How do Liberals View Business? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-01-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps some of you can tell me how you would have made the OP more realistic. Otherwise, I will conclude that you simple want to avoid the embarassment of answering the questions I presented.

That woulnd't be a safe assumption, as there are more than two reasons to respond in the way that people have responded. Pretending like the other option is that one would be embarassed is confrontational and possibly flame.

I thought I was pretty clear in my answer, and you probably consider me to be pretty liberal.

Johnny Rotten · 10-01-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I certainly understand people not wanting to respond, etc. but the thought that the scenerio is not true to life or unreasonable strikes me as a bit odd.

The begining analysis of any business problem begins with a review of historical information and making assumptions about the future. I don't know how some of you would make your business decisions, but the way I make mine is to assess my costs and income and build a proforma income statement. This is exactly what was in the OP, in a simplified form.

Perhaps some of you can tell me how you would have made the OP more realistic. Otherwise, I will conclude that you simply want to avoid the embarassment of answering the questions I presented.

[snipped for some brevity]

Just to be clear. Regardless of the OP, assumptions, simple business problems, etc. - I ask this question:

If you have to address labor costs, how do you do it?

It's not true to life because being forced to address labor is an artificial limitation.

And I don't think it's a sincere question, respectfully. Because you have not offered your own solution. I am more curious as to how you would resolve the problem, rather than as to how you would pick apart someone else's attempt to tackle this (IMO) poorly stated problem. It feels like you already have a "liberal" response in mind and are waiting to pounce on it.

aceventura3 · 10-01-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

With as much sensitivity as possible.

Would you cut wages/benefits across the board, or target certain employees? Do you ask for government assistance? Do you move operations where costs are lower? Do you require employees to do more? Do you make charges against your competition? Do you do the same thing that "big business" does all the time that makes them "bad"?

How do you fire someone with sensitivity? Does that mean you give them flowers, buy 'em dinner and say its me and not you, before you fire them? Or, do you simply tell them the truth?

P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you.

host · 10-01-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Would you cut wages/benefits across the board, or target certain employees? Do you ask for government assistance? Do you move operations where costs are lower? Do you require employees to do more? Do you make charges against your competition? Do you do the same thing that "big business" does all the time that makes them "bad"?

How do you fire someone with sensitivity? Does that mean you give them flowers, buy 'em dinner and say its me and not you, before you fire them? Or, do you simply tell them the truth?

P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you.

I was the managing partner for 7 years of a business with 17 employees. When I was not firing someone for "cause"....Cause is "no call, no show, theft of company property, etc....I always explained the dismissal as a workforce reduction, and offered the option of uncontested unemployment benefits.

I was faced with declining demand for our company's services and products, at times, and the nagging and rising cost of providing the traditional major benefits at that company, a defined benifit pension plan, and company payment of the entire family major medical benefit for each employee.

I never reduced wages....I went some months without drawing a paycheck, I only gave across the board pay increased to employees at the top pay scale (a workforce primarily of skilled craftsmen) two times in the seven year period, and I changed the costly defined benefit pension plan to a 401(k) plan, offsetting some of the loss of benefits that older workers would have received under the defined benefit plan.....by offering a 100 percent company paid match to all employee personal 401(k) contributions.

After the longest period of being unable to offer wage increases, I designed and debuted a successful, "gain sharing" incentive plan to increase productivity and efficiency, and I increased advertising budgets and invested in equipment and methods to increase both the perception and the reality of market leading, "quality work", in our industry and in the minds of potential customers.

I was active in managing and promoting the trade assoc. in my industry, regionally, and on a state level. I was an officer in the local assoc. and a delegate to the state assoc. I helped draft lobbying strategies and met with the lobbyist for our state assoc. to isolate and plan "pitches" for "make or break issues. On a local level, I shared cost and pricing info and business strategy with competitiors who were fellow trade association members, to successfully educate craftsmen turned business owners about the economics of their businesses, and the importance of offering guarantees to customers and fair wages and benefits to employees to influence "realistic" pricing, across the local industry.

Competitors who were non-members, were often encouraged to join our trade association. If seven years is enough of a measure of successfully lowering costs and maintaining the value of wages and benefits to workers, in a period of declining and or static revenues and profits, I succeeded without "help from the government". Taxes, licensing fees, accounting fees for the business and it's pension plans, increasing government regulation and health care costs all were aggravating, but they were equal challenges for all "top tier" competitors, as well. My business was located in a high cost, highly regulated state, but that also meant access to a pool of higher income customers, an above average population concentration, and a large pool of potentially educated and qualified workers.

None of what I experienced influenced me to be "more conservative or libertarian." I am still bitter, though, about the "Harry and Louise" "hit job" by big insurance and partisan republicans who derailed the Clinton "health reform" plan. All of the small business owners who I knew then, who were burdened by the high cost of company paid employee health benefits, were disappointed by the propaganda "blitz" that permanently shifted the profit advantage to competitors who paid little or no employee health benefits, in 1993....and since.

Charlatan · 10-01-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you.

Wow. Generalize much?

People don't wish to play your simplistic scenario and you jump to conclusions that support your assumptions.

Nice.

docbungle · 10-01-2006, 03:39 PM

This thread should have been titled: "How does ace view liberals?" Then you could have just answered your own question in post number 2, instead of dragging it out to number 43.

A lot of pointless posting and thought could have been better spent on other things.

boatin · 10-01-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What I have difficulty with is the notion that a corporation is often considered "bad" when the corporation does what it need to do to survive.

If a corporation does anything it needs to survive, is that action justified? Is survival of the corporation the only goal?

I worked for 10 years (long ago) managing retail branches. My branches were always the most profitable branches in my region, and I always paid a higher hourly wage than my peer managers. I was often encouraged to cut back on my labor costs so that I could be more profitable.

