Political Roundtable - Part V

[fishercob]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b23wrRfy7SM[/youtube]

RIP Uncle Ben

[Induveca]

So a $12,800,000,000 profit isn't a competitive return on capital?

You and Nivek keep throwing that number out as if it's meaningful because it's big. $12.8B is a lot of money, but it's not all that money for a company with a market capitalization of $253B. Walmart's operating profit is just 5.8%. That's low by Fortune 500 standards.

And yet, their stock price sits at $79/share, up 50% from five years ago at this time.

The entire Dow is up nearly that amount over 5 years (more around 40%). Currently shuddering over the 2008-2009 stock market crash. Painful.

[dckingsfan]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

Hey Nivek, I hear what you are saying... my point is that where you rank in terms of profitability and forward earnings projects matters greatly and definitely affects return on investment. It may seem like a small number - but it isn't.

Corporations do have a responsibility to their shareholders and to their employees. But the former trumps the later. I don't think that any multi-national has a responsibility to any single government. In this case, our government got us into the mess - I don't think the corporations have a responsibility to get us out - only to be good corporate citizens and follow the rules as they were laid out.

[Nivek]

fish's point about following the rules "as laid out" is a good one. The people running corporations are not and have not been bystanders while rules have been made. They've invested billions of dollars through the years in changing the rules to what they'd like them to be. They don't always get exactly what they want, but there's no denying that they've been major players in making the rules.

[fishercob]

fish's point about following the rules "as laid out" is a good one. The people running corporations are not and have not been bystanders while rules have been made. They've invested billions of dollars through the years in changing the rules to what they'd like them to be. They don't always get exactly what they want, but there's no denying that they've been major players in making the rules.

And to piggyback off your agreement with my brilliant point, corporations indeed have a disproportionate voice in the policies that affect them. If the working poor had a stronger voice, the minimum wage would be higher.

But corporations are people and money is speech, so I don't see what all these loser poor people are complaining about.

[nate33]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

Their profit margin is small relative to most publicly traded companies, big or small.

If Walmart was such a bad deal for employees, why don't they quit and work at other stores?

[dckingsfan]

fish's point about following the rules "as laid out" is a good one. The people running corporations are not and have not been bystanders while rules have been made. They've invested billions of dollars through the years in changing the rules to what they'd like them to be. They don't always get exactly what they want, but there's no denying that they've been major players in making the rules.

Very solid point. And the better lobbyists have come away with some pretty good benefits for their corporate clients. Can't remember who pointed it out but ACA hasn't been fully implemented due to the lobbying by corporate interests.

[Induveca]

Interesting, the U.S. has now deployed Apache attack helicopters in and around Baghdad and Falluja. They were actively used over the weekend to keep ISIS out of those two cities.

Troop buildup is advancing rapidly. Those helicopters aren't deployed without a significant number of personnel nearby.

[fishercob]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

Their profit margin is small relative to most publicly traded companies, big or small.

If Walmart was such a bad deal for employees, why don't they quit and work at other stores?

So long as the employees don't have a viable alternative, it's okay?

So -- purely hypothetically, obviously -- Walmart could come into a community (perhaps aided by their political lobbying efforts) and drive competitors without their buying power out of business. And lo and behold, once they are gone, WM's employees won't have any viable alternatives. Consumers may get lower prices, but how much has the community gained given the loss of other jobs and wages?

It would seem as if they have financial incentive to be bad corporate citizens.

[dckingsfan]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

Their profit margin is small relative to most publicly traded companies, big or small.

If Walmart was such a bad deal for employees, why don't they quit and work at other stores?

So long as the employees don't have a viable alternative, it's okay?

So -- purely hypothetically, obviously -- Walmart could come into a community (perhaps aided by their political lobbying efforts) and drive competitors without their buying power out of business. And lo and behold, once they are gone, WM's employees won't have any viable alternatives. Consumers may get lower prices, but how much has the community gained given the loss of other jobs and wages?

It would seem as if they have financial incentive to be bad corporate citizens.

Exactly - the tax code and ACA are incentives to be "bad corporate citizens" - if we don't like it, we should have it fixed - right? If healthcare wasn't tied to employment, we aren't even having this discussion.

This explains a bit: http://online.wsj.com/articles/donald-b ... 1413150678

And remember, Walmart's lunch could easily be eaten by Amazon. Just like the local record store's lunch was eaten by Apple, Taxi's by Uber, etc.

[nate33]

We're talking past each other at this point. The actual real world cost of providing health insurance for its employees is a small portion of Walmart's profit.

Telling me the company's profit margin is small by Fortune 500 "standards" is irrelevant. The problem is Fortune 500 "standards" for the balance between profits and worker treatment. I think what fish and I are suggesting is that maybe these companies have a responsibility that goes beyond maximizing profit.

Their profit margin is small relative to most publicly traded companies, big or small.

