the courts, at the manipulation of the corporations,
have granted citizen status to the Corporations. This is a part of the corporate manipulation of the market place. This situation has been expanded thanks in no small part to deregulation.


Did anyone sue Enron? No, they sue the CEO and his officers.
The CEO in effect, IS the company!
When you sue the CEO, you are suing the company.

Though the papers will name the corporation, someone within that orginization has to represent the corporation,
because the corporation in an innanimate object and Cannot Represent it's self!


People can only sue other people.
Guns don't shoot people, etc etc!
Jack
I think we have realized the problem of trying to argue with a communist about something essential to a capital system.

I said this to that kid who was claimed to be a communist, if you want to live like you do, then you need coperations. Unless you want to make your own car, power your own house, make your own computer, go out and grow your own food, then you need coperations. Since my lunch is ready, i am going to cut this short and not run it through the spell checker. This is exactly the same point they made on southpark a few years back, coperations started off as small business but they did something right, which allowed them to grow and make large profits. Just because a business is large, does not make it inherintly bad. Now, if a large company does things that are unethical, that is a different story but just because a company is big, does not mean that the people who shop for it or work for it are evil.
sky of mind
QUOTE(Jesus of Suburbia @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 12:30 pm) [snapback]55206[/snapback]

I think we have realized the problem of trying to argue with a communist about something essential to a capital system.

I said this to that kid who was claimed to be a communist, if you want to live like you do, then you need coperations. Unless you want to make your own car, power your own house, make your own computer, go out and grow your own food, then you need coperations. Since my lunch is ready, i am going to cut this short and not run it through the spell checker. This is exactly the same point they made on southpark a few years back, coperations started off as small business but they did something right, which allowed them to grow and make large profits. Just because a business is large, does not make it inherintly bad. Now, if a large company does things that are unethical, that is a different story but just because a company is big, does not mean that the people who shop for it or work for it are evil.



Thank you Jack!
POAC
The POAC will be incorporating this summer. Will I, or it, be bad?
sky of mind
QUOTE(POAC @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 12:54 pm) [snapback]55208[/snapback]

The POAC will be incorporating this summer. Will I, or it, be bad?




The movie: Silver Streak

The actors: Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor (RIP)

The scene: They're both being released from jail, trying to look real tough.

The line: "We Bad! Oh yeah! We Bad!"


IPB Image












BTW,

When it gets real quiet, like right now,
that sound is the frogs!
Everyone of um lookin to get laid!
MasterMind
Here is a question I wish to ask you all. Should there be a law limiting Coporations and how many "outlets" they can have?
sky of mind
QUOTE(MasterMind @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 6:05 pm) [snapback]55226[/snapback]

Here is a question I wish to ask you all. Should there be a law limiting Coporations and how many "outlets" they can have?




Sorry, but can you please define "outlets"?
MasterMind
No. Learn english.

Ok fine, here it is....



QUOTE
out·let Pronunciation (outlt, -lt)
n.
1.
a. A passage for escape or exit; a vent.
b. A means of release or gratification, as for energies, drives, or desires: exercised as an outlet for frustration.
2.
a. A stream that flows out of a lake or pond.
b. The mouth of a river where it flows into a larger body of water.
c. The point of intersection of a driveway and a road, especially in a rural area.
3.
a. A commercial market for goods or services.
b. A store that sells the goods of a particular manufacturer or wholesaler.

4. A receptacle, especially one mounted in a wall, that is connected to a power supply and equipped with a socket for a plug.
sky of mind
It was a reasonable question.
I can think of dozens of different sorts of outlets.
I wished to know in which way you mean it in referense to Corporations.


But never mind.
I thought you wanted to discuss this.
But I must have been mistaken.
MasterMind
edited by admin

It was a valid question. I didn't know what you meant either. Now keep it civil.


But I am serious, do you think there should be law that limits a corporation to few outlets?
rcorporon
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 4:28 am) [snapback]55205[/snapback]

What you think you see is there because in recient years the courts, at the manipulation of the corporations,
have granted citizen status to the Corporations. This is a part of the corporate manipulation of the market place. This situation has been expanded thanks in no small part to deregulation.


Wrong answer. Try again sky.

Corporations have existed since the early middle ages. Check this (taken from Wikipedia's entry on corporations):

QUOTE
Corporations have been present in some forms as far back as Ancient Rome. Although devoid of some of the core characteristics by which corporations are known today, they nonetheless were enterprises, sanctioned by the state, with a form of shareholders who invested money for a specific purpose.

