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.
Oh my goodness, we've devolved into the stereotypical "corporations/rich people bad" diatribe. You have an agenda way over and above this forum (which is history) me thinks and this is what gets these thread closed. Now you are pulling from the usual clickbait news sources.
If you were so interested in the main topic then why haven't you posted a single response concerning it? Instead you have only been responding to my post. Sorry but you being disingenuous.
Concerning the OP. One of the primary reasons companies don't adapt in time to changes in the market is due to greed, the structure of capitalist entities and the lack of accountability in various corporations. So this specific talking point we are addressing is well within the overall scope of the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Amazon had half a million employees worldwide - skilled software developers, skilled technicians, salesmen, delivery drivers, warehouse people, full-time, part-time. The employees that work in the headquarters, tens of thousands of them, easily make 6 figure salaries, those are different skills from a warehouse job in Ohio obviously. You have been wrong in every way in this thread and you are also wrong here, or at least grossly misleading: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/am...s-food-stamps/
This is the conclusion:
"The 11.8 percent figure was only an estimate; was based on one single state; and income is not the sole factor that determines food stamp eligibility."
Stories about Amazon underpaying and overworking its employees has appeared from news sources from across the world.
You only counter rebuttal is one news story from the state of Ohio that says only 10% of its workforce there is on food stamps. Like that is somehow all the better. For a company bringing in record profits there shouldn't be any of there employees on food stamps.
For all of your drivel about 6 figure salaries the average median income for a Amazon employee is only 28,000 dollars. The AVERAGE...being 50% make less then that. So its not much of a leap to imagine that a last number of its employees are on food stamps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
So my first question is why are you trying to mislead the good people of this forum?
Lame excuse for a lack of good argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
My second question is a request to kindly take your "big corporation bad" topic to another forum so it doesn't get closed (I'm at fault for this as well).
NOPE. If you don't wanna talk about this specific topic feel free to ignore my post. Or better yet, post something that is not in response to me if you feel so strongly about not closing the forum. That said I commend you for attempting to defend Amazon because its not an easy position to take, as demonstrated by the fact that you are unable to do so.
Just the opposite - capitalism gave us Apple, Netflix, Amazon. Capitalism causes innovation and adaptation, it doesn't kill it. There is a reason these companies started in the U.S.
Once again, a keyword sends the discussion down the wrong path, bringing out the soapbox flag-wavers. (The flag with the dollar sign on it and a Made In America label.)
KF is exactly right: these companies mostly failed because greed drove them to stupid decisions. Not many were really trying, in an acceptable business sense; they were determined to keep bulldozing their market with whatever they felt like building or selling.
Death by greed. Capitalism at its... most naked.
If you're going to react to any use of the C-word the way some people react to 'Jesus,' with a long screed about how incredibly wonderful and perfect it is, really... save the typing.
No.....none of those companies are or were groundbreaking or truly innovative.
But decades of their marketing and media suck-up have convinced everyone they are. Can't touch that.
Most of the flag-wavers here can't distinguish between "innovation" and "success," much less innovation and marketing expertise. It's part of the American Way for innovation to lead to wealth, so any success in that direction must be due to brilliant innovation. QED.
(But in other arguments, it's all about incredibly hard work and long hours and sticktoitiveness... which is pretty much the opposite of 'innovation.' Huh.)
But decades of their marketing and media suck-up have convinced everyone they are. Can't touch that.
Most of the flag-wavers here can't distinguish between "innovation" and "success," much less innovation and marketing expertise. It's part of the American Way for innovation to lead to wealth, so any success in that direction must be due to brilliant innovation. QED.
A lot of people can't distinguish between 'innovation' and 'invention', either. Online retailing may have been 'invented' in 1979 so who were the dominant online retailers in the 80's? Amazon took a 15 year old concept that went nowhere and made it the dominant retail sales model.
A lot of people can't distinguish between 'innovation' and 'invention', either. Online retailing may have been 'invented' in 1979 so who were the dominant online retailers in the 80's? Amazon took a 15 year old concept that went nowhere and made it the dominant retail sales model.
Arguments that devolve to slowly reading a hand-picked definition from an online source aren't among the stronger ones. (Would you like thirty-four definitions of 'marketing' I've collected over the years, that can be selected to support almost any argument imaginable?)
Apple and Amazon and others became insanely successful... using concepts created, invented or developed by others. Neither added more than a pinch of new thought to the mix. There are few companies that actually did start from truly new ideas or 'innovation' and grow into significant success.
