Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Occupy Seattle Occupies Wal-Mart

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 1:46 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Walmart

On Friday, November 25th, Occupy Seattle will join Occupy Tacoma, Occupy Bellingham and Occupy Everett in a statewide protest at Wal-Mart in Renton at 2:00pm.

With its long history of mistreating workers and suppliers, its recent announcement of significant cutbacks on employee health care, and its obscene profits, Wal-Mart is a prime example of how the 99% are suffering at the hands of the 1%.

Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world and proof positive of how big business is destructive to our democracy. While Americans are shopping at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is buying Congress. Last year, Wal-Mart paid over $4.3 million in campaign contributions (not to mention the monies funneled through donations to lobbying organizations) to protect its interests.

Unfortunately, its interests are not those of its employees. With $14.3 billion in profits in 2010, Wal-Mart still saw fit to eliminate health insurance coverage for part time employees, cut company contributions to employee health savings accounts by 50% and increase health care premiums 17% to 61% for over 2.1 million employees worldwide. According to an article in the Huffington Post, the average Wal-Mart worker makes $8.81 per hour, while the CEO makes $8990.00 per hour.

The Walton family (the largest shareholders of Wal-Mart stock and descendants of its founder) is the wealthiest family in the United States with an estimated net worth of $92 billion (according to Forbes’ latest ranking). That’s more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. They directly gave $7,000,000 in political contributions in 2010 and billions more through their family foundations in an effort to buy our legislative process. It’s time to Occupy Wal-Mart, to shine the spotlight on its many abuses and to support its millions of workers in their struggle for a living wage. Transportation will be leaving from Westlake Center starting at 12:30pm.

Contact: occupyseattle.media@gmail.com
Phone: 206-552-0377
URL: www.occupyseattle.org

563 Comments

563 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 24 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Can you imagine how much more they could pay their poor workers if they didn't have such big bills for campaign donations and lobbying? Just sayin'

[-] 8 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

and can you imagine how much better off workers would be if they just took over the institutions and started running it democratically themselves

Corporations are private tyrannies . We need real democracy built from the bottom up with non-hierarchical egalitarian principles where institutions and communities are run democratically : http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

We can achieve this, you know. The Occupy Movement has started a struggle that´s going to lead to radical changes.

my contribution to how we can achive this: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1321101669_the_transition_phase_.html

[-] 8 points by shoesandtables (20) 3 years ago

I recommend those interested to check out this film: WAL-MART: High Cost Of Low Price [Full Film] --- Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp0O9jxLS64&feature=related

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

Here we go. I'm sure there might have been other posts hidden amongst the many in this relatively not-so-user-friendly website that have mentioned this, but I have to say. Amongst the posts that I have read, and excluding my own posts, this is the first I have read that is actively promoting workplace democracy. Keep it going!

[-] 1 points by vnayar (289) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

There's a bit of a troll problem, but I encourage you to ignore all the profanity laced attacks and look for constructive conversation. It's always good to have another pair of eyes and a good brain to discuss ideas, welcome aboard!

[-] 2 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

Thanks. I pay little attention to profanity attacks and what not. But I wasn't really referring to that in calling this a not-so-user-friendly website. I find it very hard to search for specific posts on this site. So you basically have to read through all the stuff to find things that are most interesting.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 3 years ago

profanity attacks? so you are a crucifixion merchant? we just need to protect our children's minds from the jesus horror story. christians say man is bad and war is good, onward christian soldiers?!?! no no no! man is good and we do not want christian recruiting followers from our community. christians want a religious war against muslims. our community has solidarity with the poor against the tyranny of these two religions and their fascist masters.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by farmerjohn (22) 3 years ago

I agree with your link and would like to say this. Lets fire them all through each election. Let our public servants know that the party is over. Elect a candidate the will support and really pay attention to this word "FOR" The Constitution For the Unites States. This is the Constitution for the Republic of the United States of America. The Word "of" is for the incorporated United States. Two different documents. Any public servant that does not support this change should not be ellected, period. When this occurs all your all will be restored as our Fathers had intended. and we all will be SOVEREIGN again as it was designed to be.

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Create corporations and run them that way if you choose, but the government should not be able to tell a business how to organize itself. And corporations should not be able to control government with contributions. Less govt. Not more. This model was sent to me via a Michael Moore link. Let MM lead by example and equally share with ALL crew members decisions about his films and profits. Ain't gonna happen.

[-] 3 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

I have to agree with you the the government should have no say into how a business is structured or how it runs it's day to day operations. By the same token corporations have no business influencing our representatives.... they should not be able to contribute the obscene amounts of money to political campaigns. Corporations should not have a more powerful voice in our governments decision making than the citizens do. I also believe that when a business such as Walmart is a major cause for our lack of a manufacturing base then something needs to be done. And let's face it Walmart doesn't exactly have a reputation that gives me any reason to support what it does.

Their product is sub standard, their rate of pay is lousy, they definitely are one Corporation I would mind seeing regulated right out of business.

[-] 8 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Bingo!

I'll stop caring about Wal-Mart and all other lobbying factions when they stop caring about corrupting our democracy and undermining my vote. All Americans should be mad as hell that their votes have literally been stolen from them by greedy corporations looking to pay their executives $9000 an hour and then pad it with fat bonus checks. All instances of political corruption should be prosecuted as treason against our democracy. The right to vote is not enough and should not end at the polls. There will be the naysayers on here that say we shouldn't protest Wal-Mart and we should be protesting our politicians... I say BS! The corporations are accomplices in this murder... they built and bought the gun.. they hired the hit man... Hell, they even drove the getaway car.... they're just as guilty as the phonies that we vote for who accept the bribes. I don't care which way you lean politically... This should piss you off. Do not let up.... Do not back down

[-] 1 points by saveourfreedom (10) from Fairbanks, AK 3 years ago

no your missing a crucial point. freedom. our government although having many flaws. is the right kind. and bribery to our politicians is very wrong. but their "executives that get paid 9000$ an hour" have nothing to do with it. they should get paid however much the company wants to pay them that's freedom bro and if your against that I'm against u. i agree that politicians that take bribes PISS ME OF SO MUCH. but u elected them... get America to start voting more intelligently and actually look at who they are voting for and that won't happen. the company's that are willing to spend money to get what they want that is completely fine with me. they should do whatever gets them the most money. cause in the end that's better for all of us. they didn't break are economy. they made it. so don't rage at large company's cause there GREAT for the economy. instead get made at all the stupid people that don't vote or worse don't look at who there voting for. instead of getting mad at your employer get made at the people that got him employed (meaning u cause your working for him).... i don't know i'm a 16 year old kid from Alaska. but common sense goes a long way and the willingness to find the truth goes a lot farther. so i beg u for my sake and the sake of this beautiful country God gave us. think. use your minds. don't follow blindly but instead make your own path. and look for the truth. cause it will make all our lives a lot better.

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Some of your $9000 friends are sitting at a $38000 a plate dinner with your president this evening. Creating and swaying legislation to benefit themselves only. There is little thought being paid to me, you or this beautiful country that God gave us. I have found the truth my brother.

[-] 1 points by saveourfreedom (10) from Fairbanks, AK 3 years ago

ok i understand what you mean. the people creating and swaying legislation to benefit themselves only. that's wrong i agree. but as for the president their having dinner with... who did you vote for? or did you vote at all? because frankly america brought these dirty diplomats on themselves. regardless of your economic and political ideals a dirty diplomat is a dirty diplomat and i think we can all agree that we don't want them in office. so don't put them their and we won't have problems... do you disagree? and as for the head of "greedy" company's i think i have a solution: say you don't like how Tyson lobby's for corn subsidies. k? you do something like your doing now. you get a huge group that also don't like it and... guess what. you don't buy their stuff. and next you send them a letter. and say something like: if you stop lobbying we start buying. if you get rid of subsides we might even buy more... now that will draw some attention. and if they don't. they lose a TON of money from all the product you would have bought. now that's a free market economy. you don't like it don't buy it. that simple. don't have the government come in and tell them to stop. don't go whine about to anyone that will listen just stop buying. and if you want that you can make it happen. see the greatest thing about are government/economy is that the people have the power. and another thing that 9000$ guy could be anyone of you... there is major trade offs for having a life like that thou. he probably doesn't have family and if he dose i doubt he spends time with them. he probably works a lot more then you do. and sure he makes a ton more. but it probably took him a lot of time and "know how" to get their. he probably gave up a lot of things you wouldn't even think about giving up. and that is why he is rich. now this of course excludes kids who inherited tons of money from there parents or people that just get down right lucky. but if you got the know how and the work ethic u can make it to the top EVEN when the economy says you can't.

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

I hear ya and probably would have typed something similar before i began to really look at what is going on... just a couple comments. I have voted for 16 years and will continue to vote. With the exception of 2 "diplomats" I voted for, all of them have caved on their campaign commitments to me as a constituent. some lasted longer than others... but i believe the problem is mostly systemic. if my belief is correct, then the vote is irrelevant. regarding lobbying, if you look at the lists, you will see that every corporation is forced to lobby to stay competitive... similar to corporations, special interests too.... this also should lead you to believe that the problem is in the system. you have to cheat to stay alive man. i think that this is what has destroyed unions and turned what should have been ethically responsible corporations and special interests into money driven corrupters. it's built in to the game. you are right... that $9000 guy could be me.... but I don't like the odds. CEO to frontline worker income separation has spread from 24:1 to 243:1 over the last 30 years in this country. I have had and will continue to have the work ethic... i have been employed at 2 companies for the last 12 years, consistently scraped and clawed my way up for promotions..... live frugally... no debt.... but have watched my families middle class existence be pushed to the brink of poverty. Hope is not a strategy. At some point you have to stop...and look at the facts.. not just listen to what you're told. That's when I discovered what I needed to establish my position about supporting this movement.

[-] 1 points by Banduras7317 (-16) 3 years ago

wow- couldn't have said it better.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

I can't understand peoples objection to protesting Walmart. Even if they did not throw money at our politicians their treatment of employees is deplorable and the way the destroy the businesses in small towns is a crime.

I wouldn't mind seeing OWS show en mass at both Walmart and DC.

[-] 3 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

I don't shop there. Most of the poor around here do though. 100 bucks at walmart is120 bucks at the place across the street. Can't blame anyone for getting stuff there.

[-] 1 points by occupiedinCHI (23) 3 years ago

That is important, but remember, people wouldn't be so poor if we weren't living in a Wal-Mart economy where we roll back worker's wages so we can have lower prices. That's not a good trade-off. Everything costed more, when adjusted for inflation (except health care and education), 50 years ago, but salaries were much higher too in proportion to inflation.

[-] 1 points by farmerjohn (22) 3 years ago

Lol - well that is what the corporations know. They can get it cheaper lobbying OUR elected officials. So how about we go to the source and occupy Washington D.C. Make it part of our country again and fire them all. Period. Problem solved.

[-] 1 points by Banduras7317 (-16) 3 years ago

That'snot exactly problem solved, Although I do think the occupy D.C. has validity. When money is free speech, there is a problem for those who have not amassed billions. It's even difficult for one who does have billions (Warren Buffet) to be heard over the screeches of those who are holding tight to what they have no matter what means they used in getting it.

[-] 1 points by shoesandtables (20) 3 years ago

You need to CHANGE THE LAWS that determine how outside money is used in the political system.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

That's what I say

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

no-one is forcing anyone to work there. No-one is forcing anyone to shop there either. OWS is the only one using force here.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

How are they using force? By protesting? They are stopping anyone from going into Wal-mart. You're just being argumentative.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

you want to force the redistribution of wealth. Public education - use of force. Social Security - use of force, progressive tax code - use of force, Obamacare - use of force.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

"you"? I am not trying to redistribute anyone's wealth...

