Sam's Club closings, now we know the rest of the story.

245

Replies

  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    There is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. Many people I talk to, primarily left-leaning, think they are the same.

    Setting aside the silly left-leaning generalization, I agree there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. However, I'm curious as to what you think the difference between capitalism and corporatism is. Particularly as it relates to the topic at hand. Or, said a bit differently/directly, is a company whose operations and employees are subsidized by the government (i.e. favorable tax laws/rates and employees paid below the poverty line) being favored by corporatist or capitalist policies?
    Capitalism has done far far more for humanity than any other type of economic system. It's not perfect, but there is not a better system anywhere else.

    I could not agree more. Well said.

    What's more is I think we can do even better, and should strive to do so. Because when it comes to our 200+ year experiment in capitalism, I think there's a lot of room for improvement yet in this graph:

    The-Exponential-Curve-of-Excellence-1.jpg

    Take care...Mike
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    Your exactly right!
    I ask all the time when I hear people complain about it,, name a better system.

    I think what you should really be asking "what can we do to make it even better".

    You know, try to address the "it's not perfect" part you agreed with.

    So, how do you think it can be improved?

    Just curious...Mike
  • Flats2blueFlats2blue Posts: 214 Deckhand
    When Ford raised the wages of all his employees, he suddenly started selling more cars. Sometimes things can be win/win and not always a zero sum game.

    Some of the soon to be empty Sam's stores will be changed to local distribution centers for the online business. You see, the changes Amazon has made to the retail landscape have far reaching effects. Change or die.

    the 'subsidies' you speak of for companies like Walmart and Amazon are done as tax breaks (in most cases) not money out of the already confiscated taxes. You see, when cost of doing business is less, businesses will be forced (capitalism) to go there. Locals get jobs, locals have money to spend, more businesses provide services to those workers.........
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 26,135 AG
    Flats2blue wrote: »
    When Ford raised the wages of all his employees, he suddenly started selling more cars. Sometimes things can be win/win and not always a zero sum game.


    Because increased wages meant more desirable jobs attracting better employees.
    Flats2blue wrote: »
    Some of the soon to be empty Sam's stores will be changed to local distribution centers for the online business. You see, the changes Amazon has made to the retail landscape have far reaching effects. Change or die.

    No question
    Flats2blue wrote: »
    the 'subsidies' you speak of for companies like Walmart and Amazon are done as tax breaks (in most cases) not money out of the already confiscated taxes. You see, when cost of doing business is less, businesses will be forced (capitalism) to go there. Locals get jobs, locals have money to spend, more businesses provide services to those workers.........

    Tax breaks or government spending, government ends with less money.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,238 Officer
    "Sam's Club closings, now we know the rest of the story."

    You really shouldn't besmirch the great Paul Harvey.:nono

    Unless you work there and "experience the story" for yourself........I doubt you will ever know the true details.

    Seems the story keeps changing. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/walmart-touts-dollar1000-employee-bonuses-but-theres-a-catch/ar-AAuBsU3?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

    But who would of thunk it.:rotflmao After 20 years of faithful service that bonus equals a whole 2 cents per hour of "appreciation compensation". MAGA :rolleyes

    I say......I say son.......new & improved my tail feathers.

  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 13,897 AG
    It is their stores. If they choose to close them all tomorrow it is their business to do as they see fit.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,408 AG
    Nick Nikon wrote: »
    It will be intersting to see what happens to those soon-to-be-empty Sam's buildings.

    The leases usually dictate that they cannot be used by any other competing business.

    The country is littered with empty Wal-Mart buildings, and that's the main reason.

    After all the local, storefront, businesses have been driven out, Walmarts that don't "perform" bug-out.

    Walmart built a new Sam's club here and Rural King moved into the old one within six months.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Walker DogWalker Dog Posts: 1,543 Captain
    Giving a company a tax break to incentivize private investment is done by local governments/states because it increases the tax base. It may not happen in a day or a month or even a year but it does happen. It is the government investing for future growth in tax revenue.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I think what you should really be asking "what can we do to make it even better".

    You know, try to address the "it's not perfect" part you agreed with.

    So, how do you think it can be improved?

    Just curious...Mike

    One way is to let it work.
    And politicians(most who have never had to meet a payroll) need to understand the fact that there are winners and losers. And in a lot of cases those who lose usually pick themselves up and learn from their mistakes.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 1,307 Officer
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Setting aside the silly left-leaning generalization, I agree there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. However, I'm curious as to what you think the difference between capitalism and corporatism is. Particularly as it relates to the topic at hand. Or, said a bit differently/directly, is a company whose operations and employees are subsidized by the government (i.e. favorable tax laws/rates and employees paid below the poverty line) being favored by corporatist or capitalist policies?


