People who choose to make a career of being a WMT greeter or stock person will go nowhere fast, that's for sure. No argument there. I don't personally know anyone who has done that. The people that I know are department managers at WMT and also school teachers who work there summers, holidays and evenings. One guy is a Toms snack foods guy by day. One earns his living with a landscape business and invests 100 percent of his WMT income for retirement. Some invest their entire paycheck as they live on their spouses income or the income from their full time job. People on the floor only make I think about seven or eight bucks an hour. If you do that, and are single and not in school you are screwed. People who choose to be greeters or stock persons can not reasonably expect a lot from any non union employer. These are decent positions for retirees and part timers who have other jobs but suck as a persons chosen career. People stuck in a low paying full time job have the option of doing what is necessary to advance with the company or secure career training or schooling for a better job. I can't imagine why someone would choose to live solely on Walmart greeter or stock person income but I do see people who have benefited enormously from WMT. I have a cousin who's husband worked for Milan Army Ammunition plant. They lived on his income and insurance and such. As a full time "checker" she invested 100 percent of her WMT income in WMT stock. At retirement she had four million dollars of WMT stock. J. Was this a greeter or a stock person? My husband made over a hundred thousand a year until he lost his job fairly recently, and even investing the maximum amount and being matched, he made nowhere near that kind of money. I love you human, but I think that these examples are not representative of the general Walmart employee’s experience. liz From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR
Some take full advantage of the match in funds that WMT offers and others don't. Some ask that additional funds over and beyond the match be taken out of their pay check and others don't. I have never been an employee of WMT but I removed my forty grand after 7 years. Had I left it twenty years the sum would have been a bit different. I know one WMT employee who quit so that he could get his match funds, paid cash for a new home and new car, then went back to work for WMT. Every story is different. J. "... On the other hand, Walmart sucks in obvious ways." - human Thanks for the bone human! Yes, I am shocked at your anecdotal story of the person who ‘amassed between one and four million dollars within 20 years of employment’. The apparent variance of $3,000,000.00 is puzzling though. On Dec 14, 1:48 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Walmart helps this poor country boy save over one hundred USD per month. > Walmart employees who have taken advantage of WMT stock purchase options and > matches have perhaps done far better than Nieman Marcus employees. I > personally know WMT employees who have amassed between one and four million dollars > within 20 years of employment. That doesn't include employee discounts on food > and such. On the other hand, Walmart sucks in obvious ways. > > J. > > Nieman Marcus pays it's employees, Wal Mart doesn't. The people at the > top of Nieman contribute to the poor, the Wall family does not. etc. > > On Dec 14, 8:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I think we've been down this road before about what the > > "poor" do with their money. I don't for one moment believe we have a > > fair system - life is not fair. Nevertheless, a poor person's vote > > counts just as much as a wealthy one in the polling booth. Of course a > > wealthy person voting with a wallet has more effect on companies that > > go bust or surivie and this was the root of the debate. In the present > > economic environment Nieman Marcus is feeling the pinch. Wal Mart are > > doing very nicely thank you. > > > On Dec 14, 9:54 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > No. It's not as small as you think, and even if it is small, how is it a > > > fair system when those most likely to benefit from enforcing a change in > the > > > system are the least able to effect such a change? The neighborhood I > grew > > > up in is typical of thousands of others across this country, and I don't > > > like the idea that it is somehow not significant that because their > wallets > > > are empty, they are powerless to "vote" with them. > > > > liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Clogtowner > > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:40 AM > > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > > Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR > > > > Hi y'all - I'd like to see an accurate figure for the percentage of > > > the population who have no money and are therefore unable to vote with > > > their wallets. I suspect it would be rather small and entirely > > > inaccurate. > > > > On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "... For me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. ..." - clog > > > > > Typical...equating economics with governance! I know the media keep > > > > pummeling us with this notion, but, of course, they are two entirely > > > > different things. IF one even takes one second to consider the people > > > > who have no money, this becomes painfully clear. Of course, it is all > > > > too common to ignore or rationalize this truth. > > > > > On Dec 12, 10:10 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi y'all - yes I do like Wall St. and millions of stock holders. For > > > > > me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. If I don't like a > > > > > company (or a CEO) I'll sell the stock and if others do likewise the > > > > > value of the company will be diminished (unlike the Govt.) If we had > > > > > more stock holders, we'd have