user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Being able to look at myself in the mirror is more important.
I'd like to see them clean up their own house first.
Good, thought-provoking question however.
by mojo on Sat Sep 23, 06 10:44am
[+]
Walmarts discounted drug program is an obvious public relations move. Here is a company that is draining the life blood from Main Street America; "outsourcing" jobs; making Americans compete with the slave wages of third world countries; busting unions; bullying their way into towns that don't want them, and then saying "Oh, Gee," let us help you buy cheaper drugs. Gimmeabreak! This reminds me of the stories of the old sweat shops of early America: These guys would fill their fire-trap shops with children, work them 15 hours a day, and then, being the wonderful souls they were, would give the kids a sack of candy on Christmas. So, Walmart is going to sell generic drugs at cost? Big f'n deal.
Voted : Love of the poor is more important
I don't hate Wal-Mart. I just hate being trampled by a thoughtless herd every time I go there. But no one has to shop at Wal-Mart, or work there.
At least Target is jumping on the band wagon...
Why should only liberals be outraged by Wal-Mart and its cynical attempt to garner good will and a PR coup.
Margaret is corect in her points, sure noone has to work there, but given th eonly jobs open to the poor are these positions, its hard to make a choice when you are the only game in town.
Why are conservative so eager to drive wages down, does not a happy contented workforce produce more?
This is the same Wal-Mart who encourage their employees to go on medicare and insure their employess with the 'peasant deal'.
The peasant deal is where Wal-Mart takes out a life insurance policy on an employee in which WAL-MART collect the money when the employee dies.
I seriously doubt Mister Walton's Spawn had any sincere, altruistic notions of helping anyone but their own images when they set this deal up. If they wanted to do something, then why not pay their own employees a living wage? Or offer *them* this deal *before* the general public? If you noticed, this came out at almost the same time that Forbesput out its list of the richest Americans. Surprised to find that the Spawn were firmly near the top of the list, I was not. A small experiment. Go to your nearest Emporium of Evil, and ask the workers there how much they make a year. And then wonder how they can feed families on it, and get them decent health care. And be sure to spit on the floor for me. I would, but I've been banned from the place.
I avoid corporations as much as possible with my daily needs... I generally always support small independent businesses... although many don't have the resources. If this is a legitimate program that benefits those in need, then I'm all for it. It doesn't mean that I will begin trading with any of the MART'S, nor will those like minded.
by MO_ on Sat Sep 23, 06 12:44pm
[+]
ATTACK OF THE LIBERALS!!!
Voted : Love of the poor is more important
margaret123 - I don't think the cheap drugs is outsourcing the majority of jobs of poorer Americans. Most Americans do not work in the drug industry- therefore most would benefit from the cheaper drugs.
And furthermore, outsourcing in general provides jobs for people who are even poorer in other parts of the world. It allows their countries to develop and to create a more stablilised global economy. Protectionism against outsourcing on the other hand keeps workers in poorer nations even worse off. Now, of course, it is true that the fact that they are underpayed is not good. But a trickle down affect is usually apparent- as it has been in the case of the Asian Tigers- South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singpoare- in which capital trickled down, and wages did gradually increase, and their coutnries as a whole became welathier on both the national and individual level. so outsourcing in the long term may have some potential for improving things for the very very poor in the world. But I do wish that the transition phase trickle down affect didnt have to take so long, and that corporations payed workers in poorer nations better out of their own individual hearts. It is a shame that they don't.
And then back to America, the majority of poorer Americans will not lose jobs, due to the drug industry outsourcing- the majority would therefore benefit from the cheaper drugs. As to the ones that do lose jobs in America, I do feel sorry for them. The way it works is less than perfect, and has many unfair characteristics, I openly and regrettably admit that. But I would like to think, or at least hope, that there are more people getting advantages in the long run, then there are those losing out.
Voted : Love of the poor is more important
Great ballot. I say, "Help the poor." but the main emphasis of this whole program is three things. !. Affordable health care 2. Affordable health care. 3. Affordable health care. It doesn't matter if Wal Mart or Home Depot provides it, it's a good thing. I called my wife immediately after hearing the report. I just hope it spreads to all states.
America was founded on the principle of a shared prosperity.
This is not the case with Republicans who aim to consolidate all the wealth and power in the hands of a select few. They are no better the a third world despot.
Voted : Comment below
I am not a Liberal (surprise!), but Liberals do seem to hate the rich.
Though I rarely shop at Wal-Mart - they do have many good things - I heartily applaud their plan to sell some generic drugs cheaper than anyone else does.
Unions? Their time has come and gone. G'bye.
