jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
Jonathan Ball wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


Jonathan Ball wrote:



jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...



jps wrote:




In article et,
says...





Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?


Surely you'll find out

I have always known.


I'm sure you know a lot about low-quality jobs.

No, I know about $100,000+ jobs. I hold one.


So, you work 10 shifts at 7-11. BFD.

He says he's got a $100k+ "job" while he asserts being the Chief
Executive of a California corporation.

It's not a "job" if you're the founder and a corporate executive. Your
thin veil is thinner than I thought.

His semantics, not mine.


He's a snot-nosed college kid, living off of daddy's monthly checks.

--
Email sent to is never read.