Many could not see the obvious: I was more profitable because of my kick-ass staff. And they kicked much ass because they wanted to be there and they made more dinero.

I generally handle labor issues by treating my people better, and raising the expectations of their performance. Everyone tends to win that way.

My girlfriend owns two business that are the most successful in her field in the state of Oregon. Successful defined as volume of sales and profit. I would say they are the most successful because everyone enjoys working for her AND because they are profitable. She pays significantly more than her competitors.

Your model is silly, and the conclusions you draw about liberals because of it sillier. Although I'd guess you started with those conclusions, didn't you?

Oh, and people would consider us both liberal.

rofgilead · 10-01-2006, 04:32 PM

I would make a better quality product or newer technology that I can sell for 50 times what the competitor sells his. Example - Taxol sells so cheap now generically, so reformulate it in by adding BSA to the drug. Sell it for 50 times what the generic is under your new patent.

aceventura3 · 10-01-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wow. Generalize much?

People don't wish to play your simplistic scenario and you jump to conclusions that support your assumptions.

Nice.

Yes, I am guilty of generalizing.

I started with an open-ended question and followed with some open-ended questions. I started with a belief on how people would respond, but I was willing to go with the flow and looked forward to an interesting discussion and perhaps gaining some insight. I gained no insight. My original beliefs were confirmed.

When the model was questioned, I asked how anyone would make it better. The response was more of the same.

I defended the model, there was no response to the defense other than some saying what was said prior.

I questioned why would someone respond to the "incoherent" (I would generalize to include overly simplistic, or that which is a waste of time, maybe you would not, but I would) and I got more of the same.

There were a couple of thoughtful responses. However, I believe my conclusions are correct or I am totally confused and not able to understand what I have been reading. I sure you can guess what I think about that.

I am disappointed that people did not want to "play", but by not playing and giving reasons, you, me or any reader can certainly draw conclusions, which I did, about those reasons. We could have been talking about an hot dog stand or general motors. I could have given days worth of reading material about the specific business environment and you folks want me to believe that would have lead to better responses? That thought makes me laugh

Elphaba · 10-01-2006, 05:30 PM

Ace, I have to question either your honesty or your ability to see a solution that doesn't correspond to your preconceived notions. Many of the participants in this topic proffered ideas to a competitor threat that didn't fit your OP constraints or your expectations. I would suggest that you were the one that was unwilling to "play" once we stepped outside of where you hoped to lead us.

One case in point that you chose to ignore (and there are many others):

Quote:

The OP insists that only two choices exist, and as some have already pointed out is a false assumption. Even a "widget" identical in every way to the competitor's discounted "widget" has the potential for product differentiation.

Ace, the act of reducing employee expenses in either pay or benefits has the unintended consequence of high turnover. Turnover is extremely costly to a business, and poorly trained employees create poorly made "widgets." The higher priced "widget" maker capitalizes on this mistake.

ratbastid · 10-01-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Would you cut wages/benefits across the board, or target certain employees? Do you ask for government assistance? Do you move operations where costs are lower? Do you require employees to do more? Do you make charges against your competition? Do you do the same thing that "big business" does all the time that makes them "bad"?

How do you fire someone with sensitivity? Does that mean you give them flowers, buy 'em dinner and say its me and not you, before you fire them? Or, do you simply tell them the truth?

I can't give you a "how-to" about this. You treat them like human beings, not like pawns on a business-oriented chessboard.

Quote:

P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you.

Great. Welcome to the quicksand. Congratulations on trapping me into proving that liberals are idiots. Remind me to ignore any future liberal-baiting threads you start.

Incidentally, I deeply pity you for the limitations of your imagination. Hope life works out for you in your black-and-white view of things. Have fun proving that life is how you already think it is.

Willravel · 10-01-2006, 05:45 PM

Ace, please don't have the same failings as Ustwo in his thread. Read all the responses (espically mine!!). I posted in #10, then in #12.

pan6467 · 10-01-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Pan's business failed.

Excuse me???????

My business did not fail because of how I ran it, and my post made that point perfectly clear.

Why it failed was I allowed my addiction to become more important. When I closed my doors I was still kicking my competition's asses. I was still making the sales, I just wasn't there and I was devoting all my time and money to gambling.

So unless you know something I don't, I'd like to know how my business failed because of the way I ran it.

It didn't fail because of how I ran it, I take great pride in how I built the business up, so don't go there with me.

I'd like to see you take something that makes $1,000-$1,500/week and in 3 months increase sales to $10,000/week and hold them there, and be totally debt free. I was and am that damned good when I choose to be.

But then again you're doing the Right Winged defensive actions right now. You can't defend anything so you ask people a question and just pick and choose what you choose to answer. It's ok Ace, it's becoming quite the nice little technique for you Neo-Cons here on TFP.

Unlike some on here who want people to believe they are intelligent, multi-degreed professionals that seem to post more than they could possibly work their jobs, and skirt any issues of proving anything they say...... I can provide proof, people, dates, newspaper articles, Dean's Listings, my CDCA Certificate, and so on, and prove anything I say about myself, but then I expect those people who challenge me to come forth with their proof.

I simply answered YOUR question, you chose to take only what you wanted as an answer.

aceventura3 · 10-02-2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

One case in point that you chose to ignore (and there are many others):

The OP did not restrict the choices to just two. I agree that products can be differentiated. When a poster presented that point - I then asked, how do you do that when you have no profits to work with and no money going into R&D. I got no response, or I did not see the response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Excuse me???????

My business did not fail because of how I ran it, and my post made that point perfectly clear.

In your post you said that you choose to hire people that would "steal you blind". Isn't that an operational business decision. People can run successful businesses and not be involved in the day to day operations, so even if you chose not to be there, your business______ (fill in the blank with the proper word) because of the way you ran it.