    Take care...Mike



    Mike,
    With regards to Walmart pay scale and the fact that many employees are receiving "benefits" from local/state/fed... ?
    That's a **** tough one. Obviously, we can assume that Walmart chooses to pay low wages due to the govt indirectly-subsidizing their payroll. If this is correct, then there is little we can do about it?
    Somehow fine Walmart to recoup taxpayers losses?
    "Force" Walmart to pay more?
    Unionize their workers?

    I am against govt intervention in any voluntary employment, etc..

    Overall I'd like to see a reversal in the federal govt role in our lives. I'd rather each local/state govt deal with their own issues. So...if the fed govt backed off their "subsidies" for walmarts workers, the local/state would be forced to make changes.

    I'm not sure how well this would play out. But, overall I think each local/state govt can better control their own issues than someone in DC.

    As for tax incentives: I'm ok with local/state govts using them to lure companies into their area. It's competition, and the local tax payers can voice their opinion about it.
    This happened when I lived in Melbourne; numerous large defense contractors/engineers were expanding into the area... Lots of high-paying jobs moved into the area.
    *obviously corruption can and does happen when any incentive occurs, and all of these deals should be closely inspected.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Setting aside the silly left-leaning generalization, I agree there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. However, I'm curious as to what you think the difference between capitalism and corporatism is. Particularly as it relates to the topic at hand. Or, said a bit differently/directly, is a company whose operations and employees are subsidized by the government (i.e. favorable tax laws/rates and employees paid below the poverty line) being favored by corporatist or capitalist policies?

    Preachy.

    I could not agree more. Well said.

    What's more is I think we can do even better, and should strive to do so. Because when it comes to our 200+ year experiment in capitalism, I think there's a lot of room for improvement yet in this graph:

    The-Exponential-Curve-of-Excellence-1.jpg

    Take care...Mike

    Super preachy.
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Where they able to get this to all the news wires before the days deadline ? Too bad it wasn't part of the PUMPED PR about increases to trigger news. Everyone who makes millions a day will back track with no problem if in a Public Relations disaster. It is only money they need to fix it, and they have plenty of that sitting in huge accounts.

    Bottom line is that the country business atmosphere has become so much ME ME ME... Mo Money mo money....
    I use to love going to company picnics back in the 60s and 70s. The owner, or BOSS would shake hands, play horseshoes, and be part of the Gang. Now that guy is isolated so that he doesn't have to look employees in the eye while he takes it ALL.

    Everybody that runs a business wants to make profit, that is the name of the game. When you start contributing the statement WELFARE, DRUGS, Taking advantage of benefits, etc. to ALL Employees, then things fall apart. The country could have kept doing what it was doing, running legit businesses while paying good wages, working with UNIONS, and keeping it fair for all. In place of that the GREED took over. Everytime there is a problem with 1 worker out of 10, the ownerships punishes ALL employees by taking away. That was just a good excuse, and put out on TV for all to see as to WHY they had to cut back on wages, cut benefits, and so on. Thus we have a huge gap...

    Anyone, can use just about any excuse to say why it is like this... Poor workmanship, not caring, DRUGS again, but really, that is just an excuse to NOT CARE. Spin it how you will, not going to change anytime soon.
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I think what you should really be asking "what can we do to make it even better".

    You know, try to address the "it's not perfect" part you agreed with.

    So, how do you think it can be improved?

    Just curious...Mike

    Morality preaching according to Tarp.
  • Reptile DysfunctionReptile Dysfunction LP - Edge of the Known UniversePosts: 3,009 Captain
    dave44 wrote: »

    Morality preaching according to Tarp.

    And don't forget, there's always a good dose of virtue signaling with every Tarponator post.
    "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free" - P. J. O'Rourke
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 6,907 Admiral
    Yep, taxpayers subsidize low wage paying corporations.
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 6,907 Admiral
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    dave44 wrote: »
    Super preachy.

    Morality preaching according to Tarp.
    And don't forget, there's always a good dose of virtue signaling with every Tarponator post.

    Improvement isn't morality preaching or virtue signaling.

    It's a lesson you should have learned in childhood.

    Instead you are fearful and respond with ad hominem.

    I hope your children are better equipped.

    Scared and angry is no way to go through life.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Setting aside the silly left-leaning generalization, I agree there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. However, I'm curious as to what you think the difference between capitalism and corporatism is. Particularly as it relates to the topic at hand. Or, said a bit differently/directly, is a company whose operations and employees are subsidized by the government (i.e. favorable tax laws/rates and employees paid below the poverty line) being favored by corporatist or capitalist policies?



    I could not agree more. Well said.