But I have to ask.... what use of force was used for , "Public education, Social Security, progressive tax code, Obamacare."?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

you have no choice whether or not you want to participate in Social Security or Public ed. 15% of your labor is confiscated for Soc sec. 7.5% from you & 7.5% from your employer. Do the math on that over a lifetime & see how much you would have accumulated for yourself & family. If you want to send your kid to private school you still have to pay your school taxes on top of it. No Choice. Force. How about voucher system for schools & optional Soc Sec?

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

Every time anyone even hints at changing the Social Security system the left goes absolutely apoplectic ..... And I agree with you.... I am 60 and have worked since I was 18... I'm certainly not going to get out of SS what I have put into it over the years.... (if I get it at all!) But then if the government had kept their hands out of the cookie jar we wouldn't be having the problems with SS, that and the fact of the slackers with a nondescript back injury or depression that collects SS disability..

As far as education, I don't mind supporting the public school system... I do mind having my tax dollars used for paying teachers that are working way past their sell by date because they have tenure and receiving health care benefits that I can only dream of having. as well as a laundry list of other things that get paid for that actually don't go to educating the kids.

As far as Obamacare... I think it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require us to buy anything.... There were other things they could have done to change the health care system... like regulate the insurance companies, open up Medicaid to purchase health insurance on a sliding fee scale...

Unfortunately, we are talking about Congress making the decisions, most of them have no idea what it is like to live in the real world..... so we can hardly expect them to be able to make decisions that will actually benefit us. And we can't forget that they all have their own special interest groups that they must please or they don't get re-elected.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

I love you Sinead

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

Love you too Aires! :)

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

In my America, that's a cheap cop out. Your attempt to make this a partisan discussion are not heard. The point of the post was not the workers or their wages. The point was the misuse of revenue by a corporation that is so ethically and financially responsible to billions of dollars of revenue and wages in our country to corrupt and undermine our political system. The irony in this is that you vote to elect candidates into office to "represent" you while earning and/or spending your paycheck with a corporation that ultimately tells your "representative" how to represent you as a constituent. Make sense now?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

In your America - well there lies the problem. America is not your's. The only responsibility the company has is to the shareholders. If you don't like the way your representative is representing you - work to vote them out. This movement is just a childish temper tantrum. Do you really think anyone respects you or your views?

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Again, the point being... that this is YOUR country and mine as well.... Not Wal-Marts or any other corporation. Corporations that capitalize on our country's economy should have other responsibilities in addition to those of their shareholders. In OUR America they should have responsibilities to ... their employees... the environment... and the long-term health of economy to name a few. You seem to have issue with Obamacare.... which lobbying factions helped to get that passed? Do you even know?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

sure - the insurance companies. Why not - it's going to tax the heck out of everyone & give them more business. While we all wait on line & drop dead due to the up coming doctor shortage. Companies provide a product that people want. Any jobs created out of it is a bi-product of that endeavor period.

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Well then there it is... In your and my America, money should not control the actions of government. The people should. Our votes only address half of the problem. If we are not going to address the other half, who will?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

yes - so protest the ones corrupted by the money not the ones making the offer. you are never going to stop people from offering money - get real! You can hold your representatives accountable at the ballot box. Your aim is off that's all.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

Absurd. Communities typically demand to have a Wal-Mart because they carry cheap goods people want. The company doesn't employ magic to convince people to buy stuff there. The histrionics are off the charts on this one.

[-] 3 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

I don't think you've really followed what happened in many towns where Walmart was NOT "demanded".....

http://gapolitico.com/en/2011/11/17/no-walmart-petition-reaches-4300-signatures-in-hours/

http://sustainablewatertown.com/?q=No_to_Walmart

http://nomurphywalmart.com/

No histrionics.... Walmarts have destroyed a lot of small town business

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 3 years ago

And crack-heads demand crack but I don't think we should help them to it.

But you are right, it's not magic. It's cheap Chinese labor and factories in countries with no environmental protections so they can pollute all they want. And it's also (apparently) poor treatment of American workers.

But it's also uninformed Americans buying stuff they don't Really understand the cost of.

[-] 0 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

The fact is, if the net negatives outweighed the net positives, communities would reject Wal-Mart. Since they haven't, the arguments against Wal-Mart are apparently not convincing enough to drive people away... and it's not because they're "stupid" or "uninformed". I've found that people can be surprisingly well informed on both mainstream and obscure issues.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 3 years ago

I didn't say people shop at Wal-Mart because they are "stupid". I repeat that I don't think people understand the real costs (environmental, economic, existential) of shopping there. None of us really know those costs in absolute terms, so I think it's a stretch to imagine a "net" calculation going on for anyone. Most people simple "go to store" without asking these questions or doing any calculations whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 3 years ago

They are informed they know that shopping at Walmart is an endorsement of slavery but they figure its just how it is. They could stop shopping at Walmart there but how much difference could that possibly make? Everyone else shops there after all. So they shop there and try to ignore the negative consequences. Its like smoking cigarets, if you like to smoke you can become quite proficient at not considering that it ain't good for you.

[-] 2 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

Who exactly is being enslaved in your opinion?

[-] 0 points by sfsteve (151) 3 years ago

The overseas factory workers first. The store employees second. Any job that does not pay a living wage is in my opinion a form of slavery. Paying less than a living wage and not calling it slavery is like saying that since slaves were fed and housed they were essentially paid. Freedom from debt is equivalent to freedom from imprisonment.

[-] 2 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

So you are claiming that neither the factory worker, nor the store worker has a choice and they are literally forced by Wal-Mart to work there. This... is what you're saying. Choose your hyperbole carefully. Credibility relies on your sense of accuracy and perspective.

[-] 0 points by sfsteve (151) 3 years ago

They are forced to work somewhere.

[-] 2 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

So the description "slavery" doesn't really apply at all, does it? Slaves can't choose where to work.

[-] 0 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

They are saying there is far less choice these days than in the past. Since Walmart has taken over retail and too much is made outside the USA, there are fewer choices of places to work, so yes many people are all but forced into these jobs. Basically many good US manufacturing jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs stocking Walmart shelves, unloading trucks, and running cash registers, and many jobs went to China and other countries. Over 100 million people in China work in manufacturing and it's very close to slavery or prison camp working and living conditions. Workers live in tiny rooms at the factory because they aren't paid enough to live elsewhere. Looks like a prison. At electronics and household-goods factories the pay is between 900 and 1,200 RMB per month, or about $115 to $155. A factory work shift is typically 12 hours, six or seven days per week. Conditions are dangerous. How can you get much closer to pure slavery?

The Death of American Manufacturing

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=article&id=1955

[-] 0 points by czarmishka (0) from Colorado Springs, CO 3 years ago

I stock shelves at Walmart. I make about $30,000 a year, have a decent 401k, health insurance, life insurance, stock options. I've never been treated unfairly. There may have been instances of underhanded dealings in some places, but I personally have never encountered anything shady. It's not my ideal job, but it pays my bills.

I do support the Occupy Movement, but remember Walmart is mostly 99%ers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

In regards to Walmart, as I've stated below somewhere, people deserve the dignity of being able to afford toilet paper. The corner stores rip off the poor. I'd ask the people who shop there how they feel. agree with other stuff you said.

[-] 3 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

You're right. But as a former small store owner it's difficult to even come close to being able to offer the same prices the big box stores do, they just don't have the same buying power, so they can't purchase their products for resale at the price Walmart, or Target etc... can. I don't think there are very many of them that deliberately set out to "rip off the poor".

I also asked the protesters to be kind to the people that go into Walmart that they are protesting.... I'm sure if they could afford to go elsewhere they would.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 3 years ago

I'm sorry that your small store didn't make ti, but as an entrepreneur who competes against significantly (100x +) times bigger competitors, there is a way to compete, but you need to do it the right way and pick and choose what tactics will work. Often times, it means using the strengths of your competition in one area as a weakness in others. This is so powerful since they can't change inherently who they are very quickly at all.

[-] 2 points by farmerjohn (22) 3 years ago

I'm sorry but the corner store does not happen to have the purchasing power of wallmart. It has an overhead just like you and i do in our daily lives. He has to purchase it at a higher price and mark it up accordingly. That's the convenience of you going to the corner and not driving 5 miles to get to wallmart. He makes the investment and puts everything on the line so you can go to the corner and buy what you need.

[-] 0 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

It's simple economics. Remember, Wal-Mart started out with one store also and because it was run efficiently, it was rewarded with more sales. There is nothing evil or pernicious about it.

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

If you dig a little deeper for understanding, you might find what you're looking for. The point of the post was not the workers or their wages. The point was the misuse of revenue by a corporation that is so ethically and financially responsible to billions of dollars of revenue and wages in our country to corrupt and undermine our political system. The irony in this is that you vote to elect candidates into office to "represent" you while earning and/or spending your paycheck with a corporation that ultimately tells your "representative" how to represent you as a constituent. Make sense now?

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

I think you have it reversed... We vote with our dollars at stores like Wal-Mart in exchange for inexpensive things we want, while votes cast in Washington create things almost none of us want and end up costing us plenty.

[-] -2 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Yes, I understand how it works and sorry if I implied they were doing it on purpose (although many of us in my neighborhood have seen our corner store owner buying baskets of one item at Walmart to resale to us - half of us don't have cars). Nonetheless, poor people don't have the luxury to pay a little more because they disagree with a store's ideologies - they just need to feed their families.

[-] 1 points by mkmkmk (5) 3 years ago

In a competitive economy the lack of a rule is no different than a rule. Think about it. Without minimum wage a company will be forced to pay their employees even less to survive. So by getting rid of minimum wage you are actually forcing a company to pay their employees a lower wage.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

You need to understand that the economy is all-encompassing, What we need to do is to create a democratic society based on democratically run workplaces and communities, not just a co-op here and there in a sea of state- capitalism: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

YOU are free to create any type of business you want and run it that way. Democratically run busniesses sound great to me, but I do not think businesses should be told how to structure their business. I like your idea, but human nature is what it is. It won't work - there will always be people who usurp power. it's an animal instinct.

[-] 2 points by dealdoctor (148) 3 years ago

Everyone knows the political and economic systems are broken. Is some kind of new paradigm possible? This video begins that discussion. See if it causes you to think about what you have been taught is right. A crisis is a good time to re-evaluate basic assumptions. Reality trumps any ideology conservative or liberal.

http://tinyurl.com/5swbwzz

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

As I've said, I like the guy's ideas and hope they go into politics to represent such ideas.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

I think we need to alter the idea here a bit. Say a union decides that conditions are horrible, and so in turn convinces the workers to throw out the boss. There is no government interference. It's not the government telling them how to run the business. It's the union, which is comprised of the workers.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Fine with me if that's the way the owner of the business has structured said business.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

well, not everyone can start a business. You need capital to do that. But it doesnt matter, thats not the point. The economy is all-encompassing. By creating a co-op the unjust economy is still there. Still a few percentage control huge parts of the economy, the enormous concentration of wealth is still there, people are still being exploited. What we need to do is create a society with democratic institutions

[-] 2 points by farmerjohn (22) 3 years ago

Struggle 99.9 percent you are right that you need capital to start a business, That is what we were taught. I for myself could not afford one so i went to the bank and they said NO. no no no no . So i decided to use there money and not pay my mortgage for 1 month and buy a piece of equipment that i needed and started my business. I have done this for 15 years now and my business is totally vested = paid for. As of this date i am still behind on my mortgage and should be caught up by Jan 2012. I have worked 7 days a week for 12 years - holidays and sometimes i work then also. Trying to put bread on the table. This all happened when at 1998 when i could not get employment, either overqualified or to dam old. So it is possible but you have to work your butt off depends on your dream i guess. Our economy is no longer a manufacturer of products we gave it all away. Just a service industry.

[-] 2 points by myers73 (6) from Orlando, FL 3 years ago

farmerjohn - Agreed! In today's society nothing is handed to you. You have to work hard to get ahead in life and I think a large percentage of the population is still not willing to do that. I too started a business with nothing and sacrificed what others are just not willing to. Hard work and never giving up on that dream is the key to success.