Charlatan · 10-02-2006, 07:13 AM

Ace, I would be more than willing to reduce my staffing costs by either laying off staff or lowing wages (if that were possible -- in the case of minimum wage, I am already in the basement).

However, this would not be my first choice. I would trust that, as a smart businessperson, I am not relying solely on one product.

Just as I would never hold my business over a barrel by putting all of my faith in one key employee (redundancy is important), I would take the same approach to my products (diversification).

I would get creative with my marketing (how do you think the marketplace manages to support such diversity? Why do we have more than one brand of toothpaste? The only real difference is marketing).

I would explore other markets and other products.

I would source new suppliers. I would outsource labour, where possible.

...and so on.

In other words, there are MANY things that can be done to save a failing business, or to build a successful one. ONE of these things is cutting labour costs (either through attrition, layoffs or low wages).

Anyone so myopic as to focus on just one solution deserves to go out of business.

aceventura3 · 10-02-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ace, please don't have the same failings as Ustwo in his thread. Read all the responses (espically mine!!). I posted in #10, then in #12.

I re-read your response, I have gotten more caught up in other issues rather than following up with your response. Also I see that you did respond the the product differentiation question. I agree with you that over the short-run a business owner can make a differance. However, over the long-run I think you need profits and the ability to re-invest in the business for it to thrive over the long-run

pan6467 · 10-02-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In your post you said that you choose to hire people that would "steal you blind". Isn't that an operational business decision. People can run successful businesses and not be involved in the day to day operations, so even if you chose not to be there, your business______ (fill in the blank with the proper word) because of the way you ran it.

Yes, I did. When the person running the business cares little and is taking all the money he can out to go gamble. Then the "good" employees aren't going to stay with a sinking ship. So they leave and you end up surrounding yourself with people who won't lecture, who don't give a damn what you do, and you believe that is ok. I know I did that. I pushed everyone out that told me I was fucking up my life and put in people who didn't give a rat's ass. They saw me as someone they could take advantage of because I didn't care.

Yes, there are a lot of people that can run successful businesses and not be there. But they hire the right people. I had the right people and it would have done well with them. But as stated, I pushed them out.

When you see your "owner" coming in and taking every penny out of the bank account and register on Thursday. Then going to Casino Windsor or Paradise Riverboat (Peoria, Ill.) and coming back broke Monday and yelling at the staff for not making more (even though sales were steady), you are not going to be there. You know the owner doesn't care and the business is going to die. Good employees left, bad employees that knew it was a sinking ship came in and I didn't care.

So, it wasn't business philosophy of "I paid my workers too much" or "I was too liberal with my workers"....... It was I didn't feel challenged anymore and I just didn't give a rat's ass. And the people I hired that did care, I made damn sure I kicked them away so I could practice my addiction.

Had I not kicked people away, had I stayed true to my vision and got the help for my addiction before I self destructed..... I would have continued growing and probably would still be open with more stores, paying the best wages possible, maintaining the quality standards I had and still making good money for myself.

In the end it wasn't "I failed", in the end it was a life experience I had to go through to learn from.

aceventura3 · 10-02-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

In the end it wasn't "I failed", in the end it was a life experience I had to go through to learn from.

Why is the "F" word so difficult. I have failed in three business ventures, and have had one success. I am batting .250. In my corporate career after college, I worked for one company that went bankrupt. I was laid-off from another, and had a successful run at a third. In the corporate world I am batting .333. I like the Babe's point of view - "just keep on swinging".

pan6467 · 10-02-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why is the "F" word so difficult. I have failed in three business ventures, and have had one success. I am batting .250. In my corporate career after college, I worked for one company that went bankrupt. I was laid-off from another, and had a successful run at a third. In the corporate world I am batting .333. I like the Babe's point of view - "just keep on swinging".

To me, I didn't fail, my business definately did not fail. I fucked up. Failure is trying and not succeeding but having the desire to try again until you succeed.... at the end there was no trying. I fucked up.

But by all means keep threadjacking your own OP and keep it off target by singling me out and trying the personal attacks, that have nothing to do with "How Liberals View Business". I answered, you chose to try to make the answer something you want.

ratbastid · 10-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

TBut by all means keep threadjacking your own OP and keep it off target by singling me out and trying the personal attacks, that have nothing to do with "How Liberals View Business". I answered, you chose to try to make the answer something you want.

Yeah, well, he has an answer he wants, and your story is going to fit into it, no matter what the facts are. What's made this thread impossible is that it's not a thread, it's a talking point framed as a question.

aceventura3 · 10-02-2006, 10:27 AM

Listen very carefully, or read very carefully - The point of the OP was for me to get a better understand of how "Liberals view business". I concluded among other things that Liberals live in a world of denial. When I fail, I say I fail. When a liberal fails, he says he didn't fail, the business didn't fail but that he f'd up. What is that all about?!? I will tell you - denial. I am not trying to make this personal, but Pan volunteered the information and I am going on what was shared and nothing else, other than me making my conclusion.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I concluded among other things that Liberals live in a world of denial. .... I will tell you - denial.

I thought de nial was a river in Africa

ratbastid · 10-02-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Listen very carefully, or read very carefully - The point of the OP was for me to get a better understand of how "Liberals view business".

From everything you've posted since the OP, I doubt that very, very much. You weren't interested in a better understanding of anything--you had an agenda and a point to make, and to hell with anybody's success or life, you were going to use the answers you got to make that point. In your sad little world, liberals (whatever the hell that even means) are automatically wrong, so the point of this thread was to figure out exactly what flavor of wrong they are with regard to business.

Is it even slightly conceivable that you might have "learned" from this thread that liberals are responsible business people whose business strategy operates from a strong social conscience? No, you'd never "learn" that, because that doesn't fit your existing view or the agenda you posted to push. Or if you did see that, you'd call it a weakness.