    What's more is I think we can do even better, and should strive to do so. Because when it comes to our 200+ year experiment in capitalism, I think there's a lot of room for improvement yet in this graph:

    The-Exponential-Curve-of-Excellence-1.jpg

    Take care...Mike
    Heatwave wrote: »
    Where they able to get this to all the news wires before the days deadline ? Too bad it wasn't part of the PUMPED PR about increases to trigger news. Everyone who makes millions a day will back track with no problem if in a Public Relations disaster. It is only money they need to fix it, and they have plenty of that sitting in huge accounts.

    Bottom line is that the country business atmosphere has become so much ME ME ME... Mo Money mo money....
    I use to love going to company picnics back in the 60s and 70s. The owner, or BOSS would shake hands, play horseshoes, and be part of the Gang. Now that guy is isolated so that he doesn't have to look employees in the eye while he takes it ALL.

    Everybody that runs a business wants to make profit, that is the name of the game. When you start contributing the statement WELFARE, DRUGS, Taking advantage of benefits, etc. to ALL Employees, then things fall apart. The country could have kept doing what it was doing, running legit businesses while paying good wages, working with UNIONS, and keeping it fair for all. In place of that the GREED took over. Everytime there is a problem with 1 worker out of 10, the ownerships punishes ALL employees by taking away. That was just a good excuse, and put out on TV for all to see as to WHY they had to cut back on wages, cut benefits, and so on. Thus we have a huge gap...

    Anyone, can use just about any excuse to say why it is like this... Poor workmanship, not caring, DRUGS again, but really, that is just an excuse to NOT CARE. Spin it how you will, not going to change anytime soon.
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Improvement isn't morality preaching or virtue signaling.

    It's a lesson you should have learned in childhood.

    Instead you are fearful and respond with ad hominem.

    I hope your children are better equipped.

    Scared and angry is no way to go through life.


    Amen, brother! Preach it!
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    Mike,
    With regards to Walmart pay scale and the fact that many employees are receiving "benefits" from local/state/fed... ?
    That's a **** tough one. Obviously, we can assume that Walmart chooses to pay low wages due to the govt indirectly-subsidizing their payroll. If this is correct, then there is little we can do about it?
    Somehow fine Walmart to recoup taxpayers losses?
    "Force" Walmart to pay more?
    Unionize their workers?

    First off, thanks for the thoughtful response, and my apologies for getting distracted and not responding sooner.

    It was a tough question -- that's why I asked it. On the one hand, I'm like you and would rather the market decide without government involvement. On the other hand, the government is already involved and necessarily so, I would argue. But let's come back to that point in a moment...
    I am against govt intervention in any voluntary employment, etc..

    Overall I'd like to see a reversal in the federal govt role in our lives. I'd rather each local/state govt deal with their own issues. So...if the fed govt backed off their "subsidies" for walmarts workers, the local/state would be forced to make changes.

    I'm not sure how well this would play out. But, overall I think each local/state govt can better control their own issues than someone in DC.

    As for tax incentives: I'm ok with local/state govts using them to lure companies into their area. It's competition, and the local tax payers can voice their opinion about it.
    This happened when I lived in Melbourne; numerous large defense contractors/engineers were expanding into the area... Lots of high-paying jobs moved into the area.
    *obviously corruption can and does happen when any incentive occurs, and all of these deals should be closely inspected.

    I used to think that way as well. Just get the federal government out of the way. Get the states to take the issue up. Keep Washington out of it. On many issues -- for instance freshwater/inshore fishing regulations -- I think the answer should be just that.

    The reality is corruption is much easier at the local level, the mantra of state's rights is only marched out when it suits the issue at hand, and many of these issues have been mishandled by the states as well (K-12 education, for instance). Other issues (health care or social security, for instance, or immigration law) are far too large/complex and gain the benefit of pooling resources.

    Now you might just double down with that line of thinking -- let the market decide, and get the government out of the way -- and many do. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. Until you take a look around the world, where governments are doing a much better job than our own at solving these issues. They aren't solving them by passing the buck to the state/province level -- a concept introduced at a time when people rode horses and a letter took weeks to be delivered -- that's for sure.

    I also find it curious that on the one hand you point to Melbourne's economic success, yet fail to connect the dots even though you mention the federal government as funding those same high-paying jobs. I get your drift in the underlying point, but surely you recognize the irony in your comments.

    Listen, the federal government is NOT the answer to many of the problems we face. However, smaller government with fewer regulations isn't the answer either. We have to find a balance, and the first step should be campaign finance reform, in my opinion. Until and unless that problem is solved, the rest is simply well-scripted noise (i.e. the politics of divisiveness).

