Walmart workers staying home black friday

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Troy? You. Are. Missing. The. Point.

I'll use small words: If the store needs the sales, by all means open. Stay home. Eat. Know that you are (fuck it, I can't do this entirely in single-syllable words) prioritizing your family life over the business you allegedly worked so hard to build.

You are eating turkey while your wage slaves work to save your business, since it's so critical to be open on Thanksgiving or else your business might fail.

Hey. It's cool. You're the owner. Set the hours, say "deal with it."

Do not fucking patronize me or any of your other employees by saying, effectively, "I feel bad that I'm doing this to you, but I'm better than you because I busted my ass so you do the scut work while I enjoy turkey."

It's one thing to say "I busted my ass, I earned this." Great! You're out of retail, Troy; I don't know if you've noticed in the last ten years, but retailers are cutting corners where they can to compete with online, and part of that is in terms of the workforce. They've cut back on full-time, on supervisory positions, on really any path up. So somebody can be out there, right now, busting his ass every bit as hard as you did, but has no way to move up into a position where he's "got his."

And you're sitting there moralizing that, hey, you earned it. Getting to enjoy the holiday is a perk that the "better people" deserve, but not the kids working their way through college, or people who don't have a degree, or people who have two degrees but can't find work elsewhere. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

If you seriously think that it's legitimate to both paint the day as so crucial that the hourly employees have to work the day but the execs can enjoy the day off, and that you're somehow better than the people who are in the shoes you were in back in the day because you busted your ass and that makes everything okay, then yeah. You're a dick.

And, frankly, that describes 90% of the people in this thread.

"You should be happy to have a job"? Really?

Well, fuck. Let's bring back the days of the robber barons and the company stores. You should be happy to have a job. So what if it means you die in hock to the company you work for and your heirs have to go to work for the company to pay off your debt? They'd invent a time machine, go back in time, and jumpstart a family fortune if they were worth anything.

You're missing the point buttercup.

Your superiors who are eating Thanksgiving dinner at home EARNED that right. They didn't wake up at the age of 16 as the VP of blah blah blah at Best Buy.

I work retail, I worked Thanksgiving. Would I rather be home? Of course. Was it the end of the world since I've worked every Thanksgiving since I was 16? Nope. If/when I move up into a position that I get that day off am I going to "take one for the team and work the front lines"? Nope, because I put my time in and earned that day off.

Instead of acting like you are oppressed and working in the coal mines in 1920 suck it up and work it like a man and MAYBE in the future you won't have to work those holidays because you'll have gotten promoted and earned it or you got off your lazy ass and got a different job if you hate your current one so much

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Troy? You. Are. Missing. The. Point.

I'll use small words: If the store needs the sales, by all means open. Stay home. Eat. Know that you are (fuck it, I can't do this entirely in single-syllable words) prioritizing your family life over the business you allegedly worked so hard to build.

You are eating turkey while your wage slaves work to save your business, since it's so critical to be open on Thanksgiving or else your business might fail.

Hey. It's cool. You're the owner. Set the hours, say "deal with it."

Do not fucking patronize me or any of your other employees by saying, effectively, "I feel bad that I'm doing this to you, but I'm better than you because I busted my ass so you do the scut work while I enjoy turkey."

It's one thing to say "I busted my ass, I earned this." Great! You're out of retail, Troy; I don't know if you've noticed in the last ten years, but retailers are cutting corners where they can to compete with online, and part of that is in terms of the workforce. They've cut back on full-time, on supervisory positions, on really any path up. So somebody can be out there, right now, busting his ass every bit as hard as you did, but has no way to move up into a position where he's "got his."

And you're sitting there moralizing that, hey, you earned it. Getting to enjoy the holiday is a perk that the "better people" deserve, but not the kids working their way through college, or people who don't have a degree, or people who have two degrees but can't find work elsewhere. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

If you seriously think that it's legitimate to both paint the day as so crucial that the hourly employees have to work the day but the execs can enjoy the day off, and that you're somehow better than the people who are in the shoes you were in back in the day because you busted your ass and that makes everything okay, then yeah. You're a dick.

And, frankly, that describes 90% of the people in this thread.

"You should be happy to have a job"? Really?

Well, fuck. Let's bring back the days of the robber barons and the company stores. You should be happy to have a job. So what if it means you die in hock to the company you work for and your heirs have to go to work for the company to pay off your debt? They'd invent a time machine, go back in time, and jumpstart a family fortune if they were worth anything.

Seriously? You are comparing this to slave workers or serfdom? Cmon man. When did I ever say I was better than someone else? Oh, because I said I earned my time off? No, I don't feel that makes me better, but it does give me perks. You benefit from some perks too. You working in Best Buy makes more than someone working at Subway. (I worked at Subway for two years by the way) does that make you a better person than they are?

FWIW, I read your comments exactly as you intended. You think an exec can't feel bad for forcing you to work if he doesn't work himself. I responded right to that point. It's a simplistic viewpoint. But you want the memo to say "FU losers, I'm going to laugh at you while drinking your blood (err, my wine). Go to hell, all of you"

I'm sure when one of the people who got that email forwarded it to the media that would look really good, right? You are asking them to do something they couldn't do if they wanted to. You are also giving your assessment of what emotions they feel or don't feel when you have no flippin clue what exactly is going through their heads. I'm not a cheerleader for corporate execs, but that attitude is insulting and unfair.

I hope you do get to run a business someday. You might be a wonderful boss because you will obviously care about your employees. On the other hand, when one of your employees comes up to you and says "I should get the same things you get because you aren't better than me," I will await your response anxiously.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Seriously? You are comparing this to slave workers or serfdom? Cmon man. When did I ever say I was better than someone else? Oh, because I said I earned my time off? No, I don't feel that makes me better, but it does give me perks. You benefit from some perks too. You working in Best Buy makes more than someone working at Subway. (I worked at Subway for two years by the way) does that make you a better person than they are?