With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the influx of Germanic tribes, the Roman conception of the corporation merged with other views. Germanic tribes, for example, maintained that a group entity in and of itself could have a separate identity from that of its members.

These influences came together in the body of canon law built around the conception of the church as corporate structure in the Middle Ages. Different theories of the church as corporate body were favored by different individuals but all agreed on one key component: that the church was more than just its members and could maintain an existence perpetually, regardless of the death of any individual member.

This, together with discussion as to the relationship between the head of a corporation (such as the Pope) and its members, contributed not only to the development of modern corporations and corporate theory but also set the stage for many ideas that would come to fruition during the enlightenment. Kenneth Pomeranz, an economic historian, argues that the need to perform pseudo-governmental operations (such as the waging of war) accounts for the development of this economic structure in Europe but not in China or in the Middle East.

Older corporate entities gained incorporation as "the person/people of xx". This reflected the people who made up the "body" and also emphasized their legal identity. The law classifies a corporation either as a corporation sole (one person) or as a corporation aggregate (any other number).

Examples include (the link gives the legal name; the nickname appears in brackets with the nature of the corporation)

* The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (Bank of England — corporation aggregate)
* The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge University — corporation aggregate)
* The President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard College — corporation aggregate)
* Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand (New Zealand Government — corporation sole)
* The Archbishop of Canterbury (corporation sole)
* The Dean, Chapter and Students of the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford of the Foundation of King Henry VIII (Christ Church, Oxford — corporation aggregate)

Using strict definitions, universities and colleges count as corporations since they merely comprise groups of people.

Development of modern commercial corporations
1/8 share of the Stora Kopparberg mine, dated June 16, 1288.
Enlarge
1/8 share of the Stora Kopparberg mine, dated June 16, 1288.
A bond issued by the Dutch East India Company, dating from 7 November 1623, for the amount of 2,400 florins
Enlarge
A bond issued by the Dutch East India Company, dating from 7 November 1623, for the amount of 2,400 florins

Early corporations of the commercial sort were formed under frameworks set up by governments of states to undertake tasks which appeared too risky or too expensive for individuals or governments to embark upon. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focussed on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.


Here's some info about the legal status of the corporation (also taken from wiki):

QUOTE
Legal status

The law typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person); United States law recognises this as corporate personhood. Under such a doctrine (obviously a legal fiction), a corporation enjoys many of the rights and obligations of individual persons, such as the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes, have certain constitutional rights, and otherwise participate in society. (Note that corporations do not possess all the rights appertaining to individuals: in most jurisdictions, for example, a corporation cannot become a citizen and vote.)

In common law countries, the classic statement of this principle is found in Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705, where Lord Haldane said:

"My Lords, a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation."

The most salient features of incorporation include:

Limited Liability
Unlike in a partnership or sole proprietorship, members of a corporation hold no liability for the corporation's debts and obligations: see leading case in common law, Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] AC 22. As a result their "limited" potential losses cannot exceed the amount which they contributed to the corporation as dues or paid for shares. The economic rationale for this lies in the fact that it allows anonymous trading in the shares of the corporation by virtue of eliminating the corporation's creditors as a stakeholder in such a transaction. Without limited liability, a creditor would not likely allow any share to be sold to a buyer of at least equivalent creditworthiness as the seller. Limited liability further allows corporations to raise funds for riskier enterprises by removing risks and costs from the owners and shifting them onto creditors and to other members of society, thereby creating an externality. Another rationale sometimes offered for limited liability is reducing the amount that an investor can lose reduces the time and effort required to determine whether a stock is risky, thus adding liquidity to the stock market - in contrast to the very illiquid market for partnership interests (however, given the due diligence already exercised by institutional and other large investors, and the availability of insurance, it is questionable whether added liability would increase the costs of determining risk sufficiently to impair the liquidity of the stock market). In any event, a lender or other creditor can require a personal guarantee on a loan to a corporation (normally a small corporation), thus introducing personal liability.
Perpetual Lifetime
The assets and structure of the corporation exist beyond the lifetime of any of its members or agents. This allows for stability and accumulation of capital, which thus becomes available for investment in projects of a larger size and over a longer term than if the corporate assets remained subject to dissolution and distribution. This feature also had great importance in the medieval period, when land donated to the Church (a corporation) would not generate the feudal fees that a lord could claim upon a landholder's death. In this regard, see Statute of Mortmain. It is important to note that the "perpetual lifetime" feature is an indication of the unbounded potential duration of the corporation's existence, and its accumulation of wealth and thus power. (In theory, a corporation can have its charter revoked at any time, putting an end to its existence as a legal entity. However, in practice, dissolution only occurs for corporations that request it or fail to meet annual filing requirements.)

