Verizon wireless - Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Author

Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

John Navas

2006-04-11, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG. 1ea4efe3ccdec75398aa
3b@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006
23:43:19 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>If you are spending the time to read through some of the
>novels I recently posted in this thread (wouldn't blame
>you if you weren't) you would see that nowadays Wal-Mart
>actually views some forms of *welfare* as *labor
>competition*...! Talk about one to top them all..

Welfare does indeed disrupt the labor market, as both studies and welfare
reform have shown.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-04-20, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG. 1eb09349334086f79897
9b@News.Individual.Net> on Wed, 19 Apr 2006
19:35:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:37 GMT, in article <R8w1g.22873$az4.3717@bgtnsc04-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...
>
[color=darkred]
>
>Pretty damn outrageous that you are so willing to blame
>the worker and give the employer a pass. What on earth
>justifies immediately assuming that every single (for
>example) Walmart employee "can't qualify for a better
>paying job" or "won't get a better paying job"?!?!

They aren't being forced to work at WalMart -- if better jobs were available,
they would take them. There is no blame in what WalMart is doing.

>Is that what you as an employer would tell any employee
>coming to you asking for a raise - that they don't deserve
>it, and it's not your fault? How ridiculous.

Hardly. They would actually be told what the job paid, and would only take
the job if that wage was attractive to them. If and when they found better
jobs, then they would leave for them.

>
>If they can't find a job that pays them a wage that they
>can live on at a minimum level of health and safety, then
>I would argue that accepting financial aid while looking
>for a job that pays an actual living wage would be a much
>smarter course of action.

Financial aid (welfare) for not working is a disincentive, not a benefit, and
it's not a matter of looking for a job, it's a matter of upgrading skills so
that they can qualify for a better job, something that can and does happen
while working at WalMart.

>The problem in the USA is that people have been conditioned
>by-and-large to automatically view anyone on unemployment or
>federal assistance as lazy good-for-nothing slobs that don't
>really want to work. Apparently you're one of those people
>with that view.

This isn't about (limited) unemployment insurance, this is about welfare.
I actually view that people are demotivated by welfare, and that they (and
society) are much better off when they are working.

>
>When the vast majority of your competitors pay workers a
>substantially higher wage,

If that were true, then nobody would be working at WalMart.

>it is not a question of providing
>"entry level" (ie, lousy) jobs, it is a question of being
>competitive and paying a living wage.

It's patently obvious that WalMart is competitive, better than the available
alternatives, given that so many people *choose* to work at WalMart.

>I quite sincerely
>doubt that the reason most Walmart competitors pay a much
>higher wage is because they voluntarily want to minimize
>their profits.

That simply can't be true. If it were, then nobody would be working at
WalMart.

>Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that lazy slobs
>avoid applying for jobs at Walmart competitors because
>they know they aren't worth getting paid more.

If and when they can qualify for better jobs, then they will get them. When
they can't, then they are glad to get the jobs they can get.

You're in the awkward position of trying to explain away a reality you don't
like. Even though you don't like it, those workers clearly do. Being so
critical of their *choices* is elitist and arrogant.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Philip J. Koenig

2006-04-21, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:47:50 GMT, in article <aiM1g.25310$az4.15876@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...

> In <MPG. 1eb09349334086f79897
9b@News.Individual.Net> on Wed, 19 Apr 2006
> 19:35:23 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> They aren't being forced to work at WalMart -- if better jobs were available,
> they would take them. There is no blame in what WalMart is doing.

You directly contradict yourself because on the one hand
you try to claim simplistically that "if better jobs were
available they would take them", and then turn around and
try to claim that "most people don't want to better themselves
and therefore are happy (even grateful) with the crappy-paying
jobs Walmart offers".

What I have said is that Walmart has driven down wages
in the industry and geographical areas that they do
business in. This is a quantifiable fact. Whether you
want to call it "blame" or not is your business.

>
> Hardly. They would actually be told what the job paid, and
> would only take the job if that wage was attractive to them.

Please read what I wrote more carefully. I was not talking
about "hiring" someone, I was talking about "promoting" them.
Apparently if someone came to you asking for a raise, you
would be inclined to deny it based on the justificiation that
it is their societal and genetic destiny to have a low-paying
job the rest of their life and "it's not my fault" for not
wanting to give anyone a raise. I can just see you intoning:
"If you don't like it, take a hike, bub!".

>
> Financial aid (welfare) for not working is a disincentive,
> not a benefit,

What an amazingly simple world you appear to live in. I
personally know some people with a history of being very
diligent and productive, who found themselves on public
assistance simply because of unexpected health problems or
other factors beyond their control, and having something
to keep them alive while they worked-through these problems
was and is a critical service to help prevent people in
such a position from falling further into destitution.

I have my issues with how the system is conducted in the USA,
but to simplistically proclaim it is inevitably a "disincentive"
is ridiculous. I think you are poisoned by your WASP inclination
to assume that those on such programs are automatically lazy
good-for-nothing slobs.

> and it's not a matter of looking for a job, it's a matter of
> upgrading skills so that they can qualify for a better job,
> something that can and does happen while working at WalMart.

I would have great doubts that the best course of action for
someone looking to upgrade their skill-set in the job market
would be to go to work at Walmart at less-than-subsistence
wages and hope that they "learn" how to get a better job. For
one thing, it is not in Walmart's financial interest to train
people to find better employment, and we know how focused on
profit that company is.

>
> This isn't about (limited) unemployment insurance, this is about welfare.

Unemployment insurance assumes you have been working for a
significant period of time before it is of significant use.
Apparently I was right about your proclivity to view those
who are long-term unemployed or who have other work-related
challenges as lazy good-for-nothing slobs who should be sent
to a modern version of "the poorhouse". (or more likely just
to the street, to die)

> I actually view that people are demotivated by welfare, and that they (and
> society) are much better off when they are working.

Society theoretically is better off when everyone is working,
but no society that I am aware of has ever achieved this (unless
they re-defined the term), and to think that this is somehow
the goal is absurd. There will always be people at the fringes
of a society that are not conventionally or easily employable,
so the question becomes whether we just put them in the poorhouse
or send them to the street to die, or whether we try to train
them or otherwise find a place for them to live with a modicum
of health/safety. Unfortunately modern western culture has
moved away from familial support-systems and its capitalistic
architecture tends to emphasize individual rights and indulgences,
so this problem ends up more in the lap of the public institutions
to deal with rather than the family which used to play a larger
role here.

More importantly, I vigorously question the notion that those
that Walmart employs at less-than-subsistence wages are
"otherwise unemployable". I would argue that in the past, those
same employees would likely have found decent jobs that paid
them a living wage, and what has changed here is not the level
of "otherwise unemployable" workers, but simply the inclination
by some companies to not pay decent workers a decent wage.

>
> If that were true, then nobody would be working at WalMart.

You sure do come up with some bizarre reasoning. The facts
speak for themselves. (ie: you're wrong)

>
> It's patently obvious that WalMart is competitive, better than the available
> alternatives, given that so many people *choose* to work at WalMart.

When there is only 1 alternative, people aren't "choosing"
any more than I am "choosing" to have the water in my house
supplied by the single entity that is capable of doing so
where I live. Walmart may not be "the only" employer in an
area, but their size and economic power places them in an
increasing position of dominance in the labor market as well
as in other markets, and as such they have a very substantial
impact on such things as what kinds of jobs are available in
a given geographical area.

>
> That simply can't be true. If it were, then nobody would be working at
> WalMart.

Pull your head out of the sand, John.

> You're in the awkward position of trying to explain away
> a reality you don't like.

PKB.

--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *

LinkBot