Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (404118)	8/4/2008 9:43:48 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573351

They're buying a work force with lower turnover. I also suspect they're much more selective in who they hire than Walmart. Exactly right. It is a business decision. And one that is also likely influenced by WMT's need for 1.3 Million of these people versus COST's 100,000. And that COST is partially unionized which FORCES their hand to some extent. A publicly traded company has a responsibility to its shareholders, and while COST may be perceived as friendly to employees, WMT is perceived as much friendlier to shareholders. Whether COST's game plan will allow it to form the capital it needs for growth is as yet undetermined. Over time, COST may end up in the same bind the US Automakers are in. As an investor, I would never put one cent in a company that didn't fight unionization at every turn.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (404118)	8/4/2008 1:07:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573351

Secondly, COST doesn't nickel and dime its employees like WMT does.....and that's the point that CJ was making........that COST pays its employees a better wage and provides them with more benefits than WMT. By being niggardly with its employees, more wealth accrues to WMT's mgmt and shareholders......you know what I have been saying for years now.....your fav people, the rich, keep getting richer at the expense of the poor. COST to some degree shares its profit with their employees...what you would call communism or socialism. You seem to have fooled yourself into thinking costco is some kind of non-profit coop. I hate to tell you Costco is not a socialistic enterprise. They're capitalists pursuing wealth too. Their personnel policies have nothing to do with giving up wealth for Costco's management and shareholders. They're buying a work force with lower turnover. I also suspect they're much more selective in who they hire than Walmart. They're making a trade-off. Are they more "generous" to employees, less "niggardly"? Well, to the ones that make their cut, maybe, to the ones Walmart would hire and they wouldn't, no. You still don't understand. I don't know how to make the point to you. I would say its a TX thing but then CJ is from TX and he understands it completely. Suffice to say its capitalism that comes from enlightenment. It benefits both mgmt and their employees. Its an enlighten way to do business I repeat, its a trade-off. The people Walmart would hire but Costco wouldn't don't get the benefit of the enlightenment. I don't know that there is a difference between the employees of the two companies, but I do know that they are treated better at COST. People are not stupid, Brumar. They know when they are treated badly and act accordingly. and its why COST has much better employees than WMT. What do the people who Walmart would hire but Costco won't, do in enlightened Washington? I mean, you do have compassion for them too, don't you? Like I said, I don't know that they are different. However I do know they behave differently once employed at the respective companies. In fact, most places in WA state are trying to keep out WMT out..........because its acts like a black hole on the community. Its nice for businesses when the local politicians will keep competitors out. WA state has a very competitive marketplace.....without WMT.