[edit]

Ownership and control

Humans and other legal entities composed of humans (such as trusts and other corporations) can be members of corporations. In the case of for-profit corporations, these members hold shares and are thus called shareholders. When no members or shareholders exist, a corporation may exist as a "memberless corporation" or similar — this second type of corporation counts as a not-for-profit corporation. In either category, the corporation comprises a collective of individuals with a distinct legal status and with special privileges not provided to ordinary unincorporated businesses, to voluntary associations, or to groups of individuals.

Typically, a board of directors governs a corporation on the behalf of the members. The corporate members elect the directors, and the board has a fiduciary duty to look after the interests of the corporation. The corporate officers such as the CEO, president, treasurer, and other titled officers are usually chosen by the board to manage the affairs of the corporation.

Corporations can also be controlled (in part) by creditors such as banks. In return for lending money to the corporation, creditors can demand a control interest analogous to that of a shareholder, including one or more seats on the board of directors. Creditors are not said to "own" the corporation as shareholders do, but can outweigh the shareholders in practice, especially if the corporation is experiencing financial difficulties and cannot survive without credit.

Members of a corporation are said to have a "residual interest." Should the corporation end its existence, the members are the last to receive its assets, following creditors and others with interests in the corporation. This can make investment in a corporation risky; however, the risk is outweighed by the corporation's limited liability, which ensures that the member will only be liable for the amount they contributed.


Tell me they aren't "real, living things?" WalMart has nearly the same rights under the US constitution as you do!!!

When you are wronged by WalMart's nasty paying practices, when you want to take legal action, you sue WALMART ITSELF, not the people who run it. You sue the corporation as an individual member of soceity.

QUOTE
Though the papers will name the corporation, someone within that orginization has to represent the corporation,
because the corporation in an innanimate object and Cannot Represent it's self!
People can only sue other people.
Guns don't shoot people, etc etc!


People do represent the corporation, but they are usually untouchable. Look at Monsanto, when it was hurting all those people with their various chemical products. Every time people sued them, they had to sue "Monsanto" as an individual.

Corporations are EVIL. Companies should not be recognized as "people" under the law.

QUOTE(Jesus of Suburbia @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 4:30 am) [snapback]55206[/snapback]

I think we have realized the problem of trying to argue with a communist about something essential to a capital system.

I said this to that kid who was claimed to be a communist, if you want to live like you do, then you need coperations. Unless you want to make your own car, power your own house, make your own computer, go out and grow your own food, then you need coperations. Since my lunch is ready, i am going to cut this short and not run it through the spell checker. This is exactly the same point they made on southpark a few years back, coperations started off as small business but they did something right, which allowed them to grow and make large profits. Just because a business is large, does not make it inherintly bad. Now, if a large company does things that are unethical, that is a different story but just because a company is big, does not mean that the people who shop for it or work for it are evil.


What are you talking about?

Soceity doesn't "need" corporations in their modern form, at all.

What corporations are needed for is what they were originally created for. They were origianlly created to complete some major job, such as the building of a bridge, etc. They would be created, on a temporary basis, to do a certain project. They were then dissolved.

Modern corporations are nothing but profiteering, nasty pieces of work designed to hurt workers and make an elite few rich.
MasterMind
QUOTE
Corporations are EVIL. Companies should not be recognized as "people" under the law.


Agreed. I think there should be laws that "limits" the powers of a Corporation and strips them of any rights the Constitution grants to "Citizens". Also, I feel a corporation should have few outlets.
sky of mind
Scorp.

We're gonna have to agree that we don't agree and leave it at that.
Don't you suppose this has been beat on enough?

Don't you feel a bit like Don Quixote sometimes?


IPB Image




QUOTE(MasterMind @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 7:03 pm) [snapback]55243[/snapback]

Then why did you reply?

Was it one of those "hey look at me" moments?

clap.gif

But I am serious, do you think there should be law that limits a corporation to few outlets?




I would seriousely answer your question,
if you would answer mine, to which I was being serious with.
No hassle. It was a straight up, honest question.




BTW. I replied because I had hoped you would see your reaction,
and see that it wasn't neccessiary.
I don't need "hay look at me" moments!
I'm just fine the way that I am, but thanks for thinkin of me!
rcorporon
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 11:23 am) [snapback]55248[/snapback]

Scorp.

We're gonna have to agree that we don't agree and leave it at that.
Don't you suppose this has been beat on enough?

Don't you feel a bit like Don Quixote sometimes?
IPB Image



Nice escape.

