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

2006-04-12, 11:48 pm

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

In <MPG. 1ea70be1e6dedb8d9897
81@News.Individual.Net> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006
14:07:14 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:50:01 GMT, in article <JLT_f.10444$YT1.811@bgtnsc04-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...
>
>
>For what definition of "disrupt"?
>
>I think it's safe to say that welfare only becomes a "competitor"
>when you are a bottom-feeder like Walmart who cannot seem to
>understand the importance of paying a living-wage.

Better they be on welfare than working? How nice. Not.

Walmart is clearly attractive to the many that apply for jobs there and then
work there. Had they a better alternative, then they would take it.
Criticizing Walmart for this is simply crazy.

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

John Navas

2006-04-26, 11:48 pm

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

In <MPG. 1eb2c716a518cf209897
a8@News.Individual.Net> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006
11:40:56 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

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

>
>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".

I've said no such thing. At least have enough integrity not to fabricate
false quotes.

>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....

False. WalMart is actually increasing wages when everyone is taken into
account (not just those working at higher paying jobs). Otherwise, WalMart
wouldn't get so many applications.

>[SNIP offensive comments]

I'm not to dignify your nasty remarks with a response.

>
>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.

It's actually a very good way to get into the job market. These folks don't
have your kind of resume.

>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.

On the contrary -- it's very much in the interest of WalMart to improve the
productivity of its workers. You don't seem to understand business economics.

>
>Unemployment insurance assumes you have been working for a
>significant period of time before it is of significant use.
>[SNIP nasty remarks]

Yep.

>
>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.

In fact welfare reform has proven to be a success.

>More importantly, I vigorously question the notion that those
>that Walmart employs at less-than-subsistence wages are
>"otherwise unemployable".

Question all you want, but you're flying in the face of simply logic.

>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.

As I've written several times, if there were better jobs, then they would take
them. That they apply at WalMart in droves makes it clear that better jobs
don't exist.

>
>When there is only 1 alternative, people aren't "choosing"

Either (a) there is no other alternative, in which case they are damn lucky to
have WalMart; or (b) there are other alternatives, in which case WalMart is
clearly better.

>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.

Nonsense. WalMart is only a small fraction of the overall job market. If you
really doubt that, look at the numbers.

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

John Navas

2006-04-26, 11:48 pm

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

In < 1f5j42psrq26k5m0vjdd
51kcsdgp6q6oj4@4ax.com> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:35:50
-0700, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:47:50 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually they prepaid for the benefits from their taxes. ...

Welfare isn't coming out of sales taxes.

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

LinkBot