You fabricated an artificially narrow straw-man question, and then when people answered it as if it were a real-world question, you accused them of dodging the question. Then when people started answering the question your agenda required them to answer, you used that to generalize and score points on liberals across the board.

THEN when you've got somebody telling the honest truth about how he messed himself up, you use THAT to score MORE general, broad, sweeping points on your personal political boogie-men. pan's business was successful--then his addiction killed it. It's like if I've got a clock that's running perfectly, keeping perfectly good time, and I accidentally smash it with a hammer, that's not because the clock was somehow faulty or that my maintenance and stewardship of the clock was insufficient. Something external to my management of the clock killed the clock--waving the hammer around was probably a mistake, and probably broke things aside from the clock, but that doesn't make me a bad clock haver. But you turn that into "Why can't liberals admit their clocks don't work? They won't admit that they fail to have working clocks!"

I'm actually very deeply offended by how you turned the story of pan's addiction into a broad brush to tar all those who disagree with you. You should be ashamed of yourself. That was a human being telling the truth about his life--it doesn't happen often in this world and I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you shit on it.

You have demonstrated zero interest in learning in this thread. There has been zero acceptance or compassion or even tolerance for other human beings. You have provided zero thinking or logic. This entire thread has been a waste of database space, and I'm done with it.

Ustwo · 10-02-2006, 12:12 PM

First lets not confuse liberal and socialist, thats a mistake when it comes to business. While many liberals are socialists, its not fair to look at how a socialist views a business vrs a social liberal.

From my experience, knowing social liberals, they tend to run a business pretty much the same as any conservative. I think, based on what I've seen, they are slower to fire incompetent employees, but interestingly seem to pay less well than the conservative owners. This is based on a sample size of about 5 so really has no validity beyond personal experience.

I suppose how liberals 'view' business may be different, but in the end they have to pay the bills and keep the good people the same as any business owner and as such politics tend to disappear. Using recycled paper or 'fair trade' coffee doesn't make much of a difference in the end, and the tough decisions won't vary to much.

boatin · 10-02-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

From my experience, knowing social liberals, they tend to run a business pretty much the same as any conservative. I think, based on what I've seen, they are slower to fire incompetent employees, but interestingly seem to pay less well than the conservative owners. This is based on a sample size of about 5 so really has no validity beyond personal experience.

The ability to fire imcompentence has nothing to do with politics, only the ability to recognize performance and act accordingly. And the social liberals that I know (me, girlfriend, other friends) all tend to pay more then our peer businesses. I suspect owners that want to succeed know the value of labor and pay accordingly. Again, nothing to do with politics.

But I'm sure we can fit these type of decisions into political logic if we try hard enough!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What I have difficulty with is the notion that a corporation is often considered "bad" when the corporation does what it need to do to survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

If a corporation does anything it needs to survive, is that action justified? Is survival of the corporation the only goal?

Ace, I'd like your answer to the question I posed earlier. Any limitations you'd put actions corporations take?

flstf · 10-02-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Ace, I'd like your answer to the question I posed earlier. Any limitations you'd put actions corporations take?

I'd like to take a shot at this in regards to large businesses if you don't mind.

Any business that contributes more than a few hundred bucks to any polititian or political party is not elligible for government contracts. As well as any business that hires or has contracts with any member of a polititian's extended family.

I'd like to see rules against businesses using their bought and paid for polititians to influence federal agencies like the IRS and EPA, etc.. to go after their competitors and go easy on themselves but cannot figure out how to enforce it.

boatin · 10-02-2006, 03:34 PM

Heh, I just saw the closed thread that filtherton started. Too heavy handed, perhaps, but funny in comparison...

edit: and of course the conservative implications are far more worth shutting a thread down than the implication that liberals are mushy-headed

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 06:13 PM

Having never been an entrepreneur, I had no personal experience or knowledge to bring to this discussion.

But I did find this real world comparison, based on a Business Week study, between Costco and Walmart's Sam's Club to make a reasonable argument that you dont have to pay low wages compared to your competitor to survive and thrive:

Quote:

The market's view of Costco speaks volumes about the so-called Wal-Martization of the U.S. economy. True, the Bentonville (Ark.) retailer has taken a public-relations pounding recently for paying poverty-level wages and shouldering health insurance for fewer than half of its 1.2 million U.S. workers. Still, it remains the darling of the Street, which, like Wal-Mart and many other companies, believes that shareholders are best served if employers do all they can to hold down costs, including the cost of labor.

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

Bottom line: Costco pulled in $13,647 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee last year, vs. $11,039 at Sam's. Over the past five years, Costco's operating income grew at an average of 10.1% annually, slightly besting Sam's 9.8%. Most of Wall Street doesn't see the broader picture, though, and only focuses on the up-front savings Costco would gain if it paid workers less. But a few analysts concede that Costco suffers from the Street's bias toward the low-wage model. "Costco deserves a little more credit than it has been getting lately, [since] it's one of the most productive companies in the industry," says Citigroup/Smith Barney retail analyst Deborah Weinswig. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says that Sam's pays competitively with Costco when all factors are considered, such as promotion opportunities.

The larger question here is which model of competition will predominate in the U.S. Costco isn't alone; some companies, even ones like New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc. that face cheap imports from China, have been able to compete by finding ways to lift productivity instead of cutting pay. But most executives find it easier to go the Wal-Mart route, even if shareholders fare just as well either way over the long run.

Yet the cheap-labor model turns out to be costly in many ways. It can fuel poverty and related social ills and dump costs on other companies and taxpayers, who indirectly pick up the health-care tab for all the workers not insured by their parsimonious employers. What's more, the low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and, potentially, economic growth. "You can't have every company adopt a Wal-Mart strategy. It isn't sustainable," says Rutgers University management professor Eileen Appelbaum, who in 2003 edited a vast study by 38 academics that found employers taking the high road in dozens of industries.