[-] 1 points by mkmkmk (5) 3 years ago

Actually, most of what you guys do for "business" most people likely believe is unethical. Could you please state your business, the amount above your costs you charge your customers and lastly the compensation including salary, pension and benefits for your workers and the ratio of that to your profits.

Lastly, does your company actually build, create or add something new to benefit society or are you simply in the middle of a transaction taking your "cut" which actually makes things more expensive for everyone else.

I await your response.

Starting a business is easy. Having the stomach to lie, cheat and screw your employees is the the hard part of being a "successful" business.

[-] 1 points by corbini157 (91) 3 years ago

That's awesome! But we have enough resources in this country that if they're being shared appropriately you shouldn't have to work that much. We want people having families and want parents to spend as much time with their children as possible. That's important as well as working hard.

[-] 2 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

Laws that force people to share are immoral.

[-] 2 points by corbini157 (91) 3 years ago

Since 1970 C.E.O. wages have increased 275% while workers wages have stayed stagnant, that's immoral.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

More like 425%.

[-] 2 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

CEO wages are set by the company, and in some cases shareholders may weigh in on executive compensation. What's of greater importance in my opinion is the fact that the value of the dollar to gold bullion has fallen 98% since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. Think a minute about that, and see how neatly that dovetails into the CEO wage increases since 1970....That is a far greater threat to the American worker than all CEO salaries combined.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

OIC.

The CEOs find ever more ways to rip us off and you think that's fine.

Gold has better uses than bling and money.

Get over it.

There are other ways to look at macro economics, then taking us back to the 19th century.

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

How is a piece of paper, backed by nothing, more modern or efficient than a currency backed by something of value? Keep in mind, currency could potentially be backed by nearly anything, and our nearly worthless dollars should face currency competition in the US. Let the best "money" win!

[-] 1 points by Banduras7317 (-16) 3 years ago

I vote for air... we've used salt... that was not much better than gold but then you can preserve foods with it and all animals need a some of it in their bodies. Water, fresh, is the one sneaking up on (the 1st world countries) list. Going much more local, knowing that getting all the marbles may end the game, and valuing something other than materials easily stolen or destroyed will help us stay on the earth a bit longer. The dinosaurs have us beaten by a long shot. namaste

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Well, if you and Wallstreet, would actually share, such a law would be unnecessary, but that's not the case.

[-] 1 points by winkangrin (3) from King George, VA 3 years ago

No, I disagree! It is awesome that a person has the will to work and provide for his family. Absolutely the cornerstone of our culture. Life is a series of choices. If you made the choice to pay attention in school, not smoke weed, and play the game (I did not, but that is my fault), then your chances for landing on easy street are pretty good, provided you did not invest your time in some pursuit that is low paying (humanities, liberal arts). Want to make money? Study hard to become a lawyer or a doctor or an MBA. Then, you can make a really good wage, but you'll have to spend lots of time at work. You want more home time? You make a trade off. Not as much money, but a better quality of life. You dont get a mansion to enjoy your family time in: you have to settle for a rambler in the suburbs. Want more family time and did not pay attention in school, had a kid or two unmarried, like to hang out socially instead of work two jobs? You get a trailer or an apartment. It's a series of trade offs. To imply that there are 'resources' that others have are not being 'shared' is far from true. What you are really saying is that someone else has earned through legal means something that you feel entitled to. You are saying that the whole group should share more or less equally in the fruit of the tree, regardless of who bought the seed, who purchased the land the tree grows on, how much in wages were paid to those who planted the tree, how much the cost of maintaining that tree were, and are forgetting that no one forced the help to work for him...they did so out of free choice. And, if the tree withers and dies, it is all the responsibility of the guy who profits from the fruit, and none of those he paid to help him share in that. Thats what you are really saying, in my opinion.

[-] 2 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

I started a business with no capital, My dad started his with $5.33 about 15 yrs ago. ( I killed mine, didnt like the work, so we will talk about my dads) Why should my dad's employees have a say in how he runs HIS business which he is liable for and has to manage? By the very definition of democratically run workplaces, There can be no boss, so who would take the risk of starting a business?

[-] 3 points by GetAngry (35) from Warren, MI 3 years ago

Different is 15 years ago. Loans were easy to get.

You can't get loans to start a business nowadays unless you have a substantial amount of capital already.

[-] 3 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 3 years ago

That's why borrowing from friends, family, or angel investors makes more sense. Forget about banks.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

Actually, he didn't take a loan until recently (2008) when he decided to increase his company size. He literally brought something from an auction for $5.33 and then resold it for profit. and he is still doing it.

[-] 1 points by mkmkmk (5) 3 years ago

Seems like Dad doesn't actually produce or create anything. Seems like he's really just a tax on the person who didn't get to the thing he bought for $5.33 first.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

well, in some twisted sense your right. My dad mealy provides a service to a person that doesn't have the time to go out and buy stuff, or have the expertise to fix it. But then again, very few businesses actually produce, they are just a 'tax' on the person who is more focused on something else.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by corbini157 (91) 3 years ago

One thing to consider is that your dad isn't the only person taking a risk on HIS business. His employees are also vesting their families safety and security as employees depend on their salaries to pay for these things. It's really just about the employers understanding their responsibilities to their employees.

[-] 1 points by winkangrin (3) from King George, VA 3 years ago

The responsibility to his employees is to provide them with a paycheck in exchange for their work. He does not owe them any thing outside of that arrangement. And,his employees have no obligation to him other than coming to work. If they should decide that conditions are unbearable, then they may choose to go somewhere else and work. Conversely, if the owner wants to have the best product or service ,he will make his workplace desireable to people seeking work. In no other context should the employee have any 'say' over what his job should or shouldnt be,unless the owner has assigned that employee the task of evaluating his job.

[-] 1 points by uftscott (26) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

What if a particular business or organization has a monopoly in a particular area and/or industry? Then employees may not choose to go somewhere else and work. In this case should employees have a say?

[-] 1 points by corbini157 (91) 3 years ago

... and as long as every person has a fair chance to become a business owner, I don't have a problem with this mindset. If banks refuse to lend to people without capital, how can anyone who isn't born into wealth become a business owner?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Employees should have some sort of say, since they are the ones doing a lot of the work. For some reason, people have this idea that the employees must be slaves and must do what they are told without questioning anything. This is completely unfair. Employer/employee relationships are two-way streets... not one-way streets. It's wise for the employer to listen to its employees anyway. If the employees are unhappy (because of being treated unfairly), what kind of production will they accomplish?

[-] 2 points by gamer86 (32) 3 years ago

@SwissMiss,

You clearly have no idea how to run a business. You give your employees say over what happens in your business, and you'll make absolutely no progress what so ever.

[-] 1 points by mkmkmk (5) 3 years ago

Can you do all of us a favor and leave our country? Why do you think any of us what someone like you around who only cares about themselves? Seriously, move to Somalia or something.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Um.... I didn't say the employees should have say over the business, did I? I said they should have SOME SORT OF SAY in some of the decision making. The best companies are the ones that value and incorporate the employees' voices. My company does this through what it calls C.I..... or continuous improvement. It's a program that it has developed where EVERY employee in the company (and we have thousands of employees around the country and in some other countries) has a say in how things are done in regard to their department/group. Employees make suggestions, file complaints, give opinions, etc. about many different things. Some of our plants and groups have idea programs for the same thing. They come up with ideas on how to improve things. And from these programs, the best ideas come about, and things are improved not only for the employees, but also for the company.

A portion of our employees are union employees, and a portion are not. For those of us who don't belong to the union, we have the continuous improvement program and idea programs. And our company listens to us when we speak. And we are one of the most successful companies in our field. We are a publicly traded company, and we get a really good percentage of the companies' profits each year in the way of a really nice bonus (along with annual raises).... something that is almost unheard of today. The bonus each person gets is a percentage of their annual salary, and it's based on both the performance of the company and on the performance of each employee. We have quarterly and annual reviews that help determine our performance part of the bonus.

Anyone who wants to run their business like a slave camp is a fool.

[-] 1 points by uftscott (26) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Wow, there are so many counterexamples to this position. What about the golden age of American manufacturing, which coincided with very strong manufacturing unions? Those businesses thrived while giving employees a say.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by sameeker (3) from Ludlow, IL 3 years ago

If the employees share in the profits, they have a vested interest in working hard and making sound decisions. The Idea is working at several companies around the country.

[-] 0 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

You are right, it is wise for the employer to listen to there employees. I find that they will have better customer service and less turn around witch translates to less training time, and more skilled employee's. Its also the owners choice to do so as well.

As far as treating employees as slaves, well, they have the choice to work where they are at. However employers should do what they say the will do(ie give raises when they said they would, etc). Last time I hired someone, they want to work for me, and last time I told a boss to go put it were the sun dont shine, I too wanted to work for him at one point.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

And if you're always treating your employees like shit, you will have high turnover and all kinds of other problems. That is not a smart way to run a business.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I agree. It is the owner's choice, but people who own businesses shouldn't be surprised or upset when their workers start to rebel if they are being treated like shit. As I said, it's a two-way street as far as the relationship, and the better the relationship, the better it is for all parties involved. People should look at companies like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods as examples. There are some things I don't like about how Whole Foods does things, but as far as how it treats its employees and the pay and benefits, it's much better than most. And Trader Joe's is one of the top companies in how it treats and sees its employees, and that turns into better sales for the company. It's obvious from the attitude of the employees when shopping in their stores as compared to going to places like Target, Meijer, Kroger, Walmart, K-Mart, etc. People who work for those types of companies don't seem happy there, and they act like you are asking them to murder someone if you seek help from them. Also, Trader Joe's and WF have very low turnover. My mom has been trying to get hired by one of them for 3 years.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

Your right. Thats why i believe in workplace competition. Because of the "tight" economy, a lot of companies are taking advantage of the hype and treating there employees with disrespect. Thats why I encorge people not to belive that there are not jobs out there. There really are job's all over. My wife just expanded her bissness to accommodate an additional 4 people. She has way to much demand in her industry. And best of all, the 4 people will be working at home. But at the beginning, she layout what is expected, and what can be expected from her. If at any point they dont like it, well, we wish the best of luck to them.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I like the idea of telling people ahead of time what is expected of them and what they should expect. That's only fair to them, and as long as they are being treated with respect and the owners are holding up to what they promised, then things should run much more smoothly. Most people understand that small businesses can't afford a lot of perks like larger ones can. I've worked for small, medium, and large businesses, and each one has something (or many things) that are special. In the small businesses I worked for, we had little perks.... free juice, soda, etc., small perks here and there, it was a much more personal atmosphere (like that of a family), etc. I really enjoyed those things about them, and people were treated with respect. In large companies, it's much less personal overall, but the perks my be more plentiful and larger... but there's also usually more office politics you have to put up with.

I've found that even providing small perks once in a while to employees, while treating them with respect and treating them like they matter goes a long way.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Then I hope you work toward that end. I read your blog and find it interesting. Good luck and please go into politics, because honestly, working within the system that is in place is the best way to recreate it the way you see fit. You obviously are smart and know that of won't happen overnight.

[-] 0 points by buddazjade (4) 3 years ago

Never should corporations control government but we see it constantly with campaing contributions. I disagree with your statement that government should not interfer with business and that we need less government. Less government is what got us in this economic downward spiral. It is what allowed companies to ship more and more jobs overseas and allowed companies to take advantage of their workers. Less government is not the answer! A change in the way government is run is the absolute answer. The United States Constitution clearly states that our government is for the people by the people. The only problem is that once as we exercise our vote on who we want to lead this country, our power is gone. We have politicians presenting bills in congress of their own accord, reallly prompted by their campaing contributions. Take for example Obamas Jobs bill. Somethins needs to be done. There is a majority in favor of the bill across the country but still congress votes no with the majority. Our government is no longer for the people by the people. Its more along the lines for the wealthy by the wealthy at the expense of everyone not in the top one percent.