If Walmart was such a bad deal for employees, why don't they quit and work at other stores?

So long as the employees don't have a viable alternative, it's okay?

So -- purely hypothetically, obviously -- Walmart could come into a community (perhaps aided by their political lobbying efforts) and drive competitors without their buying power out of business. And lo and behold, once they are gone, WM's employees won't have any viable alternatives. Consumers may get lower prices, but how much has the community gained given the loss of other jobs and wages?

It would seem as if they have financial incentive to be bad corporate citizens.

Or another way of looking at it is that they have a financial incentive to run a retailing business more efficiently than the community's current retailers. You steadfastly ignore the societal good of providing great selection at low prices.

The only way I would characterize Walmart's practice as wrong or evil is if they artificially lowered their prices to drive out business, and then jacked them up once they had monopoly power. But they don't do that. All they do is provide great service at great prices.

[fishercob]

Their profit margin is small relative to most publicly traded companies, big or small.

If Walmart was such a bad deal for employees, why don't they quit and work at other stores?

So long as the employees don't have a viable alternative, it's okay?

So -- purely hypothetically, obviously -- Walmart could come into a community (perhaps aided by their political lobbying efforts) and drive competitors without their buying power out of business. And lo and behold, once they are gone, WM's employees won't have any viable alternatives. Consumers may get lower prices, but how much has the community gained given the loss of other jobs and wages?

It would seem as if they have financial incentive to be bad corporate citizens.

Or another way of looking at it is that they have a financial incentive to run a retailing business more efficiently than the community's current retailers. You steadfastly ignore the societal good of providing great selection at low prices.

The only way I would characterize Walmart's practice as wrong or evil is if they artificially lowered their prices to drive out business, and then jacked them up once they had monopoly power. But they don't do that. All they do is provide great service at great prices.

I'm actually not ignoring it; I have acknowledged it repeatedly, while also wondering if the societal benefits of cheaper goods is being outweighed by the other costs. I don't know the answer. But I also believe in the relationship between smoke and fire and cannot help but notice that a lot of people with no relation to one another say that they have been badly hurt by WM's business practices. I don't think it's an accident that we hear about WM and not Target or Costco, for instance.

[dckingsfan]

And Amazon also? I hear much more about them undermining local businesses - especially book retailers.

[Induveca]

And Amazon also? I hear much more about them undermining local businesses - especially book retailers.

eBay? Amazon? Uber? Instacart? Postmates? Seamless? They are all technically leaching off of and slowly killing brick and mortar service establishments.

It's called innovation. Which Walmart certainly did in retail for decades. They decimated their competition not by greed or unpatriotic (still not sure how a global retailer can be "unpatriotic") practices. Walmart identified and implemented what is now the de facto global supply chain two decades earlier than their competition. It was an unavoidable shift in American retail with the lack of reliable/affordable US manufacturing.

Decades later their star is beginning to fade, for better or worse. They are being squeezed by targeted Chinese regulation and port shipment delays the past two years....and having 20000 foot stores is no longer needed. Same or next day warehouse delivery/pickup is inevitable. Amazon and same day/on demand delivery services are disrupting retail.

A tip for investors. The best early indicator I've found for the ultimate direction of any industry is analyzing the "in development" software and service offerings from major consulting firms (IBM, SAP etc). They spend hundreds of millions in R&D and trend analysis to support and advise their clients.

Grocers are a great investment currently. They are the only brick and mortar experience immune from the current disruption in retail/shopping.

[popper]

Central Command Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly says if Ebola reaches Central or South America it's Katy Bar the Door. Illegal aliens will flock to the US in order to receive free treatment or to avoid infection. We could secure the border if we wanted to, and we could prohibit flights from West Africa if we wanted to. But there's no need to worry however since we all know how competent our govt. is in predicting and ameliorating foreign threats. Rest assured, govt. is in control.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123359

CDC's Frieden: US Needs to Rethink Ebola Infection Controls

Monday, 13 Oct 2014 07:37 PM


Medical experts need to rethink how highly infectious diseases are handled in the United States, a U.S. health official said on Monday, after a Dallas nurse contracted Ebola despite wearing protective gear while caring for a dying Liberian patient.

As an outbreak of the deadly virus spread beyond West Africa, hospitals and nursing associations across the United States were taking a closer look at how prepared they were to handle such infections.

"We have to rethink the way we address Ebola infection control. Even a single infection is unacceptable," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters. "The care of Ebola is hard. We're working to make it safer and easier.".......................


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Friede ... z3G4vxeDNK

[Zonkerbl]

I think the U.S. is evolving into an "entertainment only" economy. We don't make things anymore, we just entertain each other. We make hamburgers, we provide locations to hang out and buy stuff made in other countries, we play professional sports, make music and video games and so on. That's our thing - we're pretty good at it.

If you have talent you will enjoy the next 100 years. If you don't life is going to pretty much suck for you. If you trained all your life for a manufacturing job life is going to pretty much suck for you.