Given Costco's performance, the question for Wall Street shouldn't be why Costco isn't more like Wal-Mart. Rather, why can't Wal-Mart deliver high shareholder returns and high living standards for its workforce? Says Costco CEO James D. Sinegal: "Paying your employees well is not only the right thing to do but it makes for good business."

Look at how Costco pulls it off. Although Sam's $11.52 hourly average wage for full-timers tops the $9.64 earned by a typical Wal-Mart worker, it's still nearly 40% less than Costco's $15.97. Costco also shells out thousands more a year for workers' health and retirement and includes more of them in its health care, 401(k), and profit-sharing plans. "They take a very pro-employee attitude," says Rome Aloise, chief Costco negotiator for the Teamsters, which represents 14,000 Costco workers.

In return for all this generosity, Costco gets one of the most productive and loyal workforces in all of retailing. Only 6% of employees leave after the first year, compared with 21% at Sam's. That saves tons, since Wal-Mart says it costs $2,500 per worker just to test, interview, and train a new hire. Costco's motivated employees also sell more: $795 of sales per square foot, vs. only $516 at Sam's and $411 at BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. (BJ ), its other primary club rival. "Employees are willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done," says Julie Molina, a 17-year Costco worker in South San Francisco, Calif., who makes $17.82 an hour, plus bonuses.

Costco's productive workforce more than offsets the higher expense. Its labor and overhead tab, also called its selling, general, and administrative costs (SG&A), total just 9.8% of revenue. While Wal-Mart declines to break out Sam's SG&A, it's likely higher than Costco's but lower than Wal-Mart's 17%. At Target (TGT ), it's 24%. "Paying higher wages translates into more efficiency," says Costco Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti.

Of course, it's by no means as simple as that sounds, and management has to hustle to make the high-wage strategy work. It's constantly looking for ways to repackage goods into bulk items, which reduces labor, speeds up Costco's just-in-time inventory and distribution system, and boosts sales per square foot. Costco is also savvier than Sam's and BJ's about catering to small shop owners and more affluent customers, who are more likely to buy in bulk and purchase higher-margin goods. Neither rival has been able to match Costco's innovative packaging or merchandising mix, either. Costco was the first wholesale club to offer fresh meat, pharmacies, and photo labs.

Wal-Mart defenders often focus on the undeniable benefits its low prices bring consumers, while ignoring the damage it does to U.S. wages. Costco shows that with enough smarts, companies can help consumers and workers alike.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8084_mz021.htm

By my responding to Ace in this manner, will this thread disappear as well?

flstf · 10-02-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

Interesting Article. So Sam's could adopt Costco's smarter business strategy and layoff 30,000 of it's workers, pay the remaining another $4 an hour and generate the same amount of sales as Costco does with the reduced workforce. This appears to be good for the company, good for the workers who still have jobs, tough for the 30,000 out of work.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 08:13 PM

Or maybe if Sam paid more, he would have less turnover and more productive employees. And all 102,000 would make a more livable wage, Sam would make greater profits, the local economy would benefit and it would be a win-win-win

pan6467 · 10-02-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Listen very carefully, or read very carefully - The point of the OP was for me to get a better understand of how "Liberals view business". I concluded among other things that Liberals live in a world of denial. When I fail, I say I fail. When a liberal fails, he says he didn't fail, the business didn't fail but that he f'd up. What is that all about?!? I will tell you - denial. I am not trying to make this personal, but Pan volunteered the information and I am going on what was shared and nothing else, other than me making my conclusion.

But I thought conservatives appreciated more self responsibility.

I was accepting the responsibility for self destructing and taking my business down with me.

I guess the response a "conservative" would like to hear is...... my business failed because I paid my employees too much and showed them too much respect.

Is that what you want to hear Ace????? Please tell me so I can say exactly what you want to hear. I stated the truth, my business ran fine with high wages, treating employees like family and giving what the consumer wanted. It was my shortcomings that caused me to fuck up the business (and as stated above failing is trying.... I wasn't trying I didn't give a damn... hence I fucked up, the business didn't "fail"), not my philosophy or how I ran it.

Quick edit/add on: The reason I post and am being so forthright about all this, isn't for vindication of my beliefs or any self righteous motive, actually, I am finding it very therapeutic for myself to get out all this garbage and gunk and be able to talk about it. For this I thank Ace, the pushing has reinforced and reminded me how bad I was once and how thankful I am that I have found my niche, my sanity, myself and my recovery.

flstf · 10-03-2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Or maybe if Sam paid more, he would have less turnover and more productive employees. And all 102,000 would make a more livable wage, Sam would make greater profits, the local economy would benefit and it would be a win-win-win

Having been a worker all my life, I like the idea of workers making more money and being more productive, but the numbers have to add up.

There would be some savings due to less turnover and more productivity but the only way this will work is if the 102,000 higher paid workers result in billions of more dollars in sales.

Put another way, why doesn't Costco employ another 30,000 well paid more productive workers and match Sam's 102,000. I think it is probably because an additional 15 billion or so in sales required to do this are just not there in the retail market.

Charlatan · 10-03-2006, 05:19 AM

The answer flstf is, yes. Sam's should raise their wages and lay off the excess staff.

boatin · 10-03-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The answer flstf is, yes. Sam's should raise their wages and lay off the excess staff.

There are lots of reasons for this, but the base of it (to me) is the same reason we don't pay people to make buggy whips anymore. Better to raise the level of pay/expectations/quality for customers than to live in mediocrity.

But maybe that's a thought unique to a liberal?

ratbastid · 10-03-2006, 08:46 AM

Well, I know I said I was through with this thread, but it just got interesting with this CostCo/Sam's Club business.