    Your thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

    Take care....Mike
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 8,893 Admiral
    I want someone to show how Walmart gets federal subsidies?
    It’s sad that so many supposedly “educated “ do not know the definition of the word “subsidy “, “subsidize”.
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • GardawgGardawg Posts: 6,907 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    I want someone to show how Walmart gets federal subsidies?
    It’s sad that so many supposedly “educated “ do not know the definition of the word “subsidy “, “subsidize”.

    without welfare many low wage employees would not be able to live on what they are paid.
    tax dollars may not go directly to Walmart but they supplement an inadequate wage without which they could not retain employees . unless they paid them more.



    call it what ever name you want to .
    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

    Heres Tom with the Weather.”
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    Gardawg wrote: »
    without welfare many low wage employees would not be able to live on what they are paid.
    tax dollars may not go directly to Walmart but they supplement an inadequate wage without which they could not retain employees . unless they paid them more.



    call it what ever name you want to .

    Even mr j understands that employees will leave if they feel underpaid. That makes this a very tortured bit of preaching with no basis in fact.
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,395 AG
    Gardawg wrote: »
    without welfare many low wage employees would not be able to live on what they are paid.
    tax dollars may not go directly to Walmart but they supplement an inadequate wage without which they could not retain employees . unless they paid them more.



    call it what ever name you want to .

    Idiocy comes immediately to mind. And don't forget, without Walmarts, many welfare recipients couldn't survive. Low prices for poor people. The service they provide the masses of the poor far outweighs wage discrepancies. There aren't THAT many Walmart employees. Add to that, Walmart actually hires the unhireables. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Walmart, I'm not a softy.

    Just doing my part in crushing the dissemination of fake news. You're welcome.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mplspugmplspug Lake Mary, FloridaPosts: 5,727 Admiral
    Walmart employees have no incentive to find a better job thanks to the government subsidizing them.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    mplspug wrote: »
    Walmart employees have no incentive to find a better job thanks to the government subsidizing them.

    You and I know that doesn’t make sense, but it appears that there are those that can’t grasp anything but the tiniest thread.
  • Ol MuckyOl Mucky Posts: 5,471 Admiral
    Heatwave wrote: »
    . working with UNIONS.the GREED took over

    These two go together well
    I have a much bigger and more powerful button
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 13,897 AG
    Gardawg wrote: »
    without welfare many low wage employees would not be able to live on what they are paid.
    tax dollars may not go directly to Walmart but they supplement an inadequate wage without which they could not retain employees . unless they paid them more.



    call it what ever name you want to .

    Such a grasping and stupid argument.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,318 Admiral
    Gardawg wrote: »
    without welfare many low wage employees would not be able to live on what they are paid.
    tax dollars may not go directly to Walmart but they supplement an inadequate wage without which they could not retain employees . unless they paid them more.



    call it what ever name you want to .


    Probably an Amazon customer and stock holder.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,409 Admiral
    mustang190 wrote: »
    I want someone to show how Walmart gets federal subsidies?

    Simple.

    Do some research: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Walmart/faq/on-average-how-many-hours-per-week-are-employees-scheduled-in-non-24-hr-stores?quid=1bpd1nch5b8209r8

    Read an article: http://www.demos.org/publication/despite-raise-walmart-wages-schedules-still-aren%E2%80%99t-livable

    Interpret a table (a bit dated but the points remain):

    fig%201.PNG

    Or, even do some simple math:

    $11.00/hour * 2000 hours / year = $22,000 per year

    At that level -- and that's presuming you can get 40 hours per week -- you're entitled to all sorts of federal programs, including CHIP and federally subsidized healthcare.

    So, in summary, because the government is subsidizing their hourly workforce by providing these benefits they are subsidizing Walmart.

    You know, the same Walmart that's #1 private employer in 22 of our 50 states aided, quite directly, by the federal subsidies its employees get.

    Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but facts are facts.

    I hope that clears things up for you -- I know the transitive nature of benefits can be befuddling to some -- but I'm here to help....Mike
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 5,479 Admiral
    Finfinder wrote: »
    Probably an Amazon customer and stock holder.

    Sounds like someone was not smart enough to buy AMZN
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,318 Admiral
    Sounds like someone was not smart enough to buy AMZN

    Yet it sounds like someone is not smart enough to know that by my inference, I understand the profitability of that stock just fine.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,624 Admiral
    Okay. What is the national minimum wage? What does the law say?

    I bet all the leftists wanted to make it at least 11$ an hour when we were stuck in a holding pattern with overwhelming regulations for about 8 years.

    If Walmart said 20$ you guys would say the same thing. Really, sooner or later people should be taught to aspire for better.
    Instead they are being taught victimization. Nice.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file