It seems that every time you make some sort of claim, you simply back off when proven wrong.

Like the "time travel flight 93" stuff, or now, this.

"Please scorp, let's just agree to disagree."

Then stop responding to my posts if you don't want to ever defend your statements.
sky of mind
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 7:43 pm) [snapback]55250[/snapback]

Nice escape.

It seems that every time you make some sort of claim, you simply back off when proven wrong.

Like the "time travel flight 93" stuff, or now, this.

"Please scorp, let's just agree to disagree."

Then stop responding to my posts if you don't want to ever defend your statements.




Escape?


That's all you come up with?

OK then, I'll be the adult.


You win!

Now, don't you feel much better?
POAC
I don't think the idea of the corporation is a bad thing. Any more than a political party or a labor union is a bad thing. They aren't inherently evil by their own nature. It's simply a tool that can be misused.

Like I said, I'm incorporating this summer. Why? So that if Rummy goes back into the the private sector and decides to sue me, or if Halliburton wants to sue me for using thier logo on some of my t-shirts, they can't take my house and my car. They can only bankrupt the business. Or if I am in a car accident, the victim can sue me, but not take the business.

Is it all about exploitation of workers? I guess we'll have to ask Lefty how she feels about that. Right now, I'm exploiting the shit out of her. She's working for free. That postal mail newsletter some of you get? She did that. But when I do pay her again, will I be exploiting her? Sort of. Anytime you go to work for someone else, you are being exploited. And you are being compensated to be exploited.

In business, an employer has to compensate [his] workers adaquately while trying to recieve more value in their work than he pays out in payroll. So I need Lefty to put out 10 dollars an hour worth of work and pay her 7 dollars an hour. Am I mean and cruel? IS that the evil nature of capitalism incarnate? Is socialism the answer? NOPE. In socialism the State wants lefty to put out 10 dollars an hour and recieve 7 bucks an hour. Only she can't go out and do the same, herself. (Employ others) And why shouldn't I recieve more than I pay out since I have built the aparatus in which to employ other people. Creating jobs, training workers, and paying taxes on it all?

And should I be limited in how many outlets I can have? Should there only be a handful of POAC websites and propaganda kiosks around the country? Right now I have oldamericancentury.org, .com, americanfascism.com, and citizensworldwide.org. Have I crossed the boundaries yet?

Capitalism is fine as long as there are safety measures in check like anti-trust laws. It's the de-regulation that is the problem, not the corporations themselves.


At least that's what I think.

And look, I made my point without getting shitty to anyone. Too bad more of us can't do that.
MasterMind
QUOTE
I would seriousely answer your question,
if you would answer mine, to which I was being serious with.
No hassle. It was a straight up, honest question.


Still waiting on that answer.
sky of mind
Thank you!


Now I think I understand what is meant by "outlets".



My answer to the original question about outlets,
is no.

But, I do think corporations should be limited in how big they can become,
and how much they can limit competition by buying the competition!

That's called Anti-trust, and ever since Reagan it's been all the rage to merge.
Today theye are something like 6 oil companies!

2 decades ago there was something like 16.
Lack of competition = high prices = huge profits!

Personally I'm amazed your agerage citizen that buys gas isn't completely aware of this simple fact!




Then we drop back to the first original question.

Wal*Mart is not evil.

Here's a link. Make a note. I got links!!!!!!

The Damn Link

This is what that link takes you too....