Fallacious comparison. Keep trying, though.

On the other hand, when one of your employees comes up to you and says "I should get the same things you get because you aren't better than me," I will await your response anxiously.

And, yet...what we're talking about here isn't a company car or an annual bonus. We're talking about HAVING THANKSGIVING DINNER WITH ONE'S FAMILY.

You're seriously arguing on behalf of executives taking that away from their employees, even employees who have been with the company 20 years, because they somehow earned Thanksgiving off by being better than the others.

You're dismissing slave labor or serfdom, but the thing is, when you bring in the "you should feel fortunate blah blah" argument, that's EXACTLY what you're arguing for. Once you establish that argument, it becomes easier to justify further predations against your labor force.

We're cutting part-time hours to give those hours to full-timers instead? Whatever, scrub. You should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the health policies available for full-time employees to purchase as a class with their fellow full-timers to stuff that covers less or costs more? Whatever. They should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the availability policy so that instead of being able to both work here and go to school (TO BETTER YOURSELF LOL PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A DEGREE), you have to choose between either school or working here? Whatever. You should feel lucky to have a job.

Seriously. Troy, I don't give a shit how much you busted your ass or what you think you deserve of what you've got. Good for you. I mean that honestly.

But this idea that it's okay to take away what few perks your employees enjoy because they somehow haven't busted enough ass is conceited, head-up-your-ass bullshit. And if you seriously think that it's socially or morally justifiable for the higher-ups to take from the people below them because 'they got theirs,' then I don't even know what to say to you that wouldn't land me in the box.

[cuervo72]

I guess my question would be...why the hell would you still be in retail, Sack?

[MrBug708]

I liked working the holidays. The day doesn't make it special, what you do does and you can do it whenever, like Canadian Thanksgiving. My last job wouldn't let me work it because I would get paid so much

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I guess my question would be...why the hell would you still be in retail, Sack?

I'm not. That doesn't mean I can't call bullshit on this.

[molson]

Thank god for the evil corporate dive bar here in town that's open Thanksgiving and Christmas nights. I've had some good times there over the years. I imagine the bartenders do really well that night.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Fallacious comparison. Keep trying, though.



And, yet...what we're talking about here isn't a company car or an annual bonus. We're talking about HAVING THANKSGIVING DINNER WITH ONE'S FAMILY.

You're seriously arguing on behalf of executives taking that away from their employees, even employees who have been with the company 20 years, because they somehow earned Thanksgiving off by being better than the others.

You're dismissing slave labor or serfdom, but the thing is, when you bring in the "you should feel fortunate blah blah" argument, that's EXACTLY what you're arguing for. Once you establish that argument, it becomes easier to justify further predations against your labor force.

We're cutting part-time hours to give those hours to full-timers instead? Whatever, scrub. You should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the health policies available for full-time employees to purchase as a class with their fellow full-timers to stuff that covers less or costs more? Whatever. They should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the availability policy so that instead of being able to both work here and go to school (TO BETTER YOURSELF LOL PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A DEGREE), you have to choose between either school or working here? Whatever. You should feel lucky to have a job.

Seriously. Troy, I don't give a shit how much you busted your ass or what you think you deserve of what you've got. Good for you. I mean that honestly.

But this idea that it's okay to take away what few perks your employees enjoy because they somehow haven't busted enough ass is conceited, head-up-your-ass bullshit. And if you seriously think that it's socially or morally justifiable for the higher-ups to take from the people below them because 'they got theirs,' then I don't even know what to say to you that wouldn't land me in the box.

Look, could you do me a favor maybe? Just one. Stop saying I have said "you should be thankful you have a job" I haven't. Not once. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME. I took offense at you bashing execs and assigning them emotions and rules because you have to work when you don't want to.

You won't like me though, because if I were in Best Buys shoes and I looked at the sales charts, I would absolutely be open. Sorry, I would.

I'm also sorry, but if you have worked 20 years in retail, you know the drill. Or you should. Times have changed. Best Buy cannot compete if it isn't open when it's competitors are. It can't. Period. The execs didn't do this because they were desperate to do it, they did it because of two things:

1) Their competitors did it
2) It worked, people came and spent

I'm not saying you should be thankful to have a job. I am saying if you don't like the situation, you are limited to getting a promotion where you don't have to or getting the hell out of the industry. Theater workers have worked on Christmas Day for years. If you get a job at the theater, you kind of know that's what you will be dealing with. If you don't like it, move on. It's really that simple.

[Buccaneer]

Josh, I would hope that after all of these years, you wouldn't have grown so bitter and envious. All one can truly do is to do the best job you can in whatever situation one finds him/herself in.

I remember a couple of years ago, my section manager (very much a pointy-haired boss type) used the remaining travel/training budget to send himself to a training class that would have been very appropriate for me or one of my colleagues. Of course he got nothing out of it.

But there is no chance I would want to be in his shoes. If I were in his shoes, then I would have gone to the training (or stayed home from work on holidays, theoretically). But for those little "perks" (and of course, more pay), he is in a job in which 95% of it is horrible (compared to mine).

So let the big bosses, managers, whatever have their perks, pay and so-called prestige. I am lucky and fortunate not to be them.

[molson]

If people want to go out and spend money on the holidays (and they most definitely do), then in a free economy, those stores are going to be open. The only way to overcome that is through value and moral-based legislation that imposed particular views of what the holidays are supposed to mean on everyone else - including businesses, consumers, and workers that make money on the holidays. I think some states still have those (mostly involving Sundays and booze), but they're not too popular and are considered old-fashioned and puritanical.