Which is no diss of either end. Amazon is admirable as a business. Apple is admirable as a business. Neither is particularly admirable on the "innovation" front, though. And... as you touch on, there are lots of people and individuals who were brilliant innovators and never progressed - in a business sense - with their ideas.
Two different things. I object here only the appropriation of the 'innovator' mantle by companies that know it's a fake made in China.
But decades of their marketing and media suck-up have convinced everyone they are. Can't touch that.
Most of the flag-wavers here can't distinguish between "innovation" and "success," much less innovation and marketing expertise. It's part of the American Way for innovation to lead to wealth, so any success in that direction must be due to brilliant innovation. QED.
(But in other arguments, it's all about incredibly hard work and long hours and sticktoitiveness... which is pretty much the opposite of 'innovation.' Huh.)
Exactly. Starbucks didn't succeed because they made better coffee then everyone else or were innovative in any sort of way. Starbucks succeeded by over saturating the market with stores and thus destroying small family run business who at that point controlled most of the coffee market. Its why there are Starbucks on every corner. Many of them run at a financial loss, but that is not the point. They exist to insure there is no room in the market for competition. Starbucks goal is to establish and control a monopoly in their industry, ditto for Google and Amazon.
Apple and Amazon and others became insanely successful... using concepts created, invented or developed by others. Neither added more than a pinch of new thought to the mix. There are few companies that actually did start from truly new ideas or 'innovation' and grow into significant success.
Then why didn't someone else do it sooner? Surely you are capable of adding more than a pinch of thought so why don't you take some existing concept and transform it into a huge success?
Then why didn't someone else do it sooner? Surely you are capable of adding more than a pinch of thought so why don't you take some existing concept and transform it into a huge success?
Others did do it sooner. In the case of online shopping the early companies struggled with the fact that lots of people at that time didn't have a computer and were not online. The market was small but the overhead needed to run an online commerce was large. Amazon succeed largely due to timing, ruthless businesses practices and aggressive marketing. In our capitalist system being innovative doesn't mean you will be successful, matter of fact the innovative folks are usually the ones being screwed over in the end. The people and entities that financially succeed in our system are generally the most ruthless.
Then why didn't someone else do it sooner? Surely you are capable of adding more than a pinch of thought so why don't you take some existing concept and transform it into a huge success?
That, honestly, is a stupidly dismissive question/assertion. If youse so smart, how comes you ain't rich, yourself?
All commercial endeavors take a combination of circumstances and events; there are many, many examples of companies that were simply ten years ahead of their time and failed.
I could successfully argue that Amazon simply stole the business model of Sears, Roebuck with the "innovation" of putting it on a different communications platform, which they neither developed nor were the first to use for retail sales. But it's simpler to send you off to think about how the confluence of all those factors meant someone was going to rise in that sector, and Bezos was the first to put them all together in a workable fashion. (Which is no more 'innovation' than opening a successful pizza shop.)
If you were so interested in the main topic then why haven't you posted a single response concerning it? Instead you have only been responding to my post. Sorry but you being disingenuous. .
Misleading once again. Both post #5 and post #17 addressed the OP issue and were an attempt to steer you back on course.
Your record on this thread is pretty consistent in inaccuracy. Such arguments may work in P&C, but not here.
I ask again - Why are you consistently trying to mislead the good people of this forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
Once again, a keyword sends the discussion down the wrong path, bringing out the soapbox flag-wavers. (The flag with the dollar sign on it and a Made In America label.)
KF is exactly right: these companies mostly failed because greed drove them to stupid decisions. Not many were really trying, in an acceptable business sense; they were determined to keep bulldozing their market with whatever they felt like building or selling.
Death by greed. Capitalism at its... most naked.
If you're going to react to any use of the C-word the way some people react to 'Jesus,' with a long screed about how incredibly wonderful and perfect it is, really... save the typing.
My fault for encouraging that path. The previous poster never addressed why companies fail, only why capitalism in his thoughts fail and that is where we got off track. He did a typical "hit and run" one line post, typical to the P&C forum.
In regards to the OP's post - actually the same reason for failure applies to capitalism, socialism, small businesses, big businesses, mon and pop stores, etc. Heck it applies to human relationships - marriages.
Regardless, I am sure a moderator will be here soon to clean up this thread and put it back on track.
Or, as they say:
IN BEFORE THE LOCK
Last edited by Dd714; 07-19-2019 at 12:19 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.