QUOTE
Wal-Mart History Timeline


1962-Company founded with opening of first Wal-Mart in Rogers, Arkansas.
1969-Company incorporated as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on October 31.
1970-Wal-Mart opens first distribution center and home office in Bentonville, Arkansas.
1970-Wal-Mart stock first traded over the counter as publicly-held company.
1971-First 100 percent stock split in May: Market price: $47.
1972-Wal-Mart was approved and listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
1972-Second 100 percent stock split in March: Market price: $47.50.
1975-Third 100 percent stock split in August: Market price: $23.
1977-Wal-Mart made first acquisition: 16 Mohr-Value stores in Michigan and Illinois.
1978-Wal-Mart acquires Hutcheson Shoe Company.
1978-Pharmacy, auto service center, and jewelry divisions introduced.
1979-First billion dollar year in sales, total sales: $1,248,000,000.
1980-Fourth 100 percent stock split in November: Market price: $50.
1982-Fifth 100 percent stock split in June: Market price: $49.875.
1983-The first SAM'S club was opened in April in Midwest city, Oklahoma.
1983-Acquired Woolco stores within the United States.
1983-"People Greeter" program introduced at all stores in April.
1983-First one-hour photo lab opened in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
1983-Sixth 100 percent stock split in June: Market price: $81.625.
1984-Sam Walton did the hula on Wall Street. He promised associates that he would do this if the company had a pre-tax profit of 8 percent in 1983.
1984-David Glass named company president.
1985-Seventh 100 percent stock split in September: Market price: $49.75.
1985- Acquired Grand Central Stores.
1985-Wal-Mart stock traded on the Pacific Stock Exchange.
1987-Eighth 100 percent stock split in June: Market price: $66.625.
1988-David Glass named Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1988-First Supercenter opened in Washington, Missouri.
1988-Acquired Supersaver units.
1990-Wal-Mart positioned as the nation's #1 retailer.
1990-Acquired Western Merchandisers, Inc. of Amarillo, Texas.
1990-Acquired McLane Company of Temple, Texas.
1990-Ninth 100 percent stock split in June: Market price: $62.50.
1991-Acquired 28 units from The Wholesale Club, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana.
1991-Entered international market for the first time with the opening of Club Aurrera in Mexico City.
1992-President George Bush presented Sam Walton with the Medal of Freedom on March 17.
1992-First Wal-Mart store opened in Puerto Rico.
1992-Sam Walton passed away on April 5.
1992-S. Robson Walton named Chairman of the Board on April 7.
1993-First billion dollar sales week in December.
1993-Acquired 91 Pace Warehouse clubs.
1993-Tenth 100 percent stock split in February: Market price: $63.625.
1994-Wal-Mart acquired 122 Woolco stores in Canada from Woolworth Canada, Inc.
1994-Implemented Code Adam program, named after Adam Walsh, in all stores.
1995-James Lawrence "Bud" Walton, co-founder, passed away.
1995-Three SAM'S Clubs and three Supercenters open in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
1996-Wal-Mart listed on Toronto Stock Exchange.
1996-Wal-Mart entered Korea and China through joint venture agreements.
1997-Wal-Mart became the #1 employer in the United States with 680,000 associates.
1997-Wal-Mart replaces Woolworth on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
1997-Wal-Mart has first $100 billion dollar sales year: total sales: $105,000,000,000.
1997-Wal-Mart introduced OneSource nutrition centers.
1998-Wal-Mart expanded into Germany.
1998-Wal-Mart exceeds $100 million in annual charitable contributions, with donations totaling $102,000,000.
1999-Eleventh 100 percent stock split in March: Market price: $95.
Information from Wal-Mart's Student Packet.



OK, please, at what point did Wal*Mart become evil?
When the store incorporated?
When they offered stock on the open market?

Through all of this time line, I see no evil!
I see a company who hired very smart people, and became incredibly successful.
No they didn't do things that were always 100% ethical, that's whay we need new laws!
That's why we need laws to protect workers rights!
We need laws that require Wal*Mart to provide insurance to it's employees.
We need laws that require Wal*Mart to pay it's source clients and treat them by US standards and laws.
We need laws that require and make Wal*Mart unable to so completely dominate the market place, to restrict what certainly looks to me like monopoly. Certainly in many parts of the country there is no competition and having worked for Wal*Mart in a small town in the middle of nowhere, I know first hand how they work!

The list goes on and on, and when I say we need these laws to control Wal*Mart, I am refering to those people who run Wal*Mart. If Wal*Mart were a hot rod car. I would not give the car a speeding ticket. And if the car that is Wal*Mart continues to speed, I'd encourage laws that require the operator of the Car that is Wal*Mart to modify his machine so that it might more easily conform with the law! Or I might go so far as to take the Car that is Wal*Mart away from it's current operator and give it to someone else who would operate it legally!






Wouldn't it be so much easier, and void the angst level to just agree to disagree without name calling in the process?
POAC
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 8:43 pm) [snapback]55250[/snapback]

Nice escape.

It seems that every time you make some sort of claim, you simply back off when proven wrong.

Like the "time travel flight 93" stuff, or now, this.

"Please scorp, let's just agree to disagree."

Then stop responding to my posts if you don't want to ever defend your statements.



You're going to have to accept that sometimes people aren't going to see things your way and will simply agree to disagree. This forum isn't about proving people wrong. It's about sharing information and ideas. If a false statement is made, then fine. Disprove it with facts and links. If it's an opposing viewpoint, you're just going to have to deal with its existence. There is no winner in that kind of situation and declaring an attempt to call a truce as an "escape" only makes you appear as someone who seeks validation. Or at worst, a bully. Chill out. These pissing matches ruin perfectly decent threads.