[-] 0 points by tryingheretoo (11) 3 years ago

That guy is the worst (best) example of what a true hypocrite is all about. He became rich out of complaining about the riches. Still, some people are so unable to think for themselves that they need him, which is why he is able to sell his stuff in the first place. Anyone who compares who he is with who he criticizes will realize they were fooled very bad.

[-] 1 points by winkangrin (3) from King George, VA 3 years ago

I missed something, trying...are you talking about Michael Moore in your post?

[-] 0 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

You're right. The government shouldn't be able to tell a business how to organize itself, but that's not the same as the workers telling a business how to organize itself. WalMart has caused enough abuses that are of an extremist variety and think they have the power of the free market on their side to justify their draconian tactics. The government shouldn't be able to tell us what to do, either. If the workplace is causing economic turbulence, then the government has no right to tell us that we can't do anything about it. You can't have it both ways. Why should the government be allowed to tell us, the workers, what we can and can't do, but yet not be able to tell a business how to organize itself? If you don't want the government telling us what to do, that's fine. But you can't have it both ways.

[-] 3 points by fatherlenin (1) 3 years ago

Then don't work at Walmart. Simple. If they are such a terrible place to work, they would be out of business already. You make it sound like there are brownshirt thugs whipping employees and forcing them into labor.

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

Aside from the fact that WalMart is notorious for its union-busting practices, it is also in the business of making it very hard for other businesses to compete. It is an economic problem on a large scale. When WalMart comes to a town, wages tend to drop. Other business are forced to pay less to compete. That is an extremist position.

A firm becomes a terrible place to work if they decide to make you pay for your health care. Forcing a person to pay for health care while up to his head in medical bills is an extremist position for any corporation to undertake.

You do not have to be directly violent to take an extremist position. In some cases, an extremist position might be good if it benefits most. In this case, it doesn't. WalMart does what it does out of self-interest. The workers do what they do to survive. There are always going to be far more workers than there are managers and CEOs, and it is to those individuals that I lend my support.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

And the turnover at WalMart is very high (say 44%) as the workers do what they do to survive.

I am torn between being confronted by NEW employees at WalMart all the time and going to a major competing business and being confronted by OLD employees that are guaranteed their job and could care less about me as a customer-(no smile, no greeting at the door, no carts in the rack, dirty floors, waiting 15-20 minutes for someone called for assistance to get there, etc. (DISCLAIMER - this has been my experience only and may not be true of all locations of either business being made reference to)

PS - missing a ) somewhere above. Please put it where it belongs for me. Thanks..

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Places like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods are very hard to get into. Why? It's because they treat their employees well and give them decent pay and benefits. They have very low turnover. My mom has been trying to get into them in this area for 3 years. It's not rocket science trying to figure out how to keep employees happy and loyal. You certainly can't treat them like shit and then expect loyalty.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

And that is the great freedom that we do have. May I suggest a temporary job at WalMart, work like h___, get a good recommendation, etc, and take the Trader Joe's job when it opens up to you.

That is called upward mobility. (Please, I am NOT saying that is not what your Mother is now doing).

My point is simply, making WalMart like trader Joe's will not solve the problem of more job availability - under those conditions, it will be very hard to get a job at WalMart too.

Good luck to your Mother. I love Trader Joe's. Wish our little city had one.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

You're right in that places like Trader Joe's and WF don't necessarily solve the problem of job availability, but my point is that they do help solve the problem of people making livable wages and getting decent benefits and being happy with their jobs. People consider most of the positions at these two retailers (WF does have some more specialized positions... chefs and such) to be unskilled..... and for jobs labeled as such, they do pay more livable wages with solid benefits. Both companies are very successful as well, while paying much higher wages and benefits as compared to their competitors. Their competitors actually struggle more.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

They may be classified as "unskilled" but if you have to obtain your skills at WalMart to get the job at Trader Joes, that may be somewhat of a misnomer.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Um.... you think one has to obtain their skills at Walmart first? Really? That is really fucking hilarious!!!!!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

When you get done rolling on the floor, grass or whatever and laughing, we must talk again. In the meantime, have a good laugh on me.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

A turnover rate of 44%? Very high, indeed. Workers are doing what they do to survive. WalMart apparently can't even hold on to its own workforce, because it is not a viable place to work. They do not have the capacity for workers to earn a decent living. That's my point.

[-] 2 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

There is a great amount of difference between entry level positions and career positions. Are you a career: clerk, stocker, janitor, tire repairman, oil changer, at WalMart. How about McDonald's. Do you go THERE to see your friends that have worked there for 25 years. Do you even know the name of a wait person at Appleby's because you have seen them there for 20 years??

What is the turnover rate in your high school class of 2012 going to be, how about your college class of 2012,

The turnover rate at WalMart is about average for the retail industry as a whole.

You point is only valid to support your point. There is a lot more to all stories like this and TOO many people can not seem to see a picture beyond their point (we used to call it the end of their nose).

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Very high, by who's definition? About average for the retail service industry as a whole.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

A turnover rate in the 40-percent range is a very high turnover rate. I would have to look at overall comparative standards, but even so it is still very high. If that is becoming the average rate overall, then we definitely need to look at how labor is organized.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Safeway Stores is a unionized corporation and has about the same turnover rate as WalMart. This rate is indicative of the retail market as a whole.

Part of the reason that this rate is high at these two corporations is the fact that both sell a very low margin product. The prices at Safeway are higher for identical items than WalMart beause they have to adjust for added employee benefits provided to employees. Both corporations have similiar starting salaries depending upon area of the country and advancement up the pay scale is slower than in many other areas of employment.

Please correct or clarify if I am not interpreting data correctly.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by mkmkmk (5) 3 years ago

I think you need to read a couple books on economics. That is a silly oversimplification.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

I agree. As long as you don't hurt others you are free do speak out in what way you please. But Walmart is still private property, so you should take care of yourselves.

[-] 1 points by BNB (89) 3 years ago

It would be interesting to trace that properties ownership back to the original owner and then see how he/she acquired it.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Exactly. Private enterprise has recieved massive taxpayer bailouts and subsidies from the government for a long time f.ex. Lots of cash earned by hard working people has been given to private business to keep it viable. Just because something is now private property by law doesnt necessarily make it right nor unchangable.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Yes it would. Perhaps pioneers given land by the government.

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 3 years ago

STOLEN LAND so they, royalty and freemasons got their capital for free. we need to seize the land for all!! this is OUR LAND we claim it in the name of the people!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DonQuijote (55) from West Springfield, MA 3 years ago

oh wow, if you would put your money where your mouth is it be a whole different world. Michael Moore DOES take care of his employees REALLY well. If wal-mart did the same, nobody would be complaining. Google the benefits Michael Moore gives his workers.

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Also. all this talk of corporations and owners making all that money. Look at any movie set and compare what the actors like Pitt make compared to the crew. It's just as obscene as any CEO's pay.

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Do all workers on his sets make the same or near the same he does? Are the distribution points they get equal or near to what he and the producers get? I'm sure he treats them well, but are his productions democratically run? Everyone is truly equal?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

I understand that the a lot of WALMART if for sale. Just buy some stock and you got your share.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

No, I want democracy.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by fatherlenin (1) 3 years ago

Take over? No, why don't you start your own Walmart and pay your employees a wage YOU think is fair.

That is what people do in a democracy. You don't take anything from anyone.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 3 years ago

How could you possibly compete with a company with that kind of buying power? Plus it isn't like your going to get a loan from any of the bailed out mega banks.

Better option is to start a union organizing campaign at Walmart; but to do that, we'll first have to take back our government because they've spent 50 years basically gutting worker's rights.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

So you are another one of the defeatest group who love to say "it can't be done" Have you no concept of what history can teach, do you know that history exists. Who do you think that WalMart put out of business (for all practical purposes) before they rose to the top. Go down another layer of history - where is your local Woolworths' Store in your town? Was there one there at one time, almost every town in the country had one.

alexrai - somewhere out there in your great land of oz, there echos the same question that K-Mart asked about Woolworths, and WalMart asked about K-mart. "How could you possibly.........."

By the way, that question has already been asked regarding WalMart and it has been answered by Alco, Family Dollar, BigLots and any of a dozen other retail giants. And my guess is that someone, somewhere is still asking the question, "How could I possibly." The difference is "you" and "I" so far as this part of the American Dream is concerned.

If your American Dream has turned into a long nightmare you might check what you have been eating, or better yet, what you have been FED before you turn off the lights tonight.

Along with all of this, check to see which companies were union companies and how that change worked out for them.

And if it will lift your spirits a little, WalMart represents ONLY 8% of US retail sales. Kinda a 92% vs the 8% dragon.

Sleep well, and whatever you do, buy K-Mart you will be supporting union jobs.

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 3 years ago

A lot has happened since the early 1960s. Globalization being one of those things, if it was once possible to start a big box retail chain by saving up money at a minimum wage job, or asking a kind banker for a loan. Those days ended long ago.

It might be possible to see a venture capital company, but I bet the first question they ask is: How can you compete with Walmart? They have options on all the prime retail space around cities, and they have massive economies of scale, and sophisticated logistics systems which no startup can compete with. Again, different than the 1960s.

Incidentally: Alco by the look of things started in 1901, went Chapter 11, and was refinanced with GE. Not exactly an American Dream story.

You sound like a real union hater, but hey; Businesses get the unions they deserve. If Walmart did not treat its employees like crap, it would not have to bribe politicians to get rid of labour laws.

Oh and please visit Vancouver some day; they did not allow Walmarts until very recently, and guess what? There are tons and tons of small little shops which compete with each other, and prices are as good if not better than Walmart. There are also tons and tons of small merchants living the Canadian dream, instead of a few fat cat executives making Millions of their under payed workers and small Chinese children.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

VANCOVER - beautiful area. And what % of your population if of oriental descent??

I used to buy from Pearl, in downtown LA. Now there was a lady with both class and connections who could outprice WalMart any day on a very wide selection of artifical plants. And sadly, her workers were probably under paid and were actually children (on weekends at least) but what could I say, they were her children.

I think ALCO is an American Dream. But please help me out here do they still owe a lot to GE?? They seem to have a business plan that works - I am sure you have shopped in one, basically a skinny WalMart in an area where WalMart doesn't want to go and they seem to be doing well.

And, yes, I would expect to be asked the question about how I could compete. If I didn't have a business plan that would hold up to their standards, I would not expect their money.

About all the options, NO NO NO. They may have the option on one piece of property in one particular place or maybe even two - that is called avanced planning. On ALL the property, I don't think so unless you are from an area with very extremely limitied vacant retail zoned land.. That is why when a WalMart goes in, a slew of other businesses surround it from Home Depot to Lowes to chain restaurants. The businesses around one of our WalMart locations include a sole owner jewelry store, an independent tire store, a medical clinic, independently owned chain motel. At one time, we had an independent grocery that could run rings around WalMart by running their own trucks to California and bringing produce to their stores at prices WalMart never tried to meet. (since sold to an even bigger grocery chain)

I am not a union hater, never belonged to one, my wife did for awhile. I am simply attempting to put some ideas, and possibilities and facts out there for you to arrive at your own conclusions. I did not make any conclusions and try to force them on anyone

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 3 years ago

Quite a few for sure, in Richmond (a southern suburb) you can't even read the signs; but I like the non-corporate model, you can still buy bottled milk at the local grocer by my friends place. Hastings st. Is lined with small artsy shops, and you can get a big plastic container of grapes for like $1.25 at the tiny Asian markets.

I'm not sure about Alco, in fairness it appears that whatever steps were taken after the re-financing worked out quite well; but we're still dealing with a company that is over 100 years old, already had a number of buildings, capital assets, staff, and a distribution system; then had a large infusion of capital, that was my point.

It's a different situation than Average Joe attempting to go to a bank in 2011 to loan acquire a multi-million dollar loan to start a big box retain chain (a notoriously difficult racket to make a profit in at the best of times).

