What's The Largest Company In The world?

[cinist]

Originally posted by SEAN!


So?..its not wal mart's fault that they destroyed all those mom and pops stores, blame the city planners for allowing a warehouse store in their city.

if the people are complaining about only making minimum wage thats their fault, they can find another job. i bet alot of those people who work at walmart are glad they have a job.
wal mart dosnt owe anyhting to its employees as long as it follows the rules that the government sets out for em.

walmart does suck tho..

city planners, developers and the government?
none of these people are looking out for the intrests of the poorer, uneducated working class community.
Unions are the only voice for these people and wal-mart makes it extremly difficult for them to even attempt to opperate. Unfortunatly the poor woman with a grade ten education and two kids at home is not going to vote for a Union. Not when she has people much 'smarter' then herself strongly implying that she better not or else.
When wal-mart moves in, options disapear. Without options for people all we have is a mindless workforce and the standard of living is brought down .
People may be happy with the jobs that they have because maybe they don;t know that they could have better.

[miss.myra]

Uhm.

Big corporations giving shitty wages, offering no reasonable benefit plan and using scare tactics to prevent employees from forming unions...

Y'think Walmart is the only company bad for that? Virtually every large employer that has a massive amount of lower wage employees is paranoid of unions. Managers at TONS of places are even given special handbooks with instructions on how to spot the signs of employees wanting to form a union, and what to do! I'm not too sure if Unions are really all that based on actual principles like they used to be anyways.

Employees families living in poverty? I'm sorry, but you can't blame a coporation for that, you can blame free will.

I'm not throwing my hands up in the air praising wal-mart because it's a great company, but at the same time, you can't antagonize a single company for following the same practices that many others do.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by cinist


city planners, developers and the government?
none of these people are looking out for the intrests of the poorer, uneducated working class community.
Unions are the only voice for these people and wal-mart makes it extremly difficult for them to even attempt to opperate. Unfortunatly the poor woman with a grade ten education and two kids at home is not going to vote for a Union. Not when she has people much 'smarter' then herself strongly implying that she better not or else.
When wal-mart moves in, options disapear. Without options for people all we have is a mindless workforce and the standard of living is brought down .
People may be happy with the jobs that they have because maybe they don;t know that they could have better.

HAHHA you have to be kidding me..

unions dont look after anyone, they like companies, are only interested in their revenue.

are you trying to say that someone with a grade 10 education desearves to be paid 18 bucks an hour to mop to floor at a discount department store?

like myra said, their situation is just a matter of the choices that they made that got them there. you cant stop people from being stupid and you can make corporations be nice out of their own conscience

[Senior]

Originally posted by SEAN!:
is that in revenue? or in amount of people employed?

i didnt bother reading the link

As far as I know it's both.

[cinist]

of course there are many companies with the same lacking principles as wal-mart, but in this thread we talking about wal-mart myra.
People dont have the same opportunities in life. Majority of the poor and uneducated people in the world are like that because of circumstances surrounding their lives not out of personal choice or failure.

Unions have there faults. I am not entirely pro union. Sometimes they make things worse. For example teachers in this province are teaching subjects they know nothing about in high schools simply because of their unions made it possible for them to do so.
Unions were born out of a necessity and i guess that has gone away a bit in todays society but i still think they are a great allies to the working class, because they have no greater resource for protecting themselves.
I understand that people want to make money at all kinds of costs, but its scary and it is wrong.
My mother is fairly prominant realtor/developer so ive had phone calls here where we've been called every name in the book and its not enjoyable but you do have to listen to peoples concerns and work things out to best of your ability as fair and profitable for everyone.
Companys cannot continue too put themselves first, well placing the economy and PEOPle on the back burner. Do you want the majority of people working for nothing? what kind of society will this become. ghetto probably

[inkster]

Originally posted by SEAN!


So?..its not wal mart's fault that they destroyed all those mom and pops stores, blame the city planners for allowing a warehouse store in their city.

you got it bang on. wal-mart is just filling a niche that doesn't really exist in the first place. if it wasn't them, it'd be another store with shitty labor practises. the company is immaterial. the only thing that matters is that these stores were allowed to be built at all.

[KStar]

yeah walmart sucks oh well .. i cant complain its kept me with a job for 3 and a half years...