Unions are the only strength the working man has, the idea its a thing of the past is laughable.
If you are happy to take ever more cuts in your wages while the hours increase, please carry on with your simplistic view.
"I just hate being trampled by a thoughtless herd every time I go there."
Ain't that the truth.
Mr. Socrates: Outsourcing of jobs hurts American Labor by making them compete against the workers and wages of third world countries. As long as American companies have the threat of outsourcing to hold over their workers, they can coerce them to work cheaper. As to your point that Walmart is performing a service to the poor with these cheaper generic drugs, ask yourself why they are doing it? Do they love the poor? Do they give a damn about crushing Main Street America? No and No. Walmart is a monolithic, predacious, brutal attack beast who feeds on American Workers and American Consumers. They love only profits, and this public relations nonsense is intended to reduce criticism of them and to boost their bottom line. After all, how many drug customers are going to come and pick up their drugs and leave with picking up something else? Walmart a good guy? Gimmeabreak!
margaret123-
Of course outsourcing has its disadvantages. What needs to be considered are the alternatives. I do not think protectionism is a better alternative. It stagnates the global hierarchy, and makes it more dificult for developing nations to modernise- it only stagnates any chance at a rise of living standards in the poorer nations. Protectionism, from the global scale of analyis, seems to maintain the status quo- which is not good. While outsourcing is bad, the other options that I have seen seem worse. Economic liberalisation seems the least horrible of a list of horrible choices... or so it seems.
Next, I also doubt that Walmart is doing this for selfless reasons. It is indeed likely it is out of desire to maximise profits. However, even though they are probably not doing it for intended virtuous reasons, good things may arise from it nonetheless. That goes the same for corporations in the developing world. I doubt that their goal is to rise living standards in these nations. But, living standards have risen anyhow in many Asian countries- especially the Asian Tigers, as a result of their activity. So even though the intention for businesses was not for that purpose, in some cases good things can happen as a result.
As for lowering pay in the Global North? I feel somewhat more confident in the well being of workers in the developed world, than those in the developing world. Outsourcing provides a chance for development in the Global South. Where this leaves the poor in the Global North? Well, I feel more secure relatively about them, because unionism has reached quite a much more mature level here, and there are minimum wage laws too. Yet, I must once again say that the way the whole thing is done is less than perfect. There are many problems with it.
But the problems as I see it, are not capitalism, marketisation, or the existance of private corporations. The problems are more fundamental than that. It is the individuals- certain individuals that run corporations are the ones choosing to behave with a lack of sense, whom are ignoring their sense of compassion. The system of free markets does not demand people to be cut throat. It allows people to freely choose how to run their businesses, but there is not instruction in free market economic theory to be cut throat. It is the individuals themselves that choose to behave that way. They need to be taken into account for their lack of virtue. They could easily choose to 1) offer jobs in the developing world, and choose to offer them decent pay, and then 2) choose to take into account environmental factors, and also 3) choose to maintain good conditions for workers of the Global North; and still have the plenty of profits they would have left over. But they CHOOSE not to. Capitalism does not force them not to, they as individuals choose this cold-heartedness. Besides which I think they are foolish not to. On a compassionate level of analysis, it would just be the right thing to do. On the selfish level of analysis as well- providing people with good pay around the world, means that more people can buy your products and or services. If the working class can no longer be consumerist- then who will buy from these corporations? They themselves will ultimately lose out. If these super rich corporations could see that providing the masses of the world with sufficient enough pay to be active consumerists, would mean more potential customers, and an expansion of their businesses, then things could work out better. If one's workers themselves have the means to buy one's products, logically in the wider scheme of things, that business would flourish more. The individuals of corporations are making the wrong choices regarding the free market. It would be more beneficial for their own businesses as well as society at large, if they offered workers at home and abroad better- that way, living standards would increase, there would be more consumers, meaning more customers, and thus more business.
The issue therefore, is not blaming a system that offers a freedom of movement of goods and services, the real issue is the behaviour of individuals. They are flawed and should know better.
Steelhamster- I agree. Unionism has a lot of potential to be a force of good in the world. I see nothing wrong with employees gathering together as a group to negotiate conditions of work with the employer. This does not contradict free market economics. Unionism has a place in capitalism. Especially if membership is voluntary. So, I do generally agree with you that unionism can be a good thing. It is not a thing of the past.
Wouldn't that depend on degree and ramifications, herz? For excample, some of the ultra- wealthy will throw a few sops to the poor ... and contineu to systemize further exploitation of others, leveraging their power.
'Hatred of the rich' is a simplistic and misleading characterization, BTW, which merely shows your failure to grasp our concern.
|
|