Walmart competes on a low-cost model, and it is amazingly efficient. Businesses competing on a high service/value added model stand a chance; businesses with established locations and brand equity also stand a chance; its theoretically possible I suppose to start up a new retail chain and compete on cost, but it would take a serious business plan, serious capital, and a level of expertise that most people in America simply don't have... and on top of that a better economic outlook, and some good luck; and it certainly would not happen overnight.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

I just don't fully understanding your reasoning. Did any of today's big box stores start out as big box stores. It seems to me that K-Mart used to be a 5-10 cent store operating under the banner of SSK.... and worked its way up. WalMart certainly did not start out as a big box store - more like a single Ben Franklin I think.

Perhaps this is a completely different area with a vastly distorted look at the TIME factor. There is a great difference in starting a chain like K'Mart in the 1960's and working up to a multitude of stores and your comparison of walking into a bank and having instant gratification of owning and operating a big box store the next day. Assuming that you are in your twenties, you have 50 years to get your chain of big box stores going. The life cycle of the usual chain such as K-Mart is around 30-40 years and they have exceeded that and are now in decline

You have made the assumption that the same thing won't happen to WalMart. You just can't seem to see the challenge of being there when they start their decline.

Most of the people in America are not expected to have the level of expertise that would be required to open that store, but how does that in any way impede the fact that it could be done. Please remember that there was only ONE Sam Walton and that was all it took.

And now to ALCO. If that chain had not re-invented themselves they would also be in the heap of history. Alco is operating out of new store buildings with a new business plan. They are just being successful in the same way that any other local store could be under the right leadership. Surviving over 100 with that level of success is almost unheard of - GE loan or not.

It really seems that this site reflects the lack of vision, leadership and drive to do what it would take to counter what you see as the impossible.. BUT you know what I think - I think those young people are out there today making their plans, getting an education in business and the world, setting up financial plans and they will be the next big box store owners and operators.

There are a thousand reasons why it can't be done and you and you have regurgitated several of them "It's a different situation", "this stands a chance" and "that stands a chance"

Why are the majority of the post on all of these forums based on a defeatist attitude that the only solution is to PULLdown what exists rather than show some initiative involving "boot straps"

Please take a minute to look through the posts and note the totally defeatist attitude, the we will tear down what we don't like or see as an barricade in out path to instant gratification.

If I had a big bone to throw at each of the posts on here, we could probably move on with some success in all areas of concern being mentioned and get rid of the defeatist posts and "poor little me" attitudes being expressed herein.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 3 years ago

Fair enough, maybe it is theoretically possible to compete with them if you had 50 years; I still think its a much more difficult proposition in 2011 than it was even in 1980, let alone 1960.

Globalization, technology, and accumulated purchasing power are pretty serious barriers to entry. Not sure if that's defeatist, I think its just being realistic, and if I ever start a business it certainly isn't going to be a department store. Walmart clearly owns that category when even established players like Alco have to base their business model around what Walmart is doing to avoid going chapter 11 for the second time.

Either way, I think the main problem is still capital. To get a bank loan in Canada (I assume its the same down there) you need to give a personal guarantee, so you either need to be rich, or you need very nice family or friends who are rich.

VC Firms do not care about small businesses, so then what do you do if have a good idea but are unemployed or underemployed?

I look at it like this. I suck at Golf, if I try as hard as I can each shot, I might make par once every few games. A pro makes par or less almost every time putting in the same amount of effort I do. That is the situation the general population is in, but the stakes are much higher for missing a shot; and there is a substantial advantage to other players who are not starting out with a monetary handicap.

Statistically, if 100 people put in the effort, maybe one does ok. Maybe fewer in this economy (which is gone to crap specifically because of globalization). That is a pretty expensive lottery ticket that most people simply can't afford.

The government needs to address the issues of income inequality, financing, and employment; if those issues are not addressed soon OWS will look quite tame compared to what will be happening in another 10 years.

You know what the simplest interim solution would be? Bring back trade barriers. Then Walmart would have to buy American, creating huge numbers of new jobs.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

In the meantime those same barriers put a lot of farmers out of business who depend on American exporting their goods to the world. Think I would rather have WalMart down the street doing their thing than to walk in and find my local grocery shelves empty though we would probably have tanker trucks lined up for miles trying to off load ethanol.

And if you want to come close to par in golf, partner up with someone who constantly shoots under and consider that as a team you are doing pretty D____ well.

This all gets back to the most overriding control of people today, who think that it all about ME. Read through the posts here and see what it is all about, ME ME ME ME.

Maybe I should write a book and sell it for $45.00.

Give me $25,000 for a small business loan and I will put you into a retail business that has the potential (depending on how hard you want to work) of grossing $1,000 per day with a gross profit margin of 50-75%. You can sell 100% American purchased goods and feel good that you are not a big importer like WalMart. PS, you will also become one of the largest recyclers in your city.

Been there, done that and the family tradition continues.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

"In the meantime those same barriers put a lot of farmers out of business who depend on American exporting their goods to the world."

How so if trade is equally balanced i.e. the amount exported = amount imported? There should be no trade DEFICIT.

https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

And who, in your plan, would decide and set priorities for the equal export-import ratio. Let's say that food commodities is 01. export priority, then the 01. import priority has to be oil to produce that commodity, from this point on, the process belongs to the import side because our imports far exceed those of our exports.

This process might set a few advantageous priorities and might get rid of all those nasty imports into WalMart thus increasing manufacturing in the US BUT, at what point do we cut our own throats by then, not being able to export anymore because we don't need to import any more.

Those companies that are dependent upon exports will at some point be cut off by the maximum imports that we can have and thus they will downsize.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

I'm not informed enough to know who should decide and set priorities for the equal export-import ratio. Probably a group/think tank of economists as far removed from corporate importer and foreign exporter influence as possible. It would not surprise me to see someone(s) try to pay them off to get their way. Trade doesn't have to be 100% equal. I just know that it hurts the US economy when we have a deficit, factories closed and jobs were lost. What was it before the huge imports of clothing, electronics, cars, etc. started? Seems like we should go back to that. I like the ~1975 trade surplus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade#United_States_Trade_Deficit

"To keep Chinese products artificially inexpensive on U.S. store shelves, Beijing undervalues the yuan by 40%. It accomplishes this by printing yuan and selling those for dollars and other currencies in foreign exchange markets."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-10/markets/29974127_1_deficit-subtracts-trade-deficit-job-seekers

China uses dirty tricks and slave labor/wages to grow stronger and it's absurd that the USA allows these tactics and imports. I bet if corporate lobbying/influence were removed/never there, this would not have happened or at least not so much and for so long. I like the idea of "free trade" until it hurts our economy and jobs and we get tainted products. Too much of a good thing. China should also have to pay and treat workers fairly.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Trade_Deficit.htm

Seems like there should also be some US government caps on oil/gas prices if possible since the oil companies are making far too many billions of $ at the consumers expense. Would it be possible to cap gas prices at say $2/gallon?

No doubt US automakers needed to get more innovative 30-40 years ago when Honda Civics started showing up. But it's up to lawmakers to control imports. I believe some countries have higher taxes or tariffs on imports to protect their economies and industries/jobs. Shouldn't the USA be protecting its big industries including carmakers? Would they need bailouts if auto imports and/or gas prices were reduced? Who was it that gave big tax breaks for buying gas guzzling SUVs, causing a mess when gas prices went up (surprise)? Bush, who has ties to the oil industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-01-20-suvs_x.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm

NEVER vote Republican! I don't think any party can fix the messes until corporate lobbying is outlawed/influence removed but Republicans are ALWAYS on the side of the 1%. How soon people forget and vote another and another into office.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

Yes it seems that the price of oil is fixed by traders and overinflated. So the lawmakers would have to figure out how to cap it all (gas, diesel, heating oil, etc.) with a new system and continue working on conservation. Oil has been held back to decrease supply and increase prices. It's a big game and the joke is on us.

If someone got rid of a clunker and replaced it with a more fuel efficient car, that's a good thing but taxpayers should not be paying for it. But far more was spent on just a few war aircraft than the entire Cash for Clunkers program.

I agree that there is no easy or simple solution but history has proven what worked in the past. I don't think there should be any large sudden changes in trade and anything like restrictions may need to happen gradually over 5-20 years to avoid turmoil.

I'm not for dismantling the 1%, just that they should be required to do better and play more fairly. We're talking about obscene profits at the expense of the 99%. The 1% used to have everything made in the USA and they did fine. Then they got greedy and took advantage of slave labor wages in other countries. Certainly the 1% should not have been given tax cuts. The 1% have the money to lobby and the 99% don't, so if politicians are for the people they need to outlaw lobbying. That's a start.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

You will get fooled again IF you don't have a pretty good understanding of how things work today (right or wrong, you simply have to know that first)

  1. Do you know who or by what means the value of a barrel of oil is determined and why it is almost universally priced at the same price. In other words, what is the benchmark for the value of that barrel of oil? HINT - it is much closer to home than you might think.

  2. Sure we could cap gas prices at say $2.00 per gallon. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the resulting doubling of the price of fertilizer, the horrific cost of food as a result of doubling the price of diesel fuel, the fact that prices of everything else would go up due to the increase in transportation costs which are largely dependent on the cost of diesel fuel (trucks, trains, buses etc.) However, I am thinking that those drivers who have a gasoline powered semi would be making a killing and in effect putting most of the over-the-road diesels out of business, and thus increasing the demand for gasoline to the point that that $2.00 could no longer hold and it would probably go to $4.00 per gallon.

And do you remember that great "Cash for Clunkers" Program? Who was President at that time, really doesnt make any difference. That program is why the prices of used cars skyrocketed overnight. They were simply removed from the capitalistic market and crushed instead of being fed into the used car market.

MY POINT being - There may be a lot of ideas out there, but there is no simple solution. We live in a very interdependent world that took several hundred years to form. In one way or another it is all related and all connected.

Does anyone have a real good plan for dismantling the 1% without causing the rest of the world's system to collapse on our heads?? Best we get that plan in place before we start the hangings and plundering.

Isolate and address problems, but realize there is no easy solution to the whole enchilada.

Just the way I see it from out in the SouthWest.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

read my answers to pinker below.

"You don't take anything from anyone"

Oh, so no bailouts and profitting from other people´s work then..?

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 3 years ago

Probably a lot more. WalMart has operated horribly since its conception, using militant tactics to strategize its position in the global economy, and driving forth incentives to force the closure of small businesses who couldn't compete with the rampant abuses disguised as a free-market love story. Some towns have even tried to stop WalMart from entering. I suspect the number of small shops hurt by WalMart's activities far outweigh any of the shops hurt by OWS in their occupations.

So, WalMart, if you continue in your attempts to usurp the economy and drive your draconian measures onto our cities and towns, then you best be prepared ...You might be seeing us bringing it straight to your door, from town to town, city to city. In union we stand!

[-] 2 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Poor people were held captive by overpriced goods in small stores/corner stores. Toilet paper is a human dignity all should be able to afford. I would poll the people who are shopping in Walmart to see what they want.

[-] 2 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

So before Walmart no one could afford toilet paper? LOL! Last I checked it's fairly priced at any grocery store and they have sales every week. Never need to buy it elsewhere.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

Easy enough for those of us who have no kids or a job that affords them more choices, but poor families are the ones who appreciate Walmart. I suppose one could wait around for a sale before buying TP? You need to check again.

This is not in defense of Walmart, it is in defense of poor families and not judging them.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

And why are there too many poor families? One big reason is that unemployment is too high. Why is unemployment too high? One big reason is because Walmart and other companies shipped millions of good paying manufacturing jobs overseas because they got too greedy and the US government allowed it. Poor families that can't afford college need train on the job manufacturing jobs and jobs that include college as a benefit. And not everyone is smart enough or has the grades or time for college so they also need manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing also employs many college grads who need jobs.