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by cinist
of course there are many companies with the same lacking principles as wal-mart, but in this thread we talking about wal-mart myra.
People dont have the same opportunities in life. Majority of the poor and uneducated people in the world are like that because of circumstances surrounding their lives not out of personal choice or failure.

i beg to differ..alot of the people who are poor and uneducated are that way because they are fuck ups and its their own fault, the ones that are that way simply because of circumstances...well they can work at walmart, because no one else is going to give them a job. Especially in a country with such a extensive social welfare network, there is no reason for some one not to atleast graduate highschool when its free, and if your an adult theyll pretty much pay you to go to school. all it takes in life to succed is some ambition, hardwork and a lil luck and youll be better off then 85% of the people in this country.

my parents didnt have many opporutinites they were working class/poor, but now they would be in the top 10% of income earners in Canada, they are a success story living the Canadian dream because of capitalism and the desire not to be stuck in a mediocre union job.

[se7en]

walmart rocks, so cheap and they got lots of stuff. i never heard of walmarts jacking up their prices when they shut down small businesses. oh yeah on the side note, bill gates creator of microsoft is the richest man on earth. around 40something billion. did you know that the percentage of microsoft he owns is only about 15%. if he sold all the shares and put all his assets in the bank and had a low interest savings acount, he would make five hundred million every year on interest. :284:

[Flip]

F**K Walmart, they are just petty nickle and dime bulls**T!

Biggest in the entire universe would be a tie between Pho Bich Nga and Unkle Willey's all you can eat buffet! mmm cheap crappy food!

[DJDeeb]

Originally posted by NeVeRLooKBacK
common guys!
lets not forget ZIPPER companies
I mean lets think bout how many things have zippers common!

YKK zippers!!!! there on everything!!!

[Senior]

Well I see 2 basic issues here;

Unions: For all of their faults I'll guarentee you life with out them would be akin to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." So many things that are taken for granted would slowly disapear. While as Sean said union jobs are not going to make you rich they do insure that you can make a decent living to raise a family with.

Corporate Responsibility: As it stands corporations have very few obligations to employee's or their customers. The only thing they are accountable to is their share holders. So you have a board of directors running the company who's only job is to make sure that the share holders get paid. This model encourages companies to do things such as polluting communities and the environment, poor treatment of workers and discourages companies from giving anything back to the community that makes them their profits. As all of these things add up and we find our selves living in increasingly worse places.

[pbreak]

Originally posted by Senior
Well I see 2 basic issues here;

Unions: For all of their faults I'll guarentee you life with out them would be akin to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." So many things that are taken for granted would slowly disapear. While as Sean said union jobs are not going to make you rich they do insure that you can make a decent living to raise a family with.

Corporate Responsibility: As it stands corporations have very few obligations to employee's or their customers. The only thing they are accountable to is their share holders. So you have a board of directors running the company who's only job is to make sure that the share holders get paid. This model encourages companies to do things such as polluting communities and the environment, poor treatment of workers and discourages companies from giving anything back to the community that makes them their profits. As all of these things add up and we find our selves living in increasingly worse places.

Agreed, and whether or not Wal-Mart is the root of the problem (also agree that most of the blame lies squarely on city planners - although they do feel a LOT of pressure from these companies to build) they are still a problem. Check out some articles on sustainable URBAN development and urban sprawl (Scientific American - Dec 2000) and you'll find that stores like Wal-Mart are a key ingredient to what is wrong with city planning period - everything is still designed like the 50's with the emphasis put completely on cars... you wouldn't believe how many of the problems we face in urban development stem from this one central issue - and stores like Wal-Mart wouldn't have it any other way - bad for communities and the environment.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by pbreak


Agreed, and whether or not Wal-Mart is the root of the problem (also agree that most of the blame lies squarely on city planners - although they do feel a LOT of pressure from these companies to build) they are still a problem. Check out some articles on sustainable URBAN development and urban sprawl (Scientific American - Dec 2000) and you'll find that stores like Wal-Mart are a key ingredient to what is wrong with city planning period - everything is still designed like the 50's with the emphasis put completely on cars... you wouldn't believe how many of the problems we face in urban development stem from this one central issue - and stores like Wal-Mart wouldn't have it any other way - bad for communities and the environment.

city planning and development is something that is a big interest of mine and i have to agree and disagree with you on this. i agree that stores like walmart or large suburban malls are exactly what we dont need in order to build a sustainable urban community. however i cannot blame the walmart family for the conitued sprawl of our communities and therefore relance on means of transportation which are economicaly and socially too expensive for us to rely on(ie single occupant vehicles) the blame for that falls squarely on the city planners who are to lazy or shortsighted to see the consequences of the decions they make. we cant really blame the developers becuase they are meerly doing whats in it for their best interests its the city planners and other government officials
who should be held responsible yto ensuring that the development of our cities, our workplaces and our economies follows a path that benefits both parties.

