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: bentway who wrote (616955)	6/22/2011 11:07:10 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1577883

Oh for God's sake. "The obstacles to women’s advancement do not stop there. The workweek for salaried managers is around 50 hours or more, which can surge to 80 or 90 hours a week during holiday seasons." Oh, the humanity.

To: bentway who wrote (616955)	6/22/2011 11:09:40 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1577883

A typically pointless article from the NYTimes. Walmart bad. blah blah blah. By drastically limiting how a class-action suit can be brought, the Supreme Court ..... The article never mentions they limited any laws or how. Then this gem: Wal-Mart views low labor costs and a high degree of workplace flexibility as a signal competitive advantage. Well yeah - look at the education required to work in retail.

To: bentway who wrote (616955)	6/26/2011 8:34:20 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1577883

The Circle Isn’t a Square by Don Boudreaux on June 22, 2011 in Myths and Fallacies,Wal-Mart,Work Opining in today’s New York Times, history professor Nelson Lichtenstein asserts that Wal-Mart uses an “authoritarian style, by which executives pressure store-level management to squeeze more and more from millions of clerks, stockers and lower-tier managers.” Then he scolds Wal-Mart for being so bigoted that it erects “obstacles to women’s advancement.” This tale is highly improbable. A company that squeezes maximum possible profits from its workers does not refuse to promote women simply because of their sex. Such refusals would leave money on the table by keeping many employees in lower-rank positions even though those employees would add more to the company’s bottom line by being promoted to higher-rank positions. Conversely, a company that indulges its taste for bigotry is not a company intent on squeezing as much profit as possible from its employees. If Ms. Jones can add thousands of dollars to Wal-Mart’s annual profits by working as a manager, rather than hundreds of dollars by working as a cashier, squeezing “more and more” from her requires that Wal-Mart promote her to manager. It’s simply unbelievable that a company with Wal-Mart’s record of consistently wringing profits from razor-thin retail margins intentionally – or even negligently – wastes the talents of large numbers of its employees by using them in ways that do not add maximum value to Wal-Mart’s bottom line. cafehayek.com