[Lathum]

Sack, you seem to not be able to get past this concept that management thinks they are "better" and that is why they don't work those days when employees do.

It is just the nature of certain jobs that you work those days, and when you are hired you are told you may have to work those days. You then as the employee have a choice that you can either take the job subject to the employers terms, or you can not take the job.

Chalk me up as another who worked in restaurants and had to work those days also. It was no surprise to me. Had I chosen to not work those days I could quit and would have been easily replaced. Those are the breaks.

It was me who said they should be happy to have the job, and I stand behind that statement. The fact it those people are easily replaced. If that is a really you can't deal with then that is your own issue, and you have every right to feel the way you do, but doesn't change the fact.

[Buccaneer]

I don't think it's any different than what we have in IT, where I and many you work. Some of us are on stand-by for 24/7 systems (not me, thankfully) and if you are an employee dedicated to such systems, then you are required to work stand-by, which mean you can get called and have to work on a problem in the middle of the night, even on weekends. They do get extra pay but most of the IT managers do not work stand-by. They're home sleeping.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Fallacious comparison. Keep trying, though.



And, yet...what we're talking about here isn't a company car or an annual bonus. We're talking about HAVING THANKSGIVING DINNER WITH ONE'S FAMILY.

You're seriously arguing on behalf of executives taking that away from their employees, even employees who have been with the company 20 years, because they somehow earned Thanksgiving off by being better than the others.

You're dismissing slave labor or serfdom, but the thing is, when you bring in the "you should feel fortunate blah blah" argument, that's EXACTLY what you're arguing for. Once you establish that argument, it becomes easier to justify further predations against your labor force.

We're cutting part-time hours to give those hours to full-timers instead? Whatever, scrub. You should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the health policies available for full-time employees to purchase as a class with their fellow full-timers to stuff that covers less or costs more? Whatever. They should feel lucky to have a job.

We're changing the availability policy so that instead of being able to both work here and go to school (TO BETTER YOURSELF LOL PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A DEGREE), you have to choose between either school or working here? Whatever. You should feel lucky to have a job.

Seriously. Troy, I don't give a shit how much you busted your ass or what you think you deserve of what you've got. Good for you. I mean that honestly.

But this idea that it's okay to take away what few perks your employees enjoy because they somehow haven't busted enough ass is conceited, head-up-your-ass bullshit. And if you seriously think that it's socially or morally justifiable for the higher-ups to take from the people below them because 'they got theirs,' then I don't even know what to say to you that wouldn't land me in the box.

Life isn't fair...get use to it.

[Young Drachma]

All I have to say is, this sounded a lot like listening to the Glen Beck program yesterday on the way to Colorado. It's sort of interesting how if you just repeat a narrative enough times, that you start to believe it because it not just reflects your thinking; but how you come to experience and interact with the world.

The hilarious irony is the people who are promulgating these ideas are pretty wealthy and the people consuming it usually aren't.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

All I have to say is, this sounded a lot like listening to the Glen Beck program yesterday on the way to Colorado. It's sort of interesting how if you just repeat a narrative enough times, that you start to believe it because it not just reflects your thinking; but how you come to experience and interact with the world.

The hilarious irony is the people who are promulgating these ideas are pretty wealthy and the people consuming it usually aren't.

What ideas are you talking about? A lot of the anti-corporate sentiment is very vague. What would you like to see Walmart and Target do differently, and should that be compelled by law or through public pressure? How much should they make an hour? Should they get every holiday off regardless of an economic and cultural appetite to spend money on those days? Without the details it just comes of as condescending. It's like if someone said you got all your ideas from Jon Stewart and then just knew how to regurgitate them as broad themes when you hear "Walmart" in a discussion. I don't think there's a ton of Glen Beck enthusiasts here who are just repeating the party line. I see much more of that generally (at least here) from the "corporations are evil" crowd. They're sure of the broad ideas about justice but never the specifics (except for the part about how retail corporations shouldn't be open on holidays.)

[molson]

Or, to try to put in a simple, practical way - the U.S. government sets a minimum level of acceptability when it comes to worker conditions, with minimum wage and labor laws. Some states exceed that and give their workers even greater protection. So the question is, morally and ethically, how much is a company required to go beyond that minimum guaranteed by the U.S. and the states?

If we all gave our answers, I bet they wouldn't even be that different, at a nuts and bolts level. I think there's just a different place people come from - some people are inherently "against" (or maybe just exceedingly suspicious of) corporations, and since there's enough different viewpoints around, they always find themselves at home in the "workers should have more" side of things, regardless of what the debate is or what numbers and facts we're talking about. Walmart workers could make twice as much as they do now and get free blowjobs every day, but if there was a labor dispute, people with that inclination are always going to be on the side of the workers And I think the people on the other side (where I admit I am) are kind of the same - they're inherently annoyed with workers complaining, and they're probably going to lean against them unless Walmart is anally raping every worker before they go home. But when it comes down to numbers and nuts and bolts of what companies should really be doing, I bet there's not a ton of difference between most people's views.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

there is no fixing it. but you can be frustrated. you can point out the absurdity of it. did you know 96% of americans live within 20 miles of a walmart? that's nuts

frankly, i don't want it fixed. why prolong the inevitable? it's already knocking just floor it and wait till it shoots a rod

[Buccaneer]

Did you know that in many places, Walmart is the #1 employer, esp. in depressed areas that had lost businesses? Andersonville, CA is a good example of how Walmart saved that town economically. I'm sure there are other examples.

