I like the discussions, but don't lose your heads now.

Quentin had the same weird fit when he was interviewed on NPR. I'm sure he's got good reasons for doing the things that he does, but he always get all crazy and uncomfortable describing the reasons. I don't know, maybe he's doing drugs or deep down he knows that things are way over his head.

He's not comfortable revealing himself out in public, yet he's constantly out there revealing his private self and gets an anxiety attack each time he is asked a private question. It's Quentin's job to know his way around this charade. He's in charge of his own reigns. You can't blame every jokester out there who shoves a microphone to your face if you've agreed to be a public figure making internationally well known movies.

The interviewer is no champion of journalism, that's not his job. He's just some douche with well connected parents to have made it that far up the social ladder to have a seat on Channel4-BBC. Emotional interviews by public figures like these are amusing to watch, and that's exactly what the interviewers want. Amusement translates into ratings quite nicely.

If he's not feeling comfortable getting the same questions over and over, just prepare an answer for them that would satisfy them. Or stop revealing your real self that gets you uncomfortable in the first place. It's all games, gotta play it well.

I agree with you. I hope no one is out to vilify labor, if they are it's short-sighted. The most successful companies have figured out how to work cooperatively with their labor, offering incentives for performance, and at the same time having the flexibility to jettison poor performers. An advisarial relationship between managment and their labor force is never a good thing in the long run. The "prevailing wage" argument is ubiquitous, whether Union or not. And, it extends right up the management ladder to the CEOs. This has led, IMHO, to compensation committees valuing CEOs at ridiculous levels. "But", they say, "it's the going rate." In the World economy "prevailing wage" will only protect those jobs that can't be exported, and that doesn't include most manufacturing. The "prevailing wage" in China is much different than in California. So, there go the jobs.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by NetRunner.

I had to stop watching when the samurai sword came on QVC, after what had just happened to the 2 ladder salesman, I just couldn't stand it.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bear-wants-to-check-out-this-ladder-thingy

This is shorter but still the same vid.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

sorry, a dupe of

http://videosift.com/video/Bear-wants-to-check-out-this-ladder-thingy

I cannot dupeof it myself.

I guess he was too scared to come back down the ladder.

Hmmm...

I don't have an issue with the wage itself. I worked retail for years. Retail doesn't pay high wages. Any of them, it's not a high skill sector. It's not somewhere I'd want to be my entire life and should most likely be considered a "stepping stone" line of work. For some though, they never get out - partly because of the draw and promise of climbing the corporate ladder to success and some because that's just the best they can do. It's retail - not one is asking for an engineer's pay scale. I don't know about the US, but in Canada, WalMart only pays minimum wage for sales associates, tellers and floor staff.

What I do have an issue with is the way Wal-Mart (and some other retail companies) treat their employees. Almost all positions are part-time. They don't hire more than a few full time employees. Full time employees cost more money in benefits and you can't reduce their weekly hours to make the monthly budget.

Store managers are given very small monthly budgets for man hours. They have to stretch those hours, and place the man power only at peak periods. Part time employees are easier to move around the schedule because they aren't respected, they can also be made to work seven days a week if you give them the min hours per day as possible. They are hired for that purpose. The problem is that people's lives don't function that way. These people also need to have second jobs. You are expected to make WalMart your primary job (even if it's only part time). They may schedule only eight hours in a week. If you have a second job with set hours, Walmart will not work with you because they don't care.
There are all kinds of issues that arise but scheduling is a huge issue.

Benefits. WalMart benefits are so meager, I'm not sure why they bother. I've heard first hand how the medical coverage they offer is lousy and most people end up paying out of pocket for additional insurance if they actually expect to be treated.

WalMart is predatory retail. They have employees that are paid to shop the community and undercut every product that can be bought elsewhere - even if it means they sell at a loss. They increase the prices on every item that cannot be bought locally - even if it means inflating it artificially higher than it's worth. They especially target the small businesses. Once they are able to put those businesses out of business, they will raise all the prices they once sold at a loss because now you don't have a choice. From a business point of view, their process is very smart, it takes every opportunity it can to get your dollar. on the flip side, if everyone is out of business, they can't afford to shop anywhere else. Eventually all retail business employees will be WalMart Employees. It's a downward spiral that isn't sustainable.

WalMart are Bullies. They have the biggest and most expensive lawyers in the business. They can afford it. and if they can't win, because they know they are in the wrong, they will just stonewall until the opposition runs out of money and still win by default. If there is something they want, they get it because they have the wealth, money and power to make it happen - fair practices be dammed!

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.

This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).

It's sad really...

I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it

I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.

Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.

First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.

Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.

If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.

But overall, you're probably still right.

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.



This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).



It's sad really...



I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it



I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by pumkinandstorm.