Yes waiting for sales is a great way to save money on groceries. I buy everything half price when it goes on sale at a top grocery store chain and pay less than I would elsewhere. And there is little waiting because many items go on sale every week. And there's also free coupons to save more. Websites like www.southernsavers.com help you do this. Walmart's grocery department sucks compared to where I shop. I get much bigger selection, better food and lower prices. Poor people need to eat better and will appreciate this.

It's not just poor people shopping at Walmart. People shop there because they have fewer choices than they had before Walmart put so many stores out of business with Chinese imports.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 3 years ago

I'm not debating the whys. I was respondng to a post about occupying a Walmart in a poor area. I don't think a poor, single mom has the luxury to sit around pondering business practices.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

Not everyone who is poor is a single mom and I think the poor can make a difference if they speak up. I don't think it matters which stores OWS is at and the point is to draw national attention to the issues. However since Walmart and other large corporations mass importing goods advertise on TV I'm guessing this didn't get much national TV coverage. Corporations run the mass media too, and media profits depend on corporate advertising. So we the people, the 99%, need to keep plugging away on the internet.

FOX News Reporters Fired For Telling The Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

same video with interesting "About This Video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcjzdoiL0j4

The Corporation (complete, chapters 1 to 23) http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87

Are you ready for the Breakdown? http://www.madeinusa.org/breakdown.html

http://www.madeinusa.org/

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Products would be cheaper too.

We, the consumers paid for all that nefarious activity.

[-] 2 points by shoesandtables (20) 3 years ago

Walmart needs to UNIONIZE all across the country!! The workers there, if they organize collectively, have so much power!! -- and they work for the largest corporation IN THE WORLD!!

[-] 2 points by JosephCouture (45) 3 years ago

If you don’t care for unpleasant truths, now is your last chance to turn away. People have been saying the world is experiencing a great awakening- and I just got a glimpse of what that really means.

Look for yourself if you dare. Read “Awakening To the Nightmare” at www.josephcouture.com

[-] 1 points by fiverrah (15) 3 years ago

I spent a very enjoyable morning reading your well written and thought provoking essays.

Worth reading people!

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

Can you imagine the jobs if that made all that stuff in America?

[-] 1 points by quercus (93) 3 years ago

no, i can not imagine. would, that i could, the (belief) structure of god/humanity 'belief system' is a bit much for me.

i am at that point 'in my life' where rage, gentle, kind-ness, generousity, needs to be re-defined.

be-ware: the hierarchy of worse-bad-good-better-best, is a class-cognitive nomenclature paradigm.

are you surprised education, (aka knowledge, free speech is now being codified as copy-right-patents) owned and controlled by the NEW comptrollers?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

I love Walmart

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

the "poor" workers are free not to work there.

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

In my America, that's a cheap cop out. The point of the post was not the workers or their wages. The point was the misuse of revenue by a corporation that is so ethically and financially responsible to billions of dollars of revenue and wages in our country to corrupt and undermine our political system. The irony in this is that you vote to elect candidates into office to "represent" you while earning and/or spending your paycheck with a corporation that ultimately tells your "representative" how to represent you as a constituent. Make sense now?

[-] 1 points by MaerF0x0 (15) 3 years ago

walmart has about 2,000,000 employees, so they could give each of them about $3.50 if they cut their campaigns.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

and once the employees get use to that they will want another 3.50. Supply & demand determines wages - not your whim - or what you think is fair. If you want higher pay get higher skills.

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 3 years ago

14.3 billion in profits / 2.1 million employees ~ $7,000 per year ~ $3.5/hour

That's a pretty decent pay raise.

[edit: that calculation assumes a 40 hour work week, since a lot of employees are part time the actual hourly wage increase might actually be higher...]

[edit 2: $8,990 / 2.1 million employees is less than a penny an hour wage increase if the CEO worked for nothing, so the CEO's pay isn't really a big issue here]

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 3 years ago

[edit 3: the question was what if they didn't spend $4.3 million on political contributions and lobbying . . . $4.3 million / 2.1 million employees is $2.05 a year . . . or 1/10 of 1 penny per hour.]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by fatherlenin (1) 3 years ago

About an dollar a day, just like they do in China.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by classynancy (-73) 3 years ago

You moron, if they took every dollar of their entire profit of $16 B (forget what they spent on lobbying) and paid all 2.1 Million pf their workers with it, it would come out to $6,000 more per year or $3 per hour. Oh yeah, by the way, then the company would be out of business since they wouldn't have any money to invest in remodeling stores or other capital investments and the billions of people who own their stock would dump it in favor of a bank account (which is probably about the equivalent of investing in Walmart right now anyway!) Then the 2.1 M workers would be out of a job.

Great work, you just came up with a way of letting go of 2.1 M people, remind me to not elect you to the board of directors of my company!

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Yes, I can and I have already answered your question. It amounts to 1/2 of one cent for every time you walk into WalMart. You go once a week, you would be off setting ONLY 1/2 or 1cent of that donations.

And you expect to give how much of a raise to 1.2 million workers at WalMart.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Kind of like the unions standing with you? How they take union dues and give money to the DNC? (lobbying?) What is the difference? It adds up to millions of bucks. I think that if you post here you are required to have a brain.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Those monies go to help the 99%

WalMart? Not so much.

Why do you HATE unions?

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Unions are corrupt. Can't have it both ways. You are a hypocrite. More and more States will force the unions out of power. Public sector unions are going away fast. The Post Office unions are going away. There is no money for new contracts. Old style pensions will be replaced by a 401k system. You will not need unions after that. It is already going on in the big cities. 401k is the future . The Federal Government saw the handwriting on the wall 30 years ago and switched to a 401k type plan called the TSP.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Corporations are corrupt. You have it backwards.

Republicans help them a lot.

Due to a bill Bush signed, just as he left office, the USPS has to suddenly fully fund it's pensions out 75 years in advance.

That was while the economy was crashing and burning.

He was still in for a bit of union busting. I wonder who paid for that bill?

Oh, yeah! We did!

No unions ever got anywhere near that in it's contract.

Now, couple that fact, with all the anti-union marketing/PR you've been listening to. Stuff from those corporate sponsored marketing/PR firms.

Rush gets paid by them for almost everything he says. Every idea he puts out there.

Now, tell me again, how unions aren't part of the 99%?

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Unions are corrupt. Thay give money from union dues to the DNC. Without even asking. They give big money to big politics. To the tune of millions. You are a hypocrite. You are a fake. Can't have it both ways. Can't say corporations are evil and say it's OK for the unions to give to the DNC. Plain and simple. Plain and simple.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

No comment on the republican plot?

I don't believe in coincidence.

You do.

You're corrupt.

Plainer and simpler.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Plot or no plot, the Post Office really needs to clean up. Really, way too many folks. Email and bill pay has changed things. Just do not need a zillion post office folks any longer. They get paid a ton and have better healthcare than the regular feds. By far! And the redular Fed workers have really good healthcare. I'm not kidding about the junk mail. I know that is how they make money but it is still junk mail!!!!! Huge layoffs are coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Happy Thankgiving. Time to prep dinner for tomorrow.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

They don't get paid a ton.

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

If you stand with the unions you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. They give millions to the DNC. You hate it when corporations give to politics. What is the difference. There is no difference. It is all the same. That is the number one thing you want to stop. The DNC is politics!!!!

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

There is a huge difference in the amount of monies given and how it is accounted for.

Like I said, those monies are given to help the 99%.

Now, will you answer my question?

Who do you HATE unions?

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Nope, that will not answer the question. You are a hypocrite. Can't have it both ways. Why should unions take from republican workers pockets and give to the DNC without asking them? Do you think that is fair? Do you think that folks should have to be in a union? There is no difference, big money to the tune of millions to the DNC. You do not have a brain.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Because all workers in a given union are covered by the same bargaining contract.

Yes, I think all workers in a given organization should have the right to collective bargaining.

Are you going to answer my question now?

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

I already did? Maybe there is someone there that can help you?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

No, you didn't

Short attention span I guess.

Union, YES!

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Get someone to go back and read everything for you. It's not your fault that you do not get it. There are people that can help you.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

I don't need help, you do.

You missed it.

Ask your doctor about ritalin.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

They don't use ritalin anymore. You are a hypocrite. Can't have it both ways. Can't say it's OK for one but not another. Unions give millions to politics. OWS says that is wrong but you let the unions stand with you anyway. Hypocrite.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Sorry, I'm old that's what they used back when I cared. So lay off the Red Bull then.

Corporations give billions. Plus all the think tanks, front groups, astro turffer's, marketing/PR firms, etc. Unions can't touch that, and you know it.

You're the hypocrite.

Have you been drinking the RupertRush juice again?

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 3 years ago

Look, even if the corporations give zillions to politics and the unions only give millions, it is still the same and you know it. They are both corrupt. I did have a bunch of coffee! I'm saying both are bad news. OWS needs to stay away from the unions. Just looks creepy. Hypocrite. I am right. Unions are dead. Or will be soon.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Union members are the 99%.

Their organizations are democratic.

Not so with corporations. They are tyrannical.

Why do you support tyranny?

No difference between zillions and millions? I suppose you're pissed about the budget deficit.

And you call me a hypocrite?

[-] -3 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

NO, exactly how much more could they pay their workers??

[-] 1 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

ronjj-- we will never know... the facts above are just what was reported. having worked in an executive position at a large retail chain, i can tell you that what was reported in terms of lobbying dollars is an extremely small percentage of the actual amount when you take into consideration all of the special interests that are important to such a behemoth.

Comments should be closed for this posting. I think it's pretty well explained above without involving my comments or the genius of "ronjj" -

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Let me answer that for you. Related to weeks sales alone, that would amount to less than 1/2 cent per week for all (not each) of their employees for every time you go into WalMart that week.

That 1/2 cent would then be divided among their 1.2 million employees.

[-] 4 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

And I would like to answer something for you.... While we banter back and forth here... dividing up Wal-Marts billions of revenue and increased profits generated by corporate brutality on its employees, the environment, and other businesses, corporations like this are undermining our entire political system and democracy. The representatives that you and I vote into office are being bought and sold to the highest bidder. There is no spin or slant on that fact. You have been sold out by this corporation and your own government ronjj.... and you apparently don't even know it. Man they got you good...

[-] 6 points by vicfan (4) 3 years ago

I wonder if the CEO can show how he/she works a thousand times harder than the average worker.

[-] 1 points by myers73 (6) from Orlando, FL 3 years ago

He is ultimately responsible for almost 2,000,000 people worldwide receiving a paycheck every week. That can't be too hard...

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

If it was easy, why don't the average joe do it? Also, The CEO in a company like Walmart works almost 24/7. The guy who mops the floor could give a crap (ive been there). while the CEO may not appear to work harder, they have to take in more information and process it the best they can.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 3 years ago

Easily. The CEO's decisions affect the viability of the entire company while the average worker's decisions affect how well the aisle gets mopped.

[-] 3 points by dealdoctor (148) 3 years ago

On that basis of thought a new baby should simply be allowed to die because it only sucks the life out of others. Cogs in a machine really are human doings but then again others think we should be human beings. The guy with the mop is one or the other and it is up to you to decide how you will treat him. The CEO and the mopper both are not the MOP!

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 3 years ago

You need to seperate human worth from effort worth. They are very different.

[-] 1 points by dealdoctor (148) 3 years ago

I agree they are very different. A hammer and a person are very different. If the hammer is used to drive a nail it is a good thing that is great. If it is used to kill a person that is not a good thing. When effort worth becomes a power hammer to harm people worth its use is improper. It is worthy that the CEO make more for talent and effort. It is not ok for them to make so much more or for their corporation to gouge so much that people value is harmed. This "monopoly game" is real and the best players can starve others and that is immoral. Talent used to a degree that it crushes people is misused talent. Justice will seek to balance effort worth and human worth to a degree that one need not harm the other. Today they are WAY out of balance. The individual with talent is no island but lives within a context of other people and the environment.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 3 years ago

That's not working a thousand times harder. You didn't answer the question.