I'm not a defender of Walmart the store since you can count the number of times on two hands I've been in one the past 10 years. But a lot of consumers and the general population do depend on them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Did you know that in many places, Walmart is the #1 employer, esp. in depressed areas that had lost businesses? Andersonville, CA is a good example of how Walmart saved that town economically. I'm sure there are other examples.

I'm not a defender of Walmart the store since you can count the number of times on two hands I've been in one the past 10 years. But a lot of consumers and the general population do depend on them.

Not sure of anything about the tweeter, but some thoughts about the whole issue of walmart in general

Peter Suderman drops a truth-bomb on Walmart critics (with tweets) · lachlanmarkay3 · Storify

[cuervo72]

We have two Walmarts, but hardly ever shop in them. I'll go there every so often to look for things like Pokemon cards or toys or pool chemicals (or if in PA, Phillies gear). I might pick up a couple other things while I'm there. That's maybe once a quarter though (I don't shop much other than for food, and that I get either at the Food Lion around the corner or an independent market near work).

My wife makes a point to avoid Walmart. Doesn't like the general atmosphere (probably worth noting that we earn well above that average stated by Suderman). She prefers Target, or even better Kohl's. Really though, she does the bulk of her buying online.

We do belong to Sam's Club though, and will stock up on things like TP, PT, tissues, soap when we go there.

[Buccaneer]

While I can appreciate what they have done in a lot of communities, I still find their stores (of the few times I've been in there) pretty crappy and unweildly (sp?).

Adding onto what cuervo said, my wife does all of the shopping and she's been in Walmart less than I have. I guess we're big Target and Costco fans instead.

[PilotMan]

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

oh, i know. i am poor. i live amongst other poor people. we are sandwiched between walmarts (you literally can't get in or out without passing one) cheap goods and jobs (ANY jobs) are good

BUT is it good in the grand scheme of things? we're just kicking the can down the road. we're not making it a better place for our children. how do we do that? big questions.

it's hard to argue with pragmatists. i come off sounding like a dirty hippie. but i don't think scratching out 70 years relatively unscathed is a success. life is hard but more importantly what's the point? every man for himself doesn't seem like a good way forward

it is interesting that most business tycoons turn to philanthropy in their latter years

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

"The motions of Grace, the hardness of the heart; external circumstances.” – Pascal, Pensée 507

it's the epigraph from updike's rabbit run and probably my favorite quote

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Did you know that in many places, Walmart is the #1 employer, esp. in depressed areas that had lost businesses? Andersonville, CA is a good example of how Walmart saved that town economically. I'm sure there are other examples.

I'm not a defender of Walmart the store since you can count the number of times on two hands I've been in one the past 10 years. But a lot of consumers and the general population do depend on them.

Now why did that community lose those businesses? Surely it had nothing to do with a Walmart going up, did it?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

I immigrated and became a naturalized citizen. I do agree with your example of being born an Ethiopian kid, not likely. Having lived in third world countries (dad was a diplomat) I do believe the US is one of the best places to live and truly is the land of opportunity.

I'm not sure how you define great, eliminating those extremes on both ends and assuming you mean middle to upper class life

If you were born/lived in the US, stayed out of trouble, went to vocational/college, didn't start a family too early, you can easily achieve the middle-class lifestyle.

If you were born/lived in the US, stayed out of trouble, went to vocational/college, didn't start a family too early, got lucky, was persistent, took some risks, you may achieve the upper class life.

[jeff061]

While luck is always involved, you can definitely effect how you take advantage of opportunity and how often those opportunities come. Some people get that chance and watch it sail by, others don't.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are.

This is one of the biggest debates and sources of animosity and the thing that people really feel personally - but don't you think that it's an extreme view? You really think there aren't any people of great talent in America who rise to great things? I don't think the other extreme - that everyone got everything they have on their own, and everyone who lacks anything must have screwed up somehow - has any basis in reality either.

I think the choices we make in this country have huge impacts on the lives we end up living, as does our talents. We just have different safety nets and different ranges for possible outcomes.

I guess I can see how it comes across "people on their hoses ranting about how great they are." But that comes from a place of defensiveness, really. You're telling them they didn't accomplish anything and it was all random chance. That's pretty harsh. People are offended when you tell them they were just born into something when they know they weren't. They're not always claiming the other extreme in response - that they rose from the gutter without anyone's help. But why is there so much resistance to give them just a little credit where there's evidence they made some good choices along the way? I bet you'd be proud of your 5 and a half year old if he or she accomplished great things. You'd also take some pride in giving him or her an environment from which his or her talents could be utilized. I wouldn't be offended by your expression of pride in that instance. In fact, I'd be proud of you for being a great parent, and your kids for their accomplishments. People do accomplish things with their talent and hard work. And people do blow opportunities and have less success as a result. I don't see how you can dispute that. Every situation is different. There's obviously people who party too much in college, drop out of school, and never have much of a career. Then there's people who drop out of college because they need to work to support a dying family member, and then they don't have much of a career either. Totally different situations.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Honestly, go pound sand. If it isn't important enough for you to work the day alongside your employees, it isn't important enough to fuck them over for.

The minute the words "so I wouldn't have to do it anymore" leave your lips, it stops being about "This is an important day for the business and this sacrifice is necessary for the survival of the business" and more about "Fuck you, I got mine."

If it were about the survival of the business, your little speech there wouldn't be "I worked hard to get to the point where I didn't have to do it anymore." You'd be right there working alongside your employees saying "Let's push through this and get to tomorrow; it will all be worth it at the end of the season."

It's easy to be callous and say "you're replaceable," but at some point you hit the level where your employees say "Go for it" and suddenly you've got no staffing on this holiday that's so important that you didn't have to work it, but your peons did. That doesn't seem to have happened to Wal-Mart this year, but that doesn't mean it never will.

