Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good for them. Hey general public, how's that working out for you? You know, government micro managing commerce?
and Long Beach, CA probably isn't an ideal area (Snoop Dog the rapper is from Long Beach)
Win win for the chain, lose a poorly performing store and let the genius's that approved the raises scratch their heads on why they created hundreds of unemployed residents
Because the CEO makes them money, of course. Just like they were hired to do.
Actually, as another poster points out, Kroger has more liabilities than it takes in from selling groceries. So how is the CEO making the shareholders money? By increasing the stock price? Is that not really more the machinations of some wall street brokers, or shadow bankers? (whatever name they go by these days)
A supermarket makes money by keeping their shelves stocked, making sure customers dont walk out with items without paying first, and making sure its clean enough so customers dont get scared away. For all that to happen, the CEO and shareholders need grunt workers. At least in normal circumstances that is how a supermarket should work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Guess what - it is not the employees money (or yours), they did not earn it - no one is taking it from them. The company gets to run things the way they see it - it is not up to you what they choose to pay. You (or average employee) would not last 1 day as CEO.
-
You might read a little more carefully - I was talking $4 pandemic increase to some workers, not MW and I specifically said "within the law" - it is not "wanting to live in lawless society" to complain. This is much worse than most law because it interferes with companies right to conduct business, caused job losses. It is also likely unlawful because was not applied equally to all businesses.
I have every right to complain - that is 1st amendment right, just as you do, but you really have no right to try to try to shut me down by saying I have "no right", like you did here. I have every right as a stock holder to complain that it was not applied equally - not all stores and neighboring locations just as you would if you were treated differently.
The end result is underperforming stores were closed and jobs were lost - that helped nobody.
No one forced you to buy the stocks from someone else who bought the stocks from someone else and so on and so forth. Who knows what denomination each person paid down the line. An uptick in the pandemic increase or pandemic MW for that area (its the same thing) wont likely affect the stock price any more than closing two stores down.
and Long Beach, CA probably isn't an ideal area (Snoop Dog the rapper is from Long Beach)
Win win for the chain, lose a poorly performing store and let the genius's that approved the raises scratch their heads on why they created hundreds of unemployed residents
Not sure what you mean by that...Cameron Diaz went to the very same high school among many other notable alums including the co-founder of Marie Calendar.
Economically, I think a locally owned and operated grocer would be much better in the end because the profits would have a higher likelihood of returning to the local community, instead of Cincinnati, OH (where Kroger is based) and then out to shareholders everywhere. However one advantage to having a large corporate business might be greater distribution volume, process efficiencies, deeper capital pool, and consequently a lower price per product for the consumer.
This same model can be applied to a corporate-owned Starbucks compared to your average local coffeehouse/coffee roaster. Which is better? Depends on who you ask, but if my focus was on net-gains for a local community my bet would be local owned and operated.
I was referring to goods that used to be made in USA but are now made almost exclusively overseas. It is now almost impossible to find household appliances that are made in this country. The same goes for clothing, shoes, etc. And also for IT positions and other customer support jobs. I was a tech support analyst a couple decades ago. We made good money and had great benefits. Half of our section was laid off and the jobs moved to India. This happened across the entire industry and across other industries as well, and has since become the status quo. Amazon tech support and customer service, for example, is outsourced to India and the Philippines. It is estimated that companies save up to 80 percent of what they would have spent in the United States by outsourcing hundreds of thousands of customer service and technical support jobs to other countries.
Job security is pretty much non-existent in this country. Many states have at-will employment. There are countless people whose jobs are "eliminated" just before they are eligible for retirement and they are replaced with new college grads who will work for much cheaper. Win-win for the company, no retirement payout and a much lower salary. The same goes for paid vacation days, sick days, regular pay increases, general benefits. Companies are the winners, workers are the losers.
Actually many household appliances are still made in the US, especially at the high end - but even most GE and Whirlpool are made in the US. Much of the last administration was about encouraging US production and support.
Offshoring IT support is as much about support as costs. Most basic IT support is not difficult which is why half of your team was offshored but not all. They have to add value to justify the increased costs. I was responsible for an IT support team for a while although all of it was US based.
Most of your rant is about job security - job security is more about being good at your job and being worth what the salary and benefits are. If experience is not relevant to the job ( like basic IT support) then higher salaries are not justified. Also retirement costs are not really a big driver because mostly 401K which is % of salary - experienced workers get higher salary but are often worth more in jobs where experience makes a difference. Older coders also need to keep up with newer languages and techniques to remain relevant. On one project, the lead designer was a guy that was close to 70, but he was relevant and very good. Hiring new workers is expensive, many will retain older employees to avoid those costs if it makes sense. It is all supply - demand curve for workers and employers.
I had a project that had a problem finding enough coders with relevant experience - we had to set up extra oversight to cover and would have been happy with more experienced / expensive workers - less rework and lower overall costs - test and rework is more expensive than doing it right the first time. Frankly, when evaluating contracts - experience is more important than minor difference in costs.
Last edited by ddeemo; 04-29-2021 at 01:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