more democracy, and no, it doesn't cost > > > > > a lot - I can buy or sell any amount of stock for $7. There are > > > > > brokers who help small investors get started by offering $4 trades > and > > > > > they will deal in fractions of a share. > > > > > > On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > “…If Govt. becomes involved in a business it necessarily sets up a > > > > > > huge bureaucracy in its own image to > > > > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > > > > function efficiently in the long term…” – clog > > > > > > > Yeh, sorta like Wall Street and millions of stock holders. Talk > about > > > > > > a huge bureaucracy! And, the government claims to regulate all of > this > > > > > > too!!! Capitalism bureaucracy built in it’s own image for sure. > > > > > > Clearly, the ‘economy’, whatever anyone wants to mean by the > term, is > > > > > > drained fully by CEO’s with BILLIONS of dollars in stock and > having to > > > > > > give additional profits to the stock holders. Anyone who wants to > buy > > > > > > stuff has to pay so much more because of this grossly inefficient, > top > > > > > > heavy and greedy system. > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 7:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - "First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any > > > business > > > > > > > ‘we’ want > > > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about > it. > > > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At > least > > > > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to > > > such > > > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > > > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us > ’ > > > to > > > > > > > turn a profit! Strange! " > > > > > > > > Indeed I have only been in this country for 21 years but I have > > > > > > > studied the effect of Govt. ovwnership of business in the Eastern > > > > > > > Bloc, and I've seen the results. If Govt. becomes involved in a > > > > > > > business it necessarily sets up a huge bureaucracy in its own > image > > > to > > > > > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > > > > > function efficiently in the long term. > > > > > > > We can't say what strings are attached to the Auto deal yet as > it > > > has > > > > > > > not been completed, but so far it looks more promising, from a > > > > > > > taxpayer point of view, than the Bank debacle. > > > > > > > During the recent collapse of many banks the FDIC (and I don't > > > > > > > normally praise the Govt.) has done a fine job of ensuring > stability > > > > > > > and guaranteeing accounts. Note the difference in the UK where no > > > FDIC > > > > > > > existed and we were treated to videos of Building Society > customers > > > > > > > lined up and screaming for their money. Eventually the UK Govt. > were > > > > > > > forced to step in and offer their version of the FDIC. > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 11:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > “Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. > nor > > > the > > > > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. > As > > > the > > > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in > the > > > > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up > our > > > bank > > > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the > same > > > > > > > > deal.” – clog > > > > > > > > > Clog, I know you weren’t born here nor are you old enough to > know > > > what > > > > > > > > all has transpired when it comes to such issues here in the > US. > > > So, I > > > > > > > > don’t blame you much for being what appears to be quite naïve. > > > > > > > > > First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business ‘ > we’ > > > want > > > > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ > about it. > > > > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At > > > least > > > > > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes > to > > > such > > > > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. > And, as > > > > > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘ > us’ > > > to > > > > > > > > turn a profit! Strange! > > > > > > > > Anyway, no, the Govt. (We the people.) do not do a good job of > > > backing > > > > > > > > up our bank accounts. Think “Savings and Loan Crisis’. The > thing > > > that > > > > > > > > McCain was deeply involved in among others. > > > > > > > > And, what is ‘common knowledge’ (about the banks) is in fact > not > > > the > > > > > > > > reality. IF one reads the 108 pages or so of the first bank > > > bailout, > > > > > > > > what it said was that the banks should just take the money and > buy > > > > > > > > other banks! It said nothing about helping people and > businesses > > > who > > > > > > > > couldn’t get loans. Look it up. Most of what is presented on > > > corporate > > > > > > > > TV is half truths at best. At worst, much of it makes the old > > > USSR’s > > > > > > > > Pravda look like a comic book! > > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 7:25 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the > Govt. nor > > > the > > > > > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car > business. > > > As the > > > > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in > the > > > > > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, > and > > > > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up > our > > > bank > > > > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered > the > > > same > > > > > > > > > deal. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Again, the notion of nationalization isn't being > mentioned. I > > > would be > > > > > > > > > > for that. At least that way, 'we the people' would get some > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -<BR style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