Ok, I'm not sure who or why you are angry, but I'm going to respond logically and not emotionally here.

I've been pretty open about what I do/did, but in case you have missed it , it wasn't retail. I owned a construction, contracting, and service business. So working a holiday only meant having the phone on and responding IF one of our customers needed service.

If you could resolve over the phone, great! If not you had to get in the truck I bought for you, and drive to their house in a uniform I bought for you and use tools I bought for you to repair their problem, and you got paid your hourly wage, PLUS a premium. And even if you didnt get a call you got $100 for being on call on a holiday.

Early on when I had no employees I ran all those calls myself. The first two years of our business I took 3 days off total in 2 years. I worked through first birthday parties, anniversaries, even my best friends wedding. So when things were running good and I had 40 plus employees I had my employees do the part of the job I didn't like. I told them when they interviewed it was a requirement. There were no surprises.

My employees and I had a trade arrangement I exchanged my money for their labor. Quite honestly by the time I sold out, my technicians were better equipped and had more practice and hands on skill than I did at repairing customer's problems. I was available by phone for any assistance needed and it wasn't unheard of for me to have to meet them at the office to get supplies, components out of inventory on a holiday. So FOR ME in MY INSTANCE it all depends on how you define work. Sure I may not be available at all times, but many many nights I didnt sleep while my employees rested comfortably because I didnt know if client X was going to pay me or if I was going to be able to make payroll that week. I didnt ask for anyone's sympathy on those nights and I didnt feel bad for the days when the roles were reversed for a few short hours.

It's not about "lucky to have a job" it is about if you do not do what the competition does your company will lose profit and market share and then you may not have a job. In my case if I didn't provide service to a customer and brand X did, they would get the business and if I repeatedly made poor business decisions like that I wouldn't be able to pay my employees.

I guess where we differ is it sounds like you feel like a holiday to enjoy with your family is some right or divine gift and to me it was a privilege. One I did without many, many times to get to the point where I could enjoy it.

The phrase sounds trite, bit for years I lived like very few others, so that in time I could LIVE like very few others. I do not and will not apologize for that.

I can't speak for everyone but for me, when I take a job I take it as a total package. There will be good and bad. As long as I get to enjoy the good I will choose not to bitch about the bad. When the scale swings too far to the bad side the whole sum is no longer worth it to me and I will find something else.

[molson]

I was reading this article about Obama's great passion - this issue of income inequality.

Now, Obama is many, many times more intelligent than I'll ever be (which of course, he took advantage of, along with an incredible drive and work ethic, to obtain incredible life success, something which I admire and doesn't at all offend me), so maybe I'm just missing something, but I never understand the stated approaches to combating this issue.

He talks about being moved by wealth disparity in developing countries during his travels, and I guess, sees the same thing here. So there's two primary ways he tries to address it.

1. (Modestly) higher taxes on higher income individuals. I don't know how this impacts income disparity at all and the article doesn't really explain it. It is definitely a response to income disparity, in that it's a way for all of us to benefit from the fact that some people do really, really well in the modern global economy, and I get it at that level. But it definitely doesn't make anyone earn less or earn more (unless the idea is to use increased revenue to quadruple the government work force and pay them all close to six figures or higher - but I don't think that's the goal, nor is it in the cards.)

2. Education. This one really puzzles me. Obama's big thing is he wants X more number of Americans to have at least one year of college education. Those with college educations make more, goes the reasoning, so if more people have education, more people will make more money. I don't think it works like that. Having more educated people doesn't increase the number of high paying jobs. It just means we'll have more Walmart employees with one year of college experience. We see this in the legal industry. I've ranted about student loans before - maybe the reason policy makers thinkg that people should be encouraged to borrow six figures to get gradate degrees is based on this same kind of thinking - "hey, lawyers make a lot, so if there's more of them, more people will be making a lot." That didn't work out. Instead, there's the same number of lawyer jobs (less, actually), but many, many more people with useless law degrees and massive debt. That drives down the wages of younger, less experienced attorneys since there's such a huge pool to draw from. And all of those people who couldn't make it in law will have that debt that will follow them around forever. They're part of the "hidden" income inequality equation. Maybe they'll eventually make $40,000 in some non-legal office job, but they'll have to pay $20,000 of it a year to their loan providers. That doesn't even show up in those income inequality charts. Maybe our society can be generally better in a lot of ways if its more educated, but that doesn't automatically translate into reducing income disparity. Finding our best and brightest and encouraging and even funding their education makes a ton of sense, to help encourage greatness and great accomplishments, but making sure everybody gets a year of psychology 101 at the local community college - whatever. That's not going to do anything. Except be a stimulus program for the higher education industry.

How fighting income inequality became Obama’s driving force - The Washington Post.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

And I disagree almost completely.
Barring the Ethiopian kid, which I suspect we have none of on this board. Let's talk about American children which I think most of us can relate to.

I wont bore you with "my life story" but suffice to say I didnt come from a pretty place. Single parent home, to gov't housing, to protective custody of the state, to a dozen foster homes, to legally emancipated at 15.

I was the first person in my family to graduate high school. Then college. Then I went to work for someone else and saw numerous mistakes they were making. Then I hated the way they treated me, so I decided to do something about it. Today I am 36 and for all intents and purposes "retired"...my kids have seen things I never dreamed of.

In my opinion far too many people accept unfortunate circumstances as fate and choose not to fight on. When I founded my company the first year I worked 3rd shift stocking at a BiLo and then yes the evil Wal Mart at night while I worked during the day. I never slept more than 3-4 hours a day. While I also went about educating myself on business and aspects I knew nothing about.