[Serotonin]

i would of guessed rogers sugar

[Senior]

Originally posted by pbreak:


Agreed, and whether or not Wal-Mart is the root of the problem (also agree that most of the blame lies squarely on city planners - although they do feel a LOT of pressure from these companies to build) they are still a problem. Check out some articles on sustainable URBAN development and urban sprawl (Scientific American - Dec 2000) and you'll find that stores like Wal-Mart are a key ingredient to what is wrong with city planning period - everything is still designed like the 50's with the emphasis put completely on cars... you wouldn't believe how many of the problems we face in urban development stem from this one central issue - and stores like Wal-Mart wouldn't have it any other way - bad for communities and the environment.

I would believe and actually have found a lot of reading material on the topic. There have actually been some studies done on this locally, I'll see if I can find them. Also it has been argued that urban sprawl is the worst environmental problem in the world, which is really scary considering that it's mostly a North American phenomenon. Obviously there is urban sprawl else where in the world but not any where near the amount that we have over here. I think it's a matter of people realizing that the world just isn't as big as we once thought it was.

Originally posted by SEAN!:


city planning and development is something that is a big interest of mine and i have to agree and disagree with you on this. i agree that stores like walmart or large suburban malls are exactly what we dont need in order to build a sustainable urban community. however i cannot blame the walmart family for the conitued sprawl of our communities and therefore relance on means of transportation which are economicaly and socially too expensive for us to rely on(ie single occupant vehicles) the blame for that falls squarely on the city planners who are to lazy or shortsighted to see the consequences of the decions they make. we cant really blame the developers becuase they are meerly doing whats in it for their best interests its the city planners and other government officials
who should be held responsible yto ensuring that the development of our cities, our workplaces and our economies follows a path that benefits both parties.

I agree completely with you on this but I see it a little different. I think that the city planners are merely a reflection of the residents. If city planners make a bad decision and no one says anything about, i.e. if there are no protests or petitions against it than basically we are in agreement with them. Now in the instance of residents adimantly protesting a proposed Wal-Mart going up on SE Marine Dr it would be the city planners fault if it does go ahead.

Case in point is that we live in a democracy;

Democracy;
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

When you have a majority of the people disconnected from the electoral process than poor, unbalanced decisions are made. In effect communities that are destroyed by Wal-Mart or other exploitive corporations need to do something about it.

[NeVeRLooKBacK]

Originally posted by DJDeeb


YKK zippers!!!! there on everything!!!

Xactly!!
if youve ever looked the the noteboks and shit
they are all YKK
(by the way my friend wrote an essay on the innovation behind a zipper so thats how I know)
its nuts!

another huge company has to be the internet porn companies
I mean I cant go to a normal web site with out bein pop as attacked by all this weird assed porno shit!

[ƒORM]

Religion :y:

[pbreak]

Originally posted by SEAN!


city planning and development is something that is a big interest of mine and i have to agree and disagree with you on this. i agree that stores like walmart or large suburban malls are exactly what we dont need in order to build a sustainable urban community. however i cannot blame the walmart family for the conitued sprawl of our communities and therefore relance on means of transportation which are economicaly and socially too expensive for us to rely on(ie single occupant vehicles) the blame for that falls squarely on the city planners who are to lazy or shortsighted to see the consequences of the decions they make. we cant really blame the developers becuase they are meerly doing whats in it for their best interests its the city planners and other government officials
who should be held responsible yto ensuring that the development of our cities, our workplaces and our economies follows a path that benefits both parties.

I guess we pretty much all agree on the problem, just not the root of it... and realistically it's probably a combination of all of the above - although since stores like this are aware of the concequences of what they do they should still be held responsible for a large part of it... and city planners may let them build but you know they push a hell of a lot to get in wherever they can - it's not like the city planners go after Walmart and say "Hey, we've got the perfect spot for you, wanna build here?" I still agree though Sean that it would be nice to get some goverment officials (just a couple, that's all im askin) that could actually use some foresight and actually be concerned with the future of our communities instead of with their next election...