You can't compare apples and oranges here. Sam's (and for damnsure WalMart as a whole) is a lot bigger than CostCo. So saying, "What should they do, fire down to CostCo levels?", or "But WalMart would go broke if they tried to pay ALL their employees that much!" misses the point.

It's true that WalMart/Sams Club are so deeply entrenched in the low-labor, low-cost approach that there's no way out short of a massive corporate overhaul, which won't happen. The point of the article isn't to give Sam's advice. The point is that a worker-centric approach that treats people generously is the more advantageous business strategy, as demonstrated by the contrast between Sam's Club and CostCo.

aceventura3 · 10-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

From everything you've posted since the OP, I doubt that very, very much. You weren't interested in a better understanding of anything--you had an agenda and a point to make,

I did have an agenda, and a point to make but I was open to go with the flow of the discussion and learn. I did go with the flow, and I have participated in responding to what you and others presented.

Quote:

and to hell with anybody's success or life, you were going to use the answers you got to make that point.

Partially true. The responses speak for themselves. the points you take from the thread are different from the ones I take. I don't have the power nor am I that smart to prove anything in theoretical discussions.

Quote:

In your sad little world, liberals (whatever the hell that even means) are automatically wrong, so the point of this thread was to figure out exactly what flavor of wrong they are with regard to business.

I see things different than you and many others. I am willing to explore those differences. I am willing to defend my position, I am willing to expose how I think and come to conclusions, I am willing to be challenged. You may not believe that, but that's o.k.

Quote:

Is it even slightly conceivable that you might have "learned" from this thread that liberals are responsible business people whose business strategy operates from a strong social conscience?

I remember doing a study of Ben and Jerry's Icecream. I thought their business model was an excellent example of a combination of a corproation making money and being socially responsible. then they sold the business.

Quote:

No, you'd never "learn" that, because that doesn't fit your existing view or the agenda you posted to push. Or if you did see that, you'd call it a weakness.

I am begining to feel like I am being scolded, and that I am a bad person. Is this generally how one should respond to someone who has a differnt point of view than you. What exactly did I do that was wrong?

Quote:

You fabricated an artificially narrow straw-man question, and then when people answered it as if it were a real-world question, you accused them of dodging the question. Then when people started answering the question your agenda required them to answer, you used that to generalize and score points on liberals across the board.

I have not scored any points. I am not sure what you mean by that. Yes, the OP was artificially narrow, but I thought I explained that. And, the OP was simplified but it is reflective of real business problems and some of the variables business people struggle with.

Quote:

THEN when you've got somebody telling the honest truth about how he messed himself up, you use THAT to score MORE general, broad, sweeping points on your personal political boogie-men. pan's business was successful--then his addiction killed it. It's like if I've got a clock that's running perfectly, keeping perfectly good time, and I accidentally smash it with a hammer, that's not because the clock was somehow faulty or that my maintenance and stewardship of the clock was insufficient. Something external to my management of the clock killed the clock--waving the hammer around was probably a mistake, and probably broke things aside from the clock, but that doesn't make me a bad clock haver. But you turn that into "Why can't liberals admit their clocks don't work? They won't admit that they fail to have working clocks!"

I'm actually very deeply offended by how you turned the story of pan's addiction into a broad brush to tar all those who disagree with you. You should be ashamed of yourself. That was a human being telling the truth about his life--it doesn't happen often in this world and I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you shit on it.

I apologize to Pan, you and anyone else I offended.

Quote:

You have demonstrated zero interest in learning in this thread. There has been zero acceptance or compassion or even tolerance for other human beings. You have provided zero thinking or logic. This entire thread has been a waste of database space, and I'm done with it.

Hyperbole? Or, are you guilty of what you accuse me of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Having never been an entrepreneur, I had no personal experience or knowledge to bring to this discussion.

But I did find this real world comparison, based on a Business Week study, between Costco and Walmart's Sam's Club to make a reasonable argument that you dont have to pay low wages compared to your competitor to survive and thrive:

By my responding to Ace in this manner, will this thread disappear as well?

I appreciate you sharing this article.

I shop at Costco regullarly I was in a Sam's Club once, did not like it and I rarely shop at walmart. I think the beauty in competetive markets is illustrated in the article. I don't think Sam's or Walmart's business model is deserving of the labels often given. People can choose where they work and they can choose where they shop. Land owners can choose who they sell their land to. In the long-run I honestly believe the higher productivity at Costco will win the day. But understand, I am basing my opinion on productivity. Costco pays more, but they get more from every dollar spent.

Jinn · 10-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

I did have an agenda, and a point to make but I was open to go with the flow of the discussion and learn. I did go with the flow, and I have participated in responding to what you and others presented.

Despite your protests to the contrary, you didn't start this thread to learn. I've read about 15 different "solutions" that didn't involve cutting labor, but that's not acceptable.

You didn't post your solution because you WANTED to bait people into avoiding labor reduction. "Look at those silly liberals.. they won't even fire people to save the sinking ship."

If you really wanted to "learn," you'd deign that your presentation is flawed and that forcing labor reductions is an artifical construction. But you won't -- we're just denying your perfect little situation, huh?

Is it possible to reduce costs without laying off people? Yes.

In a way, you've had your point backfire in your face. You hoped to prove that corporations weren't "bad" simply because they fired people, and constructed a situation where you thought it was the only option. Unfortunately, people came with ways to avoid laying people off - liberals, nonetheless. Wait, wouldn't that mean that laying people off wasn't the only solution? OH NOES!~

pan6467 · 10-03-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Quote:

THEN when you've got somebody telling the honest truth about how he messed himself up, you use THAT to score MORE general, broad, sweeping points on your personal political boogie-men. pan's business was successful--then his addiction killed it. It's like if I've got a clock that's running perfectly, keeping perfectly good time, and I accidentally smash it with a hammer, that's not because the clock was somehow faulty or that my maintenance and stewardship of the clock was insufficient. Something external to my management of the clock killed the clock--waving the hammer around was probably a mistake, and probably broke things aside from the clock, but that doesn't make me a bad clock haver. But you turn that into "Why can't liberals admit their clocks don't work? They won't admit that they fail to have working clocks!"