MasterMind
I see what you are saying Sky. But I think you agree with me and do not see it.

QUOTE
My answer to the original question about outlets,
is no.

But, I do think corporations should be limited in how big they can become,
and how much they can limit competition by buying the competition!



The only way to limit a company is limit its market (outlet). Meaning less stores or less product. I believe in small buisness run by citizens being at most "statewide". Anything larger I believe should be state run and non-profit. That is where I think we begin to disagree is at what point we should "limit".

Also I do not think Walmart is evil ether, no more then a Religion or Nation can be evil. The people IN it can be evil, and even 100% of its members evil, but not the dogma. The only thing that determines good or evil is perception of intent.
rcorporon
When did WalMart get evil?

How about this (taken from: here.):

QUOTE
* HEALTH CARE
Wal-Mart fails to provide health insurance to over half its employees. Who pays for it? We all do. Wal-Mart workers top Medicaid rolls in at least 16 states. Read more.
* WOMEN
Wal-Mart is the subject of the largest class action lawsuit in history by current and former female employees who were paid and promoted at significantly lower rates than their male co-workers. Read more.
* OUTSOURCING
If Wal-Mart were an independent nation, it would be China’s eighth-largest trading partner. Is Wal-Mart trading away America's future to fatten its corporate bottom line? Read more.
* LOCAL ECONOMIES
For every new Supercenter that Wal-Mart opens, two local supermarkets will close. How will this affect your town? Big box stores like Wal-Mart spend nearly four times less within local and state economies as local businesses do. Read more.
* WORKERS
The average pay for a Wal-Mart sales associate is $1,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Business as usual? Not necessarily. Retail rival Costco pays its workers 65% more on average than Wal-Mart, yet earns more profits per employee. Read more.
* DISCRIMINATION
Two recent lawsuits by minority employees and customers have brought to light a disturbing pattern of racial discrimination by Wal-Mart. Read more.
* ENVIRONMENT
Wal-Mart has a long history of breaking environmental laws that its high-priced green-washing campaign can't hide. Its record of environmental abuse was described by one top law enforcement official as "widespread, systematic, repeated" and has incurred millions in fines from state and federal agencies. Read more.
* UNCHECKED GROWTH
Think Wal-Marts are everywhere you turn today? Just wait five years. Wal-Mart plans to nearly double its retail outlets in the U.S. by 2010 and has already demonstrated its willingness to play hardball with anyone who stands in its way. Read more.


So yeah, aside from the sexism, racism, abuse of employees, rampant expansion, crushing small business, monopolies, low wages, and detestable ownership, they are a great "corporation."

As a side note, I don't see where I started to "call people names."
sky of mind
QUOTE(MasterMind @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 9:06 pm) [snapback]55273[/snapback]

I see what you are saying Sky. But I think you agree with me and do not see it.
The only way to limit a company is limit its market (outlet). Meaning less stores or less product. I believe in small buisness run by citizens being at most "statewide". Anything larger I believe should be state run and non-profit. That is where I think we begin to disagree is at what point we should "limit".

Also I do not think Walmart is evil ether, no more then a Religion or Nation can be evil. The people IN it can be evil, and even 100% of its members evil, but not the dogma. The only thing that determines good or evil is perception of intent.




Good and evil are human qualities.
An innanimate object cannot be either one. It simply is what it is.
A corporation, like a church, is nothing but a collection of people.
remove the people, and neither one can exist!

A corporations qualities are determined by the people who run it,
and these corporations operate with in the framework of corporate law!

These laws can be changed, added too and removed, because the corporation is an innanimate object.
We can change the painting at will. All we have to do is decide we want too!
The corporation has no power of it's own. A Corporation really only exists on paper!
The Enron building in Texas. That's where Enron lived, but the building is not Enron.
If you removed all the people in the building and told them they no longer work for enron, (which is the reality,
then enron ceases to exist. Which in essence is what has happened.
The only vestages of Enron that remain, are there because of the legal aspects that are yet to be finalized.
Enron it's self was not evil or even bad!
Enron, like the energy those traders bought and sold, didn't ever really exist, except on paper,
as a tool of the people that run and manipulate it!

The only reason Enron is today consiudered to be a bad company, is because of the people who ran it.
The car that is Enron could not drive it's self!



An off topic statement by me.
This is an opinion that belongs to me.
There will be no supportive links.

QUOTE


About the term "Outlet"

I did not know if you were refering to
Advertising outlet
Sales outlet
Retail or Wholesale outlet,
Internet Outlet,
economic outlet.
Patent outlet.


It's a pretty long list!