[-] 3 points by tryingheretoo (11) 3 years ago

Surely he refers to the CEO as some magical being who can make super market decisions that no other human is capable of even understanding, never makes mistakes, never looks stupid asking the help of the government, never gets his money from abusing slave workers abroad (as if that was a hard decision to make) and therefore deserves his pay for he is super important and irreplaceable. What is rather puzzling is that this ranting guy is definitively not the CEO nor does it look like he is line to become the next.

[-] 2 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 3 years ago

I worked hard raking the leaves from my lawn last weekend. Who's going to pay me for my hard work? You?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

Why didn't you just have the Mexicans do it?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 3 years ago

If harder is sweat - no. If sweat = value to you, you really don't understand business.

Value is based on amount "in" exchanged for amount "out". The sweat of the aisle mopper may create a nicer environment for the people shopping in the store, but the amount of money the shopper saves at Walmart compared to having to visit several more expensive small shops in a day far outweighs the comfort of a mopped floor.

[-] 3 points by dealdoctor (148) 3 years ago

"the amount the shopper saves", you must mean the CASH amount as your standard of value. Perhaps there is a human value that both CEO and mopper share equally that is beyond any price or dollars saved by any shopper. Are your children just little "shopper saver machines". Gosh, are we all just " shoppers now? Shit, better get my bag and head to the store because right now I am just being not shopping. When money inserts itself into even the definition of persons much less into their value as persons it has overstepped its bounds. I mean really when you played Monopoly were you really just a little piece on someone's board? Was the winner really the most valuable kid? People invented money and the game of Monopoly. Ask two more questions.

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 3 years ago

The value of labor is a cash (or barter) value.

Human worth is seperate. However, the virtue of being human does not give you permission to demand sustenance from me. I am not your slave.

[-] 1 points by dealdoctor (148) 3 years ago

I would prefer to think of us as both being members of the human family. When we no longer "crown her good with brotherhood" we are out of balance. A family with slaves is out of health. A family where all work to form a more perfect union and embrace cooperation rather than competition will be a more healthy family. Which has priority money or people? They both will be in the mix. I put people first but fully realize that any person being any other person's slave is wrong. I do not want you to work for me. I have three hard earned graduate degrees and have worked every day of my life since I was fifteen. I also am a vet. That said I am not a "worker". I am a person. Be honest, you are too, brother. A house is for the home. An economic system is for the people of the nation. When that gets reversed the shit hits the fan because the value of people as people is subordinated to other things. The value you give others is the value you embrace for yourself because you also are a person. Lazy is bad. The long lines at soup kitchens in the great depression were full of people, not lazy drones.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 3 years ago

You're moving the goal posts. The question was "HARDER" nothing else.

[-] 4 points by mad58 (4) from Albany, OR 3 years ago

Good deal... but will those shoppers be able to break the mind-set that Wal-Mart helps them save money? Many of those struggling to make ends meet use Wal-Mart. These shoppers are not going to easily let go of cheap imported goods. How will the OWS movement address this?

[-] 4 points by vnayar (289) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

There's a lot of talk here about Wal Mart's profits, poor wages to workers, lack of benefits, etc. I feel there is a slight lack of information about the root causes of complaints about Wal Mart. I think it breaks down into two categories:

  1. Wal Mart takes massive local subsidies, passes most health care costs onto its employees, has special roads built for them, housing assistance for their workforce, etc. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html

  2. Wal Mart lowers prices largely by buying from abroad and taking advantage of slavery like conditions. Everything is subcontracted, and they work through the most abusive, environmentally destructive, child labor using, and all around horrible producers.

Essentially, Wal Mart is a major outlet for all the trade agreements made in recent years like NAFTA and agreements with China.

Everyone supports business and competition on a level playing field, but there's something not quite right when Americans have to compete against slave labor. I think we need more "Fair Trade" and less "Free Trade". There should be minimum standards for child labor, education, worker rights, working conditions, etc. If a producer cannot meet those conditions, I think their products should be subject to a tariff.

[-] 4 points by damascus (7) from Bossier City, LA 3 years ago

In 1985 I worked in a Wal-Mart distribution center. I hated the way we were treated like criminals by loss prevention, and found a really cool way to "strike" back. I knew how anti union Wal-Mart is - they made sure we all knew their positions on unions. I began writing such things as "We need a union. Working conditions are terrible!" on slips of paper, and dropping those slips of paper into openings in large boxes, like for TVs or other appliances. The openings where you put your hands to lift a box were perfect. It wasn't long before some of the slips were discovered and Wal-Mart sent down a team to deal with the "crisis". They have a psychologist on their anti union staff! Every single employee was interviewed. I'm sure they tried to match up the handwriting but I had printed neatly with large Magic Markers that bled a little. In the end they installed a few new fans in that non air-conditioned facility where temps went well over 100 degrees. They fixed a few holes in the floor that were a safety hazard for forklifts. That was about it.

So that was my moment of glory while employed by the evil Wal-Mart beast. I bet it would work again...

[-] 4 points by adlogyram (4) 3 years ago

Hello, What about Microsoft? They bring lots of H1/L1 visa workers to replace Americans. They got rid of 5000 workers and replace them with L1 visa holders. Tata consultancy, WIPRO, Infosys and Cognizant are big into bringing H1/L1 holders. Most of the IT professionals don't get jobs because of this.

[-] 1 points by jdnreha (85) 3 years ago

There not evil. Some magical guy deemed it. or did you not get the memo?

[-] 4 points by johndenton47 (4) 3 years ago

Better hand out candy to the shoppers. Trust me, the people who shop there are not out on a whim. Paycheck to paycheck, they only survive buying teh Cheap. Also Women in particular feel social obligations, and everyone likes to Give a little this season. They will find the Buy Nothing message offensive if a shopper's mere presence is judged as bad. I would prefer to see a flash mob songfest in the big richy stores on Black Friday. I'll join that.

[-] 3 points by brooklynviking (8) 3 years ago

Walmart is one of the companies excluded from investment by Norway's ethics committee for their National Pension Trust, on these very grounds.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Good on Norway.

[-] 3 points by Pennybags (3) 3 years ago

Dont forget the "Dead Peasants" Insurance Wal-Mart puts on its employees so they benefit if any of their employees die.

[-] 3 points by dawnduffy (3) 3 years ago

this is why my family and i never have shopped at walmart.

[-] 3 points by piewackett1 (5) 3 years ago

You left out Walmart's systematic discrimination against women, and the right-wing activist Supreme Court's dismissal of the class action suit.

[-] 3 points by Edwin (47) from Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 3 years ago

Never shop at Walmart. Never ever ever set foot inside.

[-] 3 points by eeverett (1) 3 years ago

How many people are aware that Walmart was one of the major forces that sent American jobs to China and that China has over 5 million prison slave workers? This is a must see video: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

I got a walmart down the street from me and refuse to shop there after I saw a documentary on PBS. Also women were not paid equally. There was a class action suit against walmart that was thrown out this year.I kicked walmart to the curb. I support small businesses.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

2011 and you are just getting around to viewing a video on slave workers?. Were we not at one time, slaves to England, how about Mexico, Malyasia, Taiwan, Japan, India, have they not been slaves to us world at one time or another.

The Chinese will throw off the "slave worker" concept in a short period of time AND when you wake up, YOU will be the slave to those workers, because you will no longer be able to produce your own clean underwear.

If you are not aware of this truth - check the LG refrigerator in the store and compare it to Sears Elite line (same manufacturer) and top of the line - now who is the slave??

Been admiring those new KIA vehicles. Sky rocketing in quality and value. Welcome to slavery at its finest.

Dummies of the world are not confined to WalMart corporations. If you have too, climb to the top of a mountain and get a view of what the world is really about.

[-] 3 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Don't just boycott walmart,boycott all business that open on Thanksgiving day including your local supermarket. These business are taking advantage of the poor workers,by not letting them stay home on Thanksgiving day with their families to have a thankful meal.

[-] 1 points by BNB (89) 3 years ago

Actually, my work place gives you a choice and pays double that day.

[-] 0 points by lisaizonline (13) 3 years ago

Are you serious? Just because it is a holiday, no one should have to work?

[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Im serious. I never said no one should work.I worked many a holiday,including TG and Xmas. Hospitals workers ,police officers,government workers have always worked on holidays. They are much needed. But consumerism on a national holiday..Thanksgiving at that is NOT a necessasity. Macys,Walmart ,Target and franchise supermarkets are not only taking advantage of their low wage workers,but the American public as well(if we let them). Boycott! The big boxes have now crossed the line.

[-] 0 points by lisaizonline (13) 3 years ago

Holiday pay is worth it to some.

[-] 0 points by nicck (3) 3 years ago

Nope don't boycott local places. Small businesses need revenue.

[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

I never included small business. The big boxes intent is to run the the small business OUT of business,by opening on TG and black friday at midnight. If you can't see that, we're in big trouble. Its called Monopoly!

[-] 2 points by Holly66 (2) 3 years ago

I'm concerned with the views I often see on line from the right that government should stay out of business - let businesses do what they need to do to make a buck. *Wake up people. Read some history and see what man is capable of - there are a helluva lot of greedy people out there who'll do anything. Really. You need limits! You need rules, laws, regulations. Open your eyes to see that there's not a limit to what many people will do to make money. Ethics mean little today to many in the Corporate world, on Wall Street and in DC. Of course we need an entity regulating what businesses should or should not be allowed to do. To anyone still naively thinking all businesses are ethical by nature, will never do the wrong thing to make money, it's time to wake up. US companies have moved your/our jobs out of the country to make more profits (97% of LL Bean's products are made out of the US wher costs are cheaper to name but one of thousands ...and yet consumers are still paying the same...this goes across the board - look at where the products you are buying are made...and look at the price you are paying for it!) If you believe businesses and wall street should not be told what they can/can't do, what's your opinon on child labor? Or selling potentially dangerous products to consumers? Thank goodness there are regulations or things would be much worse... No! The free rides over! I say wall street, big biz should have rules to abide by... like everyone else. They want "personhood", well they can have the drawbacks along with the benefits!

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 3 years ago

If a co-operative alternative to Walmart is going to be formed, what do we call it? Co-Mart?

[-] 2 points by SeaChange (134) 3 years ago

I support the ideas here, but I don't think this is a good tactic. It sounds like the tired old moralist interventions that the left has already been doing for decades. OWS should continue ushering in a new dynamic with new tactics.

The problem with this kind of approach is that it implies some kind of collusion on the part of the average people that are shopping at wal mart for largely economic reasons. It a sets up a rift between OWS and the 99% that we are representing. Honestly, it kind of makes it seem like we are "against Christmas" to the average shopper, who might not be so informed about these issues. I know the whole idea is to inform them of these issues, but then what do they do? Give up on their Christmas shopping and go home? Feel guilty? This just doesn't seem like a constructive tactic.

I think our energy is better spent elsewhere (by the way I think the Movement for Justice in El Barrio and the Thanksgiving meals are excellent projects). We should be directly engaging with our neighbors as friends and equals finding common cause, not as moralizers.

[-] 2 points by capitalistkryptonite (2) 3 years ago

What is wrong with you people? Get a job and quit blaming others for your lack of effort and work ethic. Your parents apparently never told you that life wasn’t fair. Get over it and quit living in tents and pay back your collage loans. You older hippies leading this charge should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re not the answer, you’re the problem! How dare you breach the peace and provoke anarchy with simple minded brain washed spoiled children. How many of you have given back anything to this country? I’ve served my entire adult life in the military and although I support your right to free speech, I have to ask again, what contribution have any of you made? If you received this comment, were did it come from and how are you reading it? Who is paying for that technology? I’ll answer that…..you aren’t. You wannabe hippies sicken me. Cradel to grave support is not what this country was founded on. If you don’t like the system we live in than vote. YOUR ALL IDIOTS.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 3 years ago

So I'm an idiot for wanting to bring back the USA manufacturing jobs that were sent to China, end the huge trade deficit and keep the US economy and job market strong? You say "get a job" but unless you've been living under a rock you know that is often difficult to do these days since the unemployment rate (people without jobs despite looking for work) is very high. Many of us have or had jobs and were laid off, wages reduced or too low, no raises, etc. I was laid off because the company I worked for decided to move our department to a lower wage/income area in the boonies so they could pay lower wages.