I'm actually very deeply offended by how you turned the story of pan's addiction into a broad brush to tar all those who disagree with you. You should be ashamed of yourself. That was a human being telling the truth about his life--it doesn't happen often in this world and I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you shit on it.

I apologize to Pan, you and anyone else I offended.

I appreciate the defense and great analogy.

Ace, I accept your appology, as I stated the more I posted here the more therapeutic it became for me.

Seems we both learned something in this thread.

I learned how much crap I was carrying over all this and hadn't truly came to terms or resolved it. I think posting the issue in public and having been pushed to truly admit what I did to myself, my business and my employees helped me come to a closure, or at least the start of a closure and allow a healing process to begin.

You may have learned that Liberal business owners are good and their philosophies work as well as conservative.

Or perhaps, that when you want a certain answer, you will dig to find it, regardless of what is being said you'll only see what you want..... we all do that I am very guilty of it.

Or maybe you didn't learn anything but what you wanted to.

Either way, again, this thread for me proved to be the most therapeutic experience I have had in awhile.

aceventura3 · 10-03-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Despite your protests to the contrary, you didn't start this thread to learn. I've read about 15 different "solutions" that didn't involve cutting labor, and that's exactly what you wanted.

Please be advised before reading further, Ace is about to come to another conclusion.

Instead of a focus on what is stated, it appears that generally people who disagree with me are more interested in trying to anticipate my intent, and think they have the ability to read minds.

Quote:

You didn't post your solution because you WANTED to bait people into avoiding labor reduction. "Look at those silly liberals.. they won't even fire people to save the sinking ship."

I am not sure anyone ever expressed interest in my "solution".

On what basis are you saying I have baited people? How do you bait people with open-ended questions to a simplistic scenerio? I am interested an how liberals explain crticism of business when a business relocates operations to lower cost areas when the liberal would do the same given the same information. that question is not baiting, in my view it is very direct. If I got an answer, it would be informative, and worth the effort.

Quote:

If you really wanted to "learn," you'd deign that your presentation is flawed and that forcing labor reductions is an artifical construction. But you won't -- we're just denying your perfect little situation, huh?

Yes many have said the Op scerio is flawed. I acknowledge its limitations. I have even asked how to make it better. I think I have asked several times. If I have missed the answer please let me know.

Jinn · 10-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Instead of a focus on what is stated, it appears that generally people who disagree with me are more interested in trying to anticipate my intent, and think they have the ability to read minds.

I didn't have to "antipicate" anything - you said it plainly in your own posts.

To give you a digest:

The OP:

Quote:

Let's say you have a solid well run business with the following cost structure for a product that you sell for $100.

50% is cost of materials and overhead.
40% is the cost of labor.
10% is profit of which 5% you reinvest (Capital improvement, R&D, etc.)

A new competitor enters the market, selling the same product you sell for $85.

You can reduce the cost of materials and overhead by 5% right away by re-negotiating contracts with suppiers and vendors and going on a cost savings program.

In the first year you are willing to sacrifice profits ( and your reinvestment) to make up the 15% difference. and you lower your price to $85 to meet the competition.

In the second year your competiton lowers their price to $80. You can not lower your overhead any further, in fact inflation is going to make any future savings almost impossible. You have already lost one year of profits and sacrificed one year of re-investment in the business.

What do you do?

Offered Solutions
Paradise Lost; stop selling the product
Ratbastid: Reposition your product, differentiation in services or features
Infinite_Loser: Cut Labor, raise R&D
Host: Convince the Gov't to buy my product at a fixed price

None of these require labor limitations, and effectively answer "What do you do?"

At this point it didn't seem like you were satisified. Perhaps I was mistaken, but you seem to want to narrow the scope more; you ask "Would anyone cut labor costs" ?

Replies
Willravel: Yes, but at a last resort. Diversification should have been part of my business plan from the beginning.

Still not what you'd hoped? Introduce another stipulation: 'Your employees want at least a cost of living wage increase, what do you do?'

Surely now we'll admit that cutting labor is a necessity of business.

Replies
Willravel notes that your situation seems to be setup so that competition is no longer possible.
Charlatan notes that the situation is too vague: business sector, products, employee base would cause a huge variability in the possible decisions.
Dilbert suggests thugs.
ASU2003 suggests
(1) hope for the best
(2) wait them out
(3) expand or revitalize marketing plan
(4) replace labor with technology
(5) fire people

With the exception of ASU2003's 4 & 5, these are again all viable solutions to the OP, the first stipulation and the second stipulation. No one is "avoiding the situation" or "burying their head in the sand." They just refuse to accept that labor reduction should be the first and only choice.

At this point, you're still fixated. You finally come out with your REAL point for the OP:

"At some point, you have to address your labor costs if you want to stay in the market. " You suggest that every situation eventually leads to job loss.

Four or five replies that your situation is still too generic, too black-and-white to be realistic.

Pan offers his anecdote.

Ratbastid asserts, like others, that the situation is too black-and-white.

What I hope pan and I, and other liberal entreupeneurs have demonstrated is that there are a myriad approaches to having a business succeed while still treating the staff like human beings, and not like numbers on a general leder. It may take more creativity, but it's also more fun and more rewarding, and it's WAY better than mere survival."

At this point its time to ditch the OP entirely, because it hasn't baited the labor decision yet. Your new question;

"If you have to address labor costs, how do you do it?"

Ratbastid: with sensitivity

Johnny: Again, the situation artifically forces us to address labor.