Yes, I know what an outlet is.
Round my house we plug electrical things into it!
And yes, I do know how to look things up.


If you would like me, or anyone else to take you seriousely,
you might wanna think about how you react to various things
and think about what power you pack your words with.
Then ask yourself, what it 3 days from now I realize that guys isn't too bad?
Will I have burned my bridge?

Just a thought. Take it as you wish.


QUOTE(rcorporon @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 9:19 pm) [snapback]55274[/snapback]

When did WalMart get evil?

How about this (taken from: here.):
So yeah, aside from the sexism, racism, abuse of employees, rampant expansion, crushing small business, monopolies, low wages, and detestable ownership, they are a great "corporation."

As a side note, I don't see where I started to "call people names."





Good link Scorp, and all those things are true!

However, that doesn't make Wal*Mart "evil"
It does mean they conduct business in a manner I consider to be not ethical.
But, because it is NOT illegal for them to do all of these things,
they are then in effect, free to do them!

This is not the fault of the Corporation!
Fault belongs with those who run Wal*Mart and do not put ethics on a a level higher than profits!
Fault belongs with a society that does not require it's lawmaker to pass legislation that would AT LEAST
work to encourage these issues be dealt with. Or even legislation that would outright and immediately correct the problem.

One solution?
Simply require any employeer with X number of employees to provide every employee with insurance!
We have no issue telling them what the minimum wage is that they must be paid, why not require even a minimal level of medical insurance?


See, the issue is not the corporation.
It's about people!
rcorporon
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 1:27 pm) [snapback]55277[/snapback]

Good and evil are human qualities.
An innanimate object cannot be either one. It simply is what it is.
A corporation, like a church, is nothing but a collection of people.
remove the people, and neither one can exist!

A corporations qualities are determined by the people who run it,
and these corporations operate with in the framework of corporate law!




By extension, this argument means that ideologies and philosophies cannot be evil either, as they are just things.

So, slavery is neither good nor evil, just the people who practice it are?

Come on people.

I can be evil. My thoughts can be evil. My philosophy can be evil. My way of life can be evil.

Good/Evil exist in more forms than just humans.

We give life to our surroundings and institutions, and therefore, endow them with our qualities.

What is the purpose of a corporation? To make money. That's it. It exists to generate profit. It is also considered a PERSON under US law. Therefore, it's a PERSON who exists TO MAKE MONEY. Plain and simple. You cannot have a corporation that is benevolant, kind or good natured. A corporation, as a person under the law, doesn't have a moral set or code that it feels bound by. It simply generates profit.

That is why it is evil. It's concerned with making money and has no concern for it's fellow citizens (you and me).
sky of mind
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 9:34 pm) [snapback]55279[/snapback]

By extension, this argument means that ideologies and philosophies cannot be evil either, as they are just things.

So, slavery is neither good nor evil, just the people who practice it are?

Come on people.

I can be evil. My thoughts can be evil. My philosophy can be evil. My way of life can be evil.

Good/Evil exist in more forms than just humans.

We give life to our surroundings and institutions, and therefore, endow them with our qualities.

What is the purpose of a corporation? To make money. That's it. It exists to generate profit. It is also considered a PERSON under US law. Therefore, it's a PERSON who exists TO MAKE MONEY. Plain and simple. You cannot have a corporation that is benevolant, kind or good natured. A corporation, as a person under the law, doesn't have a moral set or code that it feels bound by. It simply generates profit.

That is why it is evil. It's concerned with making money and has no concern for it's fellow citizens (you and me).




If a PERSON chooses to talk about slavery, or to have slaves, yes, then it's evil.
Or a person can think about the evilness of slavery.
Either way a human is required.
Otherwise, it's nothing!

An idea can't be evil without the human quality.
Good and evil require a human to make it so.
Either as an act or action,
or through mental contemplation.
Either way it requires a human.



If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
NO!

It creates concussion waves and that's not sound.
To hear sound it requires an ear to hear it and a brain to interpret it!


And yes, when you close the fridge door the little light goes out!
rcorporon
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 1:40 pm) [snapback]55281[/snapback]

If a PERSON chooses to talk about slavery, or to have slaves, yes, then it's evil.
Or a person can think about the evilness of slavery.
Either way a human is required.
Otherwise, it's nothing!

An idea can't be evil without the human quality.
Good and evil require a human to make it so.
Either as an act or action,
or through mental contemplation.
Either way it requires a human.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
NO!

It creates concussion waves and that's not sound.
To hear sound it requires an ear to hear it and a brain to interpret it!
And yes, when you close the fridge door the little light goes out!