I'm sorry I had every excuse known to man and could have chosen to dive into drugs as an answer as a teenager. Actively wanted to several times because I knew it would be easier and take away the pain. But again I dont apologize for my attitude and I didnt expect anyone to feel sorry for me then.

Anyone in this country CAN change their circumstances.
Can everyone make Trump money?
Nope. Im not suggesting that.
But we could all work a little harder, a little more on whatever aspect of our life we are unhappy with.

If you dont like your job, did you submit a single resume to anyone today?
Did you try to learn a new skill today? If not then you choose to maintain where you are.

Some will argue they prioritize their family/kids/fun whatever over being a "slave" to a job. That is fine and maybe even noble, but it is still a choice. Not a fate.

[Lathum]

CU TIGER- You are a greedy money grubbing whore! You should have been in those trucks on Christmas filling up the gas along side the employess that you made work like slaves!!!

(sarcasm)

[Young Drachma]

Skills Don’t Pay the Bills - NYTimes.com Saw thison tumblr with the below reaction, thought it was worth adding to this convo as it represents the other perspective.

But he lets it all collapse at the end, after pointing out rightly that the so-called skills gap isn’t a skills gap at all. “Trying to hire high-skilled workers at rock-bottom rates is not a skills gap,” a study from the Boston Consulting Group noted. Skilled, educated workers, many of whom have debt out their ears from getting said education, are expected to work for $10 an hour?

“It’s easy to understand every perspective in this drama,” Davidson writes, but as usual he finds it much easier to relate to the bosses than to the workers.

Which is perhaps why Davidson takes “weakened unions” as a fact of life, rather than a result of years and years of sustained attacks on unions from all angles, from the courtroom to Congress to the shop floor. “The social contract has collapsed” is a passive-voice monstrosity that masks the reality that the workers kept up their end of the bargain and indeed conceded time and again (witness the Hostess story for a perfect example). The contract didn’t collapse of its own weight, it was violated again and again.

Davidson could find experts and a boss to quote, but couldn’t go find, say, a union manufacturing worker to discuss, say, the last twenty or thirty years of attempts by the bosses to force down wages, turn pensions into 401(k)s, cut back on healthcare contributions, and lay off workers entirely to ship jobs to China.

The last paragraph, where Davidson’s argument collapses entirely as he lets the boss steer him into the neoliberal blogger’s favorite hobbyhorse, is really special. Education is the problem! Education will save us! He conveniently neglects to mention that $10 an hour starting salary from just the previous page. Hell, I’m surprised that he didn’t find a way to outright blame teachers’ unions for the fact that “too few graduate high school with the basic math and science skills that his company needs to compete.”

As Seth Ackerman pointed out, “competitive” wages is a stick applied to workers by neoliberal writers and opinion leaders to remind the proles of their place. The wage that Davidson’s pet boss is offering is uncompetitive even in a country where real wages are debased—nobody will take the jobs he’s offering at the pay rate he’s offering them.

Yet Davidson, who wholeheartedly believes in free markets, has to find something else to blame for the failure of employers to offer a wage that workers will take. Enter the favorite punching bag of the well-educated pundit class: public schools.

You see, if those schools were just cranking out workers with the right math and science skills, we’d be able to compete! (Which, in this case, means “get workers to take lousy $10 an hour jobs”.)

Here’s the thing: if public schools were actually graduating close to 100% of the students they taught with the precise math and science skills that Davidson and his pet boss want, they’d still be “competing” for the same lousy $10 an hour jobs. In fact, the glut of skilled workers would most likely push those wages down, because even though, as Price pointed out, the “shortage” of skilled workers hasn’t seen a rise in wages for those skilled jobs, we most certainly have seen downward pressure on wages as unemployment has remained high.

In other words, we don’t need more educated workers until we have the good jobs to offer them.

Education is a great thing for its own sake. I want to see free higher education for all who want it. But even without the millstone of student debt around the necks of young people, $10 an hour jobs are not going to fix the economy. As Heidi Shierholz, Natalie Sabadish and Hilary Wething at the Economic Policy Institute pointed out in a recent report, young people still have few opportunities, face high unemployment and even higher underemployment.

But that’s a scary thought, and so even though Davidson starts off heading in that direction, he screeches to a halt and turns off down the reliable path of calling for “education”, never mind that his conclusion almost completely contradicts the points he’s made earlier in the piece.

Because if he were going to open up a real discussion about low wages and skilled workers and outsourcing, he’d perhaps have to admit that the market solutions he favors won’t fix these problems. ]

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Did you know that in many places, Walmart is the #1 employer, esp. in depressed areas that had lost businesses? Andersonville, CA is a good example of how Walmart saved that town economically. I'm sure there are other examples.

I'm not a defender of Walmart the store since you can count the number of times on two hands I've been in one the past 10 years. But a lot of consumers and the general population do depend on them.

Of course the people depend on Walmart. Once they move in, cause locally owned business to shut down, kill more jobs than they bring in and depress wages people don't really have much of choice but to shop there.

[TroyF]

I'll add in to CU Tiger here.

I didn't grow up poor. Middle class, house in the burbs, etc.

I had a lot of other issues that helped cause me to fail early in my life. I made A LOT of mistakes, thankfully none involving drugs or alcohol.

I started a job in college as a call center tech. Supported sound cards. I received 6 promotions in 3 years and supervised agents making a really good salary. I ended up leaving to move back to Colorado after 8 years of the job. It's funny, because I still remember asking for advice to people on this board when I did it. (I moved back for my grandfather)

Anyway, I moved back in August of 2001. You probably remember what happened a few weeks later. I worked as a temp in an HP call center, worked at a start up and then went to my current job. The very first time I traveled for my current job to a workshop, I remember sitting in a room with over 300 people and coming to the realization that I was LOWEST on the totem pole.