Your response:

"P.S. - The point has been made. I fully understand the liberal approach to business - denial, rejection of potential problems, and the focus on trivial matters. I have a much better understanding of how great American companies started by hard driving conservative capitalist are driven to ruin when taken over by weak liberal "head in the sand" bureaucratic types. Thank you."

Blatant attack.

Boatin asks if we should even be concerned about corporation's survival.
Rofgilead: better quality, patent your product to force the competition out

More viable solutions.

Elphaba:
"Ace, I have to question either your honesty or your ability to see a solution that doesn't correspond to your preconceived notions."

Ratbastid: Still so black-and-white

Charlatan: New marketing, diversification, other markets, outsource labor

In short, the posts have focused on two things:

(a) your solution is far too vague and generic to be of any value. The market, the employment situation, the value of the company, the products being sold, and many other factors would drastically influence the decision.

(b) you appear to be baiting us, trying to convince us that eventually labor must be decreased in order to keep a business successful. I think the majority of respondents here would agree, but disagree that it must be the first and only choice, as you seem to purport.

You asked for a way to "fix" your OP, but I do not think it can be - the ethics and business decisions of a business are unique to that business, and cannot be genericized to the point that there is a universal right and wrong way to do things.

I really think your only way to 'fix' the OP is to do exactly what you find laughable:

Quote:

"I could have given days worth of reading material about the specific business environment and you folks want me to believe that would have lead to better responses? That thought makes me laugh"

Why? That's what the majority of respondents wanted. Fortunately and unfortunately, I think you'd find that we would all agree if you gave a very specific example of a real organization, in a recent time period, with a real product, and real budgetary information. No one wants to fire people, so I don't think you'd find any disagreement.

The only way we'll continue to disagree is if you continue to present this situation as a definitive case for "all business decisions eventually cause reductions in labor."

10-01-2006, 03:39 PM	#46 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	This thread should have been titled: "How does ace view liberals?" Then you could have just answered your own question in post number 2, instead of dragging it out to number 43. A lot of pointless posting and thought could have been better spent on other things. __________________ Bad Luck City

10-02-2006, 07:13 AM	#55 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ace, I would be more than willing to reduce my staffing costs by either laying off staff or lowing wages (if that were possible -- in the case of minimum wage, I am already in the basement). However, this would not be my first choice. I would trust that, as a smart businessperson, I am not relying solely on one product. Just as I would never hold my business over a barrel by putting all of my faith in one key employee (redundancy is important), I would take the same approach to my products (diversification). I would get creative with my marketing (how do you think the marketplace manages to support such diversity? Why do we have more than one brand of toothpaste? The only real difference is marketing). I would explore other markets and other products. I would source new suppliers. I would outsource labour, where possible. ...and so on. In other words, there are MANY things that can be done to save a failing business, or to build a successful one. ONE of these things is cutting labour costs (either through attrition, layoffs or low wages). Anyone so myopic as to focus on just one solution deserves to go out of business. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-02-2006, 10:27 AM	#61 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Listen very carefully, or read very carefully - The point of the OP was for me to get a better understand of how "Liberals view business". I concluded among other things that Liberals live in a world of denial. When I fail, I say I fail. When a liberal fails, he says he didn't fail, the business didn't fail but that he f'd up. What is that all about?!? I will tell you - denial. I am not trying to make this personal, but Pan volunteered the information and I am going on what was shared and nothing else, other than me making my conclusion. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-02-2006, 12:12 PM	#64 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	First lets not confuse liberal and socialist, thats a mistake when it comes to business. While many liberals are socialists, its not fair to look at how a socialist views a business vrs a social liberal. From my experience, knowing social liberals, they tend to run a business pretty much the same as any conservative. I think, based on what I've seen, they are slower to fire incompetent employees, but interestingly seem to pay less well than the conservative owners. This is based on a sample size of about 5 so really has no validity beyond personal experience. I suppose how liberals 'view' business may be different, but in the end they have to pay the bills and keep the good people the same as any business owner and as such politics tend to disappear. Using recycled paper or 'fair trade' coffee doesn't make much of a difference in the end, and the tough decisions won't vary to much. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-02-2006, 03:34 PM	#67 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Heh, I just saw the closed thread that filtherton started. Too heavy handed, perhaps, but funny in comparison... edit: and of course the conservative implications are far more worth shutting a thread down than the implication that liberals are mushy-headed Last edited by boatin; 10-02-2006 at 04:22 PM..

10-01-2006, 04:32 PM	#48 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	I would make a better quality product or newer technology that I can sell for 50 times what the competitor sells his. Example - Taxol sells so cheap now generically, so reformulate it in by adding BSA to the drug. Sell it for 50 times what the generic is under your new patent.

10-01-2006, 05:45 PM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ace, please don't have the same failings as Ustwo in his thread. Read all the responses (espically mine!!). I posted in #10, then in #12.

10-02-2006, 08:13 PM	#70 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Or maybe if Sam paid more, he would have less turnover and more productive employees. And all 102,000 would make a more livable wage, Sam would make greater profits, the local economy would benefit and it would be a win-win-win __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-03-2006, 05:19 AM	#73 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The answer flstf is, yes. Sam's should raise their wages and lay off the excess staff. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-03-2006, 08:46 AM	#75 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Well, I know I said I was through with this thread, but it just got interesting with this CostCo/Sam's Club business. You can't compare apples and oranges here. Sam's (and for damnsure WalMart as a whole) is a lot bigger than CostCo. So saying, "What should they do, fire down to CostCo levels?", or "But WalMart would go broke if they tried to pay ALL their employees that much!" misses the point. It's true that WalMart/Sams Club are so deeply entrenched in the low-labor, low-cost approach that there's no way out short of a massive corporate overhaul, which won't happen. The point of the article isn't to give Sam's advice. The point is that a worker-centric approach that treats people generously is the more advantageous business strategy, as demonstrated by the contrast between Sam's Club and CostCo.