I must say sky, this is one of the most well thought out threads you've ever posted here.

Thank you for this!

I see your point, and must say, you've given me some stuff to think about now.

Thank you sir.
POAC
Yeah, I have to say, I really like the turn this thread has taken.
sky of mind
QUOTE(POAC @ Thursday, 4 May 2006, 10:00 pm) [snapback]55288[/snapback]

Yeah, I have to say, I really like the turn this thread has taken.



I have to admit, after all that and it's still remarkibly on thread!
And it is a very good and worthy discussion.

I can only hope more Americans are having similer discussions!
POAC
and what Sky said kinda goes with what i was saying. Corporations aren't bad by nature. It's the management of the corporation. And the directors of that corporation's direction should be held accountable and not able to avoid criminal prosecution by hiding behind the little "inc."
MasterMind
QUOTE
Also I do not think Walmart is evil ether, no more then a Religion or Nation can be evil. The people IN it can be evil, and even 100% of its members evil, but not the dogma. The only thing that determines good or evil is perception of intent.


Going back to this, I did forget something.

An "enity" can be very well completly evil with zero human envolvment. I am just saying in "our" perception, we create the idea of evil and good. With that in mind, each individual person has there OWN idea on what is good and what is evil.

Mant have debated on what Society as a whole should consider good and evil and thus base laws around it. Many use Religion and many others use Nature, but very few use personal experience to dictate good or evil.

For instance, if you get straight down to it, the God of the Christian Cannon has broken every single one of his own laws. So what there is good or evil?

In nature, insects practice hard core slavery, they kind that would make humans stomach turn in revulsion. Many mammal species tend to "torture" their prey before its final demise.

With all that in mind, I have ben thinking about what Scorp has said about Walmart being evil. I agree with that statement now and let me tell you why. Walmart itself has grown larger then the people controling it. Like a fire, it almost has a mind of its own now. In the evolution of commernce and economics, Walmart has indeed become its own "enity". For the "enity" to maintain its current status it has to take certain measure that the majority of us find to be evil. In reviewing its over all practices and these mentioned before methods of "evil", I now consider Walmart to be an evil "Enity" that preys on its workers and customers for not the TOP dollar, but the BOTTOM dollar.



QUOTE
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
NO!

It creates concussion waves and that's not sound.
To hear sound it requires an ear to hear it and a brain to interpret it!


Proof please, my text book says differnt! biggrin.gif
sky of mind
QUOTE(MasterMind @ Friday, 5 May 2006, 6:52 am) [snapback]55324[/snapback]

Going back to this, I did forget something.

An "enity" can be very well completly evil with zero human envolvment. I am just saying in "our" perception, we create the idea of evil and good. With that in mind, each individual person has there OWN idea on what is good and what is evil.

Mant have debated on what Society as a whole should consider good and evil and thus base laws around it. Many use Religion and many others use Nature, but very few use personal experience to dictate good or evil.

For instance, if you get straight down to it, the God of the Christian Cannon has broken every single one of his own laws. So what there is good or evil?

In nature, insects practice hard core slavery, they kind that would make humans stomach turn in revulsion. Many mammal species tend to "torture" their prey before its final demise.

With all that in mind, I have ben thinking about what Scorp has said about Walmart being evil. I agree with that statement now and let me tell you why. Walmart itself has grown larger then the people controling it. Like a fire, it almost has a mind of its own now. In the evolution of commernce and economics, Walmart has indeed become its own "enity". For the "enity" to maintain its current status it has to take certain measure that the majority of us find to be evil. In reviewing its over all practices and these mentioned before methods of "evil", I now consider Walmart to be an evil "Enity" that preys on its workers and customers for not the TOP dollar, but the BOTTOM dollar.
Proof please, my text book says differnt! biggrin.gif




http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_236.html


QUOTE
If a tree falls in the woods, is there a sound?
09-Sep-1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Cecil:

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no living creature to hear it, is there a sound? --Julie Bosselman, Houston

Dear Julie:

People often ask me my secret. I tell them it's that I still remember how to open a dictionary. According to the (a) definition in my American Heritage, sound is vibration carried through a suitable medium in a frequency range capable of being heard by the human ear. It doesn't say the sound actually has to be heard. So according to (a), yes, there's a sound. The © definition says a sound is the sensation generated in the organs of hearing by the aforesaid vibration. So according to ©, no, there isn't a sound. Not the most definite answer in the world, you may think, but in view of the fact that this is obviously a matter of definition, certainly definitive.

--CECIL ADAMS



Take your pick.

MasterMind
What does that have to do with Walmart being evil?


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.