Since you served in the military, let me ask you this question. Do you support spending over $1 trillion on wars over the past 10+ years? I fully support our military for defense purposes but not spending billions and trillions of taxpayer dollars on foreign and fake "wars" that could have been avoided, putting the US economy in great danger. I say fake because Bush lied - Saddam had no WMDs. I do not support wars based on lies. It's all about oil and other profits. Now you tell me why are gas prices so high? See what power China has now

http://newsbusters.org/forums/latest-news/china-threatens-u-s-treasury-war-bonds-14702

You say vote, and voters should be well informed by reading our posts, the TRUTH, not brainwashed by corporate lobbying, paid TV advertising etc. And until corporate lobbying/influence is outlawed I doubt any politician can fix things for the 99%. 99% of Americans don't have billions of dollars to lobby Washington and even if we did we'd put it to better use.

[-] 2 points by gjpc (10) from San Francisco, CA 3 years ago

The outrageously high "compensation" that top executives steal from corporate funds disillusion anyone that is actually working to increase the corporate funds. Furthermore, the greed of these top few is such an overriding principal of their behavior, they see contribution to the common welfare a burden instead of a responsibility. The 99% tax income tax bracket should be reinstated for all income over the average workers' lifetime income..

[-] 2 points by Geranimo (10) 3 years ago

Why We Shouldn't Celebrate Thanksgiving Thanksgiving Day should be turned into a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of America's indigenous peoples. http://www.alternet.org/story/68170/

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

I agree 100%. Thanksgiving is nothing but a lie.... a white lie.

[-] 2 points by PatriotMissiles (37) 3 years ago

Fantastic idea. New ripples to the Occupy theme will only make the movement stronger and harder to contain by the elite. I believe one of the important themes of the movement is the way workers are treated by their employers and how this relationship deteriorates as the economy continues to sink. Taking the movement to one of the country's largest employers is a great way to deliver the message on a big stage and create a nationwide conversation on this topic.

To all the Tea Partiers Out There: The government has to subsidize the Wal Mart workforce with finanical and medical aid because Wal Mart doesn't pay them anything! Just thought you might be interested in that.

Closing Point:

Michael Corleone once said to, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Well this is where Mr. Bloomberg made a huge mistake in dispersing the park encamptment. Now he has protestors all over the city ready to occupy different parks, buildings, and companies at any given moment. Having the protestors in one predictable spot would have allowed him to monitor their activities and block their moves before they happened. These new tactics will prove much harder to stop and will make the movement much more fluid and effective.

[-] 2 points by Dramatica (2) from Elmira, NY 3 years ago

This is EXACTLY why I'm quitting this shithole. Walmart doesnt care about employees, only profits. Its a shame that americans cant see Walmart for what it REALLY is.. the greedy money machine that has NO sympathy for its employees rights, health or needs. (Customers included) Occupy ALL Walmart's around the country and all over the world!!!! SOLIDARITY!!!!!

[-] 1 points by myers73 (6) from Orlando, FL 3 years ago

It is America. You do have a choice of where you want to work and shop.

[-] 2 points by tsdevi (307) 3 years ago

I imagine how much better communities would be were it not for the development of Wal-Mart, a company that began by pretending to be an "all American made" company. We do not need these stores, as they do not alleviate budget pressures, they rely on poverty to stay in business. The ills of Wal-Mart have been so widely documented and it is a surprise that they have not been put out of business. The reason is that they are one of the three major employers in the U.S....along with the USPS and the US Military. Too many people are feeding off of the system.

[-] 2 points by Daniel1984 (44) from Wiley Ford, WV 3 years ago

When I was working at Wal Mart I tried to gather interest in a union. No one wanted any part of it because they are too afraid of being fired. Apparently, Wal Mart has a private team of union breakers that are deployed to any store where mention of a union reaches management's ears. Occupy the crap out of them. They are the epitome of evil empire.

[-] 2 points by willful (7) 3 years ago

I'm sure most of you are aware of the Buy Nothing Day(s) coming up. http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/5802.html Just wanted to put something else out there: I've committed to a Buy Nothing Year. Obviously I will buy food, etc. but I won't buy anything non essential, even 2nd hand clothing for a full 365 days. My wife always calls me a Wantmonster, and I admit, I grew up with money and didn't like to deny myself too much. I made this decision to not purchase anything for a year on the Summer Solstice (June 21) so I'm already at the 5 month mark.

If we all didn't buy all the useless junk (that usually doesn't last anyway) from Walmart and other big box stores, the small mom and pop businesses might actually have a chance.

I fully support and respect the efforts of the whole OWS//99% movement. Very inspiring!

[-] 2 points by sinead (474) 3 years ago

I think this is one of the best things I have heard coming from OWS. But please remember to be kind to any shoppers that do decide to shop there. So many people with very little income depend on Walmart to make some kind of Christmas for there families, and we can't blame them.

GOOD LUCK!! :)

[-] 2 points by NiceLovelyDay (55) 3 years ago

The Walton family did nothing to deserve this wealth.

[-] 2 points by Cjoy77 (4) 3 years ago

We not only need separation of church and state. But we need separation of corporation and state.

[-] 2 points by xOccupyx (66) 3 years ago

I agree with all the events OWS is doing. But...where is the event to show support to Tahrir? Tahrir supported Occupy, they sent us open letters of support, and they even marched on the US Embassy in Cairo for us.

Where is the OWS event to return the favor, to march on the Egyptian embassy and the Point Lookout Capital Partners - the mega-financiers manufacturing and selling crowd control weapons to Egypt - and give the Egyptian revolutionaries some hope and support?

I see lots of armchair Occupiers watching live feeds and hours of people in tents discussing Occupy; yet I've yet to see an event for Egypt come together.

Egyptian Embassy in NYC (Consulate General): 1110 Second Ave. – Suite 201 New York, NY 10022 TEL: 212.759.7120 FAX: 212.308.7643

Point Lookout Capital Partners 1370 Avenue-The Americas # 29 New York, NY 10019-4619 (917) 322-6437

Michael A. Monteleone Tel: 917-322-6437 mm@pointlookoutcapital.com

James J. Cesare Tel: 917-322-6438 jc@pointlookoutcapital.com

[-] 2 points by RobertUeberfeldt (44) from Kaikohe, Northland 3 years ago

I have, therefore, a recommendation for the Occupy movement, rightfully incensed as it is with the excesses of Wall Street over the last three decades. It is to call for an end to the state of emergency, which has been in force since 2001, under which since 2008 a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team has been stationed permanently in the United States, in part to be ready “to help with civil unrest and crowd control. Prof. Peter Dale Scott

[-] 2 points by Anacleto (6) 3 years ago

VETO para todos estos personajes que han participado de alguna manera en las decisiones que han llevado a Colombia (y todos los demás países) a la situación en la que se encuentra. No supieron aprovechar la oportunidad de hacer algo bueno por el país, sólo por sus bolsillos. No más de estos funestos personajes, necesitamos sangre nueva para que de verdad este país tenga lo que se merece. VETO

[-] 2 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 3 years ago

If you work at Walley World then you must feel like your working on a Chain Gang. I feel sorry for you and I hope that some other jobs open up for you. Good Luck to you all.

[-] 2 points by OccupyforEarth (12) from Acushnet, MA 3 years ago

We really need to overhaul the minimum wage rules. It ws estimated an average family would need to make $22 per hour just to have the basics, and that's assuming their employer paid for health insurance! Walmart bragged about using solar and wind power, even though only 2 percent of their energy comes that way. I so agree with this boycott.

[-] 1 points by myers73 (6) from Orlando, FL 3 years ago

$22/hr per person? or combined?

[-] 1 points by OccupyforEarth (12) from Acushnet, MA 3 years ago

Per person!

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 3 years ago

FINALLY!

[-] 2 points by KnaveDave (357) 3 years ago

How about UNoccupying Walmart -- that is encouraging everyone everywhere NOT to go there on Thursday or Black Friday. You may gain special support on Thursday because many people find it distasteful that Walmart and others are now pushing their Black Friday sales up to Thursday, which requires their workers to be there on Thanksgiving just to make another buck. For a LONG time, people have been bothered that Christmas gets closer to Thanksgiving every year. This year Home Depot and others were putting out Christmas decorations before it was even Halloween! Now Walmart is starting it's Black Friday sale on Thursday -- Thanksgiving.

This runs is the exact opposite manner of the wishes of people in the OWS movement. It is even more rampant commercialism that is happening on a level that MOST Americans can readily join you in boycotting,

SO, UNOCCUPY WALMART ON THANKSGIVING. BOYCOTT IT. SPREAD THE NEWS FOR EVERYONE TO AVOID THEIR THANKSGIVING-DAY SALES COMPLETELY AND TO SHOP ELSEWHERE ON BLACK FRIDAY AS PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR GREED IN TRYING TO USURP A NATIONAL HOLIDAY FOR THEIR CORPORATE GREED.

--KnaveDave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 2 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 3 years ago

This is an excellent idea.

[-] 2 points by Justice4all (133) 3 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hftb_DVuelo

Wal Mart the high price of low costs movie

[-] 2 points by BNB (89) 3 years ago

Wal-Mart would not exist if so many short-sighted people didn't patron the place. This does not excuse Wal-Marts tactics. I am just saying.

This thing mentioned above is cool, but unless everyone engages in some hardship and boycotts these killing machines and starts patroning more expensive and more ethical small businesses they will continue to flourish.

How many of the people heading over there to this thing have shopped at Wal-Mart in the last year? I hope none, but I don't know.

[-] 0 points by creswell (49) 3 years ago

BNB, I will not boycott WM because of their prices. We can't afford the "more expensive" small store's prices. How is this for an idea, get your socialist friends together, ask for a loan from family members and a bank/credit union, start your own business and compete against WM.

[-] 1 points by BNB (89) 3 years ago

or how about this? I keep boycotting Wal Mart because shopping there is not an option for me even though I rank close to the poverty level, and you keep doing whatever you like. You say you can't afford to basically not shop at Wal-Mart, but there are tons of not so visible costs that shopping at Wal-mart has. pS I am not sure that I even know what a socialist is. I am a guy that spends most of his time alone when not working 40 hrs a week doing manual labor.

[-] 2 points by jjordanw (14) 3 years ago

yes what if they took all that lobbying money and said, HEY, lets take care of our employees, lets take care of the people that are helping us make all this money, what can we do for them to make their lives better, instead, of how can we squeeeeeza a few more pennies out of them to put in our profits....

[-] 1 points by BNB (89) 3 years ago

Is that kind-of what Whole Foods Market does?

[-] 1 points by brown530 (1) from 泽西市, NJ 2 years ago

net mano draugai sakė peržiūrėsime jūsų dienoraštį ir iš tikrųjų jūsų dienoraštis yra mano kompiuteryje jau pažymėtas. Tikiuosi, kad pamatyti daugiau. puikus http://www.dvdboxroom.co

[-] 1 points by WakeUp2011 (12) 3 years ago

Spreading the truth is crucial to creating the world we want to see. We need to wake up as many people as we can to get real change. Those that don't want to wake up can stay asleep. Keep spreading the word. Here's a start..

http://youtu.be/iRyjzCa7_AE

Research. Educate. Grow Awareness.

[-] 1 points by saveourfreedom (10) from Fairbanks, AK 3 years ago

don't you understand this is wrong. big business is not the problem. it is their right to grow, to pay their workers what they want. anything other that is don't right wrong. your taking away their freedom. if you don't want to work for low wages fine but making them pay higher wages will only lose more jobs and make it harder to find stuff in the store. every business has the right to run their company as they see fit.