So i guess the question now is what are some solutions? In Vancouver in particular one of my main beefs is basically the complete lack of mass transit... this is a big money solution to many of the problems but it has to happen sooner or later - we are so far behind so many cities (even NA cities) in this it's not even funny. And generally a push to build residential communities that promote walking instead of driving - very simple yet excessively effective. What do you guys think?

[Serotonin]

the sugar industry controls everything and rogers has it's reach everywhere.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by Senior


I would believe and actually have found a lot of reading material on the topic. There have actually been some studies done on this locally, I'll see if I can find them. Also it has been argued that urban sprawl is the worst environmental problem in the world, which is really scary considering that it's mostly a North American phenomenon. Obviously there is urban sprawl else where in the world but not any where near the amount that we have over here. I think it's a matter of people realizing that the world just isn't as big as we once thought it was.

it actually has alot to do with economics, undeveloped land is not scare in north america, plus you have an extensive transporation network in the form of freeways, freeway which in affect subsidize real estate developers developments. in europe and asian they cant afford to have sprawl like in north america because the property values are too high.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by pbreak




So i guess the question now is what are some solutions? In Vancouver in particular one of my main beefs is basically the complete lack of mass transit... this is a big money solution to many of the problems but it has to happen sooner or later - we are so far behind so many cities (even NA cities) in this it's not even funny. And generally a push to build residential communities that promote walking instead of driving - very simple yet excessively effective. What do you guys think?

the reason for the disparities in the mass transit system between vancouver and cities like toronto, montreal, chicago, new york, or even sanfrancisco is simply because of population densities. in order for mass transit systems to operate in an economicaly efficient matter there needs to be a fairly high population densities. you cans see this for yourself, just take a ride on the expo line and compare the passenger volume to that of the millenium lines. The millenium line's ridership is so fuckin low, except for rushhour whereass on the expo line theres always quit a few people on the train. this will change as the entire millenium lie corridor will likely be rezoned to a much higher density and we'll see developments like metrotown on the northern side of burnaby. only when the population density increases in the local areas over the next 10-15 years will rides on the millenium not be so heavily subsidized by the government. i tend to disagree, i think the vancouver region probably has the best planning aorund. the gvrd and all the cities in this region have community plans which comprehensively detail every step in the region's development over the next 30 years. few other northen american centres can boast that. Also it simply comes down to the economics of development, it is alot easier for real estate developers to make money by developing single family homes in areas were the land values are relatively low. It takes alot more capital to develop in a urban with higher property values, where city planners may be adverse to rezoning for higher densities.

vancouver has been pretty quick to move towards higher density developments, look at yaletown, the propsed development for the southside of falsecreek, the planned developments at UBC and the univercity devlopment at SFU. The main problem with building denser, more ecologically sound neighbourhoods is simply a matter of taste. Alot of north americans are not used to living in nieghbourhoods with higher densities, and prefer living in single family homes on large lots and then commuting to work. this is a major reason why we have so much sprawl in north america, its simply a matter of comsumer choice and developers are only too happy to oblige. however, as our population ages, and preceptions of life in the city change and become more appealing, we can expect a shift in demands towords geographically smaller developments with higher densities and less emphasis on cars as the means of transportation.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by Senior




When you have a majority of the people disconnected from the electoral process than poor, unbalanced decisions are made. In effect communities that are destroyed by Wal-Mart or other exploitive corporations need to do something about it.

sorry im a bit elitests, and i dont think that the majority of the population knows or even cares about what is good for them. which is why all government officials should have MBa's as well as additional education in whatever area there specialty is. they should also be paid more.

you cant really stop people from being stupid.

[Senior]

Originally posted by SEAN!:


it actually has alot to do with economics, undeveloped land is not scare in north america, plus you have an extensive transporation network in the form of freeways, freeway which in affect subsidize real estate developers developments. in europe and asian they cant afford to have sprawl like in north america because the property values are too high.

Oh I fully understand that but what I ment by syaing people have to realize the world just ins't that big is that we have a finite amount of resources and there is also a finite amount of pollution that the environment will take. Urban sprawl is a huge waste of resources, particularly fossil fuels and is very wasteful causing pollution. For instance most of the electricity used in NA comes from coal fired plants, so when people have those heaters cranked up in the middle of winter to heat their huge house in the burbs they are indirectly burning massive amounts of coal.

[Senior]

The solutions to these problems are also the causes of them. It's me, you and everyone else. We are the root problem and are also the solution. By using transit, living in a small apartment and other small steps I have started trying to have less of an impact. Like Sean said the reasons for urban sprawl are many but it still comes down to consumer demand.