Seriously, I was essentially a glorified secretary. I again received promotions and raises. As I said earlier in the thread, we went through a massive restructuring and I was spared in it. So I work at a terrific job making a solid wage and am happy.

Is this all ME? Of course not. I am NOT indispensable and I know it. I AM thankful I have a job I like and I work very hard. There are so many people I would have to thank for being in the position I am in now. When I started, I worked for the dream boss who never took credit for anything I did and gave me tons of chances. Had I worked for anyone else in the company, I would not have had those chances.

On the other side, without having some large ego or thinking I'm a living God, is it ok to think that maybe I did something to earn this too? I mean, I\ve did it twice now. Started from the bottom worked my way up to a good paying, happy position. Is that ALL circumstance?

I realize that I can hit the bottom any second. I also know that I can be happy with anything. If I lose my job, my house, or my possessions, I know I can still be happy and I am not scared of having to try it again. Maybe the third time I start from bottom I will fail. I don't think I will, but s*it happens, right?

Either way, this is my long winded way of saying circumstance plays a part in our lives, but we also have to see opportunities, work hard, build relationships, keep the bridges gasoline free, and take risks to get what we want. Blaming it all on circumstance is too easy.

(one note, I'm talking about most Americans here. Obviously, I'm a poor kid in Africa or the son of a rice farmer in China, or God forbid a female in Saudi Arabia I am much more limited. I realize this and am thankful every day that I am where I am.)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Of course the people depend on Walmart. Once they move in, cause locally owned business to shut down, kill more jobs than they bring in and depress wages people don't really have much of choice but to shop there.

This, of course, is garbage.

Local businesses can adapt. In some cases they have. In other cases, they tried to compete with Wal Mart on Wal Marts terms and were crushed. What people don't realize is that most of those businesses were struggling before Wal Mart ever arrived. If it isn't Wal Mart, it was going to be something else. A Super Target, an outlet store, a chain grocery store.

In a capitalist society, it's about adaptation.

And to say Wal Mart destroys the economy and kills more jobs than they bring in is insanity. If the community really felt that way, they never have to shop at Wal Mart in the first place. Wal Mart would go out of business instead of the local business. Yes, Wal Mart has better prices because they have tons of pull. On the other side, as many have said in this thread, you don't have to go to Wal Mart. I haven't been in a Wal Mart in close to a year.The goods and services I need are provided by others at comparable prices.

[JPhillips]

I don't think you can achieve much without hard work, although you can be born into a life where minimal or no achievement still leaves you with a great deal of money. I also think luck plays a major role for most people that are high achievers. It doesn't diminish the work, but it does mean that success isn't simply about putting your nose to the grindstone. Admitting that luck played a large role in my life doesn't mean I don't bust my ass to maximize my opportunities.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

I think there are two pieces to the equation: broadly called "skill" and "luck". At any time, one has opportunities and that all flows from luck. The wide range of opportunities one has may be determined by what you have done: skills (i.e. if you have a college degree, the whole realm of "college degree required" jobs is open to you whereas if you do not, it isn't). However, the specific ones you get are determined by luck (it happens company X needs skill Y today or something as silly as HR recruiter X likes font Y on your resume so you don't get thrown off the pile whereas someone else's does for a similarly trivial reason).

I think arguing that "I made my opportunities" is a fallacy- that opportunity was there and you took advantage of it. So, while it could be simple semantics, I think there is a mistake made in moving it from the luck side of the ledger to the skill side. However, you had the skills to take advantage of the lucky situation you found yourself in. There is a significant confluence of both skill and luck and I think to deny either is dangerous.

One other theme I've seen here a lot: why is risk taking a virtue? I mean, as a society: what do we gain by someone taking a risk (without knowledge of their success or failure)?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think you can achieve much without hard work, although you can be born into a life where minimal or no achievement still leaves you with a great deal of money. I also think luck plays a major role for most people that are high achievers. It doesn't diminish the work, but it does mean that success isn't simply about putting your nose to the grindstone. Admitting that luck played a large role in my life doesn't mean I don't bust my ass to maximize my opportunities.

EDIT: Or mostly what was said in the post right before mine in a lot fewer words.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

This, of course, is garbage.

Local businesses can adapt. In some cases they have. In other cases, they tried to compete with Wal Mart on Wal Marts terms and were crushed. What people don't realize is that most of those businesses were struggling before Wal Mart ever arrived. If it isn't Wal Mart, it was going to be something else. A Super Target, an outlet store, a chain grocery store.

In a capitalist society, it's about adaptation.

And to say Wal Mart destroys the economy and kills more jobs than they bring in is insanity. If the community really felt that way, they never have to shop at Wal Mart in the first place. Wal Mart would go out of business instead of the local business. Yes, Wal Mart has better prices because they have tons of pull. On the other side, as many have said in this thread, you don't have to go to Wal Mart. I haven't been in a Wal Mart in close to a year.The goods and services I need are provided by others at comparable prices.

Destroys the economy is too much, but killing jobs is a part of the Walmart model. They can provide a greater number of goods at lower prices due to increased efficiency. Part of that increased efficiency is fewer workers than what would be needed for a comparable number of products at small shops.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think you can achieve much without hard work, although you can be born into a life where minimal or no achievement still leaves you with a great deal of money. I also think luck plays a major role for most people that are high achievers. It doesn't diminish the work, but it does mean that success isn't simply about putting your nose to the grindstone. Admitting that luck played a large role in my life doesn't mean I don't bust my ass to maximize my opportunities.

I agree with this, and hope my post didn't come off as counter to it.