The question is, how much of our national wealth are we willing to spend to make things easier for people pushed aside by progress? And how do we do it?

I think everybody agrees we should do something. At the very least we should give people the opportunity to retrain.

I find the idea of preventing Wal-Mart from entering a market kind of... well... not particularly useful. Because poor people actually benefit from Wal-Mart a LOT. So you save a few workers by hurting all the other poor people nearby. I don't think you come out ahead. That said I really would rather Wal-Mart not open a location in my neighborhood. Because blick.

[Zonkerbl]

Central Command Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly says if Ebola reaches Central or South America it's Katy Bar the Door. Illegal aliens will flock to the US in order to receive free treatment or to avoid infection. We could secure the border if we wanted to, and we could prohibit flights from West Africa if we wanted to. But there's no need to worry however since we all know how competent our govt. is in predicting and ameliorating foreign threats. Rest assured, govt. is in control.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123359

CDC's Frieden: US Needs to Rethink Ebola Infection Controls

Monday, 13 Oct 2014 07:37 PM


Medical experts need to rethink how highly infectious diseases are handled in the United States, a U.S. health official said on Monday, after a Dallas nurse contracted Ebola despite wearing protective gear while caring for a dying Liberian patient.

As an outbreak of the deadly virus spread beyond West Africa, hospitals and nursing associations across the United States were taking a closer look at how prepared they were to handle such infections.

"We have to rethink the way we address Ebola infection control. Even a single infection is unacceptable," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters. "The care of Ebola is hard. We're working to make it safer and easier.".......................


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Friede ... z3G4vxeDNK

Sucky. Who knew all the zombie apocalypse stories were describing the LESS horrific disease?

[popper]

I think the U.S. is evolving into an "entertainment only" economy. We don't make things anymore, we just entertain each other. We make hamburgers, we provide locations to hang out and buy stuff made in other countries, we play professional sports, make music and video games and so on. That's our thing - we're pretty good at it.

If you have talent you will enjoy the next 100 years. If you don't life is going to pretty much suck for you. If you trained all your life for a manufacturing job life is going to pretty much suck for you.

The question is, how much of our national wealth are we willing to spend to make things easier for people pushed aside by progress? And how do we do it?

I think everybody agrees we should do something. At the very least we should give people the opportunity to retrain.

I find the idea of preventing Wal-Mart from entering a market kind of... well... not particularly useful. Because poor people actually benefit from Wal-Mart a LOT. So you save a few workers by hurting all the other poor people nearby. I don't think you come out ahead. That said I really would rather Wal-Mart not open a location in my neighborhood. Because blick.

I'm getting to the point that I'd pay an extra $1,000 a year in taxes for five years to invest in infrastructure and put people back to work. Included in the infrastructure plan would be my pet project, a national fresh water distribution and storage network. We need to ensure that plentiful fresh water is available in all 50 states and at all times. Farmers and municipalities would pay per thousand gallons used and the investment would be recouped over time. Also, the plan would require every able body person that now collects some form of means tested welfare to work 3 days a week plus one day of training per week. They can use day five for job interviews.

[noworriesinmd]

Grocers are a great investment currently. They are the only brick and mortar experience immune from the current disruption in retail/shopping.

Not true
WholeFoods, Trader Jose on the high end
Walmart on the low end.


Everyone else is done...Giant, Safeway,etc

In the end, even grocery shopping will be online.
I bought half my household items from Walmart and Amazon last night.
I've just started to use Peapod.

WholeFoods in DC has a drive through WIndow on Wisonsin...where you can call ahead.

Uber is piloting a program where Uber drives will drive groceries to your door.

Retail brick and mortar is changing.

[Induveca]

Grocers are a great investment currently. They are the only brick and mortar experience immune from the current disruption in retail/shopping.

Not true
WholeFoods, Trader Jose on the high end
Walmart on the low end.


Everyone else is done...Giant, Safeway,etc

In the end, even grocery shopping will be online.
I bought half my household items from Walmart and Amazon last night.
I've just started to use Peapod.

WholeFoods in DC has a drive through WIndow on Wisonsin...where you can call ahead.

Uber is piloting a program where Uber drives will drive groceries to your door.

Retail brick and mortar is changing.

I agree completely, but not for last minute groceries. Gartner Group and other market research show groceries actually benefit from same day delivery, as they typically own the service or provide the goods to other services via their warehouses.

In NYC Amazon delivers me product same day from their New Jersey warehouse. Grocers typically take 3 days for their own service, but if I use Postmates, WunWun or Instacart for groceries they simply go to the grocer of my choice and charge a service fee.

Also the Uber delivery service is extremely late to the game. There are at least 7 established services delivering groceries in NYC and San Francisco. Instacart, Amazon Local, Postmates, EBay Now, Google Shopping Express, WunWun etc.......