The only thing I will add, some are born to circumstances where they can achieve higher without working as hard. For some, a "homerun" success will be much lower than others based solely on where they started.

Hard work is not a guarantee of success, but I've never known any successful people that weren't among the hardest working ones I know with the exception of those born into circumstance. So if you weren't born with it, and you want it. You have to work your azz of for it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

One other theme I've seen here a lot: why is risk taking a virtue? I mean, as a society: what do we gain by someone taking a risk (without knowledge of their success or failure)?

As a society, risk-takers bring about innovation. And the society is always going to benefit if there's a lot of risk-takers because some of those risks are going to pay off and we'll have Google or whatever. But an individual level, it's probably much less of a virtue, and more of a personal choice.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Of course the people depend on Walmart. Once they move in, cause locally owned business to shut down, kill more jobs than they bring in and depress wages people don't really have much of choice but to shop there.

I was talking more about the cases where there were next to nothing left in the towns/counties before Walmart moving in.

I also believe the internet did much, much more to cause locally owned (brick and mortar) businesses to close than Walmart. Walmart, I have read in some cases, have been used as an economic stimulus in places in anchoring nearby businesses.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I had an epiphany while I was driving my 5 and a half hours home today. Most of life is time and circumstance. Seriously. Any person, any place. It's all time and circumstance. The idea that any person and rise above and become something great is one of the greatest fallacies in American culture. It's all being in the right place at the right time. A confluence of events cross and the opportunity is provided. That's all. Too many people on their high horses ranting about how great they are. If I had been born a a malnourished, Ethiopian kid, I'd never become who I am, all things being equal. I think that most of life is like that, we overestimate our real impact on the world.

There is some luck. But, for the most part, American society has traditionally offered more mobility upward than any society in the world. And our poor are exponentially better off than other country's poor. If working on thanksgiving is the biggest crime you have to gripe about, then I think you have a pretty good life.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

There is some luck. But, for the most part, American society has traditionally offered more mobility upward than any society in the world. And our poor are exponentially better off than other country's poor. If working on thanksgiving is the biggest crime you have to gripe about, then I think you have a pretty good life.

But our social mobility has been decreasing for decades and is now lower than most of Europe and Canada.

I'd much rather be poor in Scandinavia than here.

[PilotMan]

In defense of my argument, I have no recollection of making this post last night.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Destroys the economy is too much, but killing jobs is a part of the Walmart model. They can provide a greater number of goods at lower prices due to increased efficiency. Part of that increased efficiency is fewer workers than what would be needed for a comparable number of products at small shops.

But that's classic economics. In the short term, it is incredibly hard for the worker, but in the long term it's in the greater good for the society. I mean, do we get rid of the cotton gin, loom, steam engine, etc., because they reduced the need for workers? These tools and efficiencies continue to grow our economy and create newer tools for the future.

[JPhillips]

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just pointing out that the assertion is correct.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

What ideas are you talking about? A lot of the anti-corporate sentiment is very vague. What would you like to see Walmart and Target do differently, and should that be compelled by law or through public pressure? How much should they make an hour? Should they get every holiday off regardless of an economic and cultural appetite to spend money on those days?

For myself I'm not anti-corporate I'm pro-people. I believe corporations and governments exist for the benefit of the people within society, if they fail to act in their best interests then they need to be encouraged to resync with that interest whatever it is.

As such I'd like to see laws in place which protect employee's from their corporations dancing aruond the existing legislations to minimise their costs at the expense of worker benefits.

For example many corporations in the US appear to prefer part-time workers to full-time workers, this is purely because they gain in various areas because part-time workers appear to have even less protection than full-time workers and also often don't gain access to medical insurance etc.

As such I'd personally like to see 'ObamaCare' extended so that society didn't attach medical care to employment. This would make the system more efficient (economies of scale presuming the free-market purchasing of drugs is allowed to operate which isn't the case for Medicare etc. presently) and cheaper overall while also ensuring a fairer and more balanced system imho.

On top of that I'd like to see more protection for people in employment in terms of notice periods before sacking and an improved minimum wage.

(I don't know if its present in the US or not but I also believe in some protection/incentive to protect public holidays - say enforcing a minimum wage multiplier (when I was a kid it was always time and a half back home) on those days - that dissuades companies who don't truly need staff in from pulling them in, but also rewards the staff who have to work)

And to say Wal Mart destroys the economy and kills more jobs than they bring in is insanity. If the community really felt that way, they never have to shop at Wal Mart in the first place. Wal Mart would go out of business instead of the local business. Yes, Wal Mart has better prices because they have tons of pull. On the other side, as many have said in this thread, you don't have to go to Wal Mart. I haven't been in a Wal Mart in close to a year.The goods and services I need are provided by others at comparable prices.

The problem with this is that humans are inherantly lazy, selfish and bad judges of the long term effects of their decision making.

In the short-term for most people shopping at chains is 'good' because it saves them money and time .... it may be bad in the long term however its encouraged a small monoploy of retailers to survive which means there is next to no competition for employee's between them (ie. poor wages/benefits).

You can see similar things with smokers, for the longest time before large campaigning against it people 'knew' it was bad for them - but in the short term they couldn't see the harm and so ignored it.

I don't know the full effect of Walmart in the US - however in the UK similar stores actually cost the community and government more than they bring in because the government effectively subsides them for each of their minimum salary employee's whether through benefits.

[stevew]

Anyone watch that Rockefeller/Frick/Carnegie/Edison/JP Morgan/Westinghouse thing yesterday on History?

Pretty sure big business was always cunts, but it's a lot harder to murder people these days(hello Pinkertons)

[stevew]

Maybe we still do kill people

Alleged shoplifter dies after being subdued by Walmart workers | www.ajc.com