To those sour-faced defenders of the "free" market and its necessarily poor treatment of the bottom rung: I do not apologize. Other than that, this image needs neither description nor comment.
carotgraphy
Comments
Before reading your post I came across this article. It is about Jim Sinegal, the chief executive of Costco Wholesale, who doesn't believe he must pay poorly and skimp on benefits to be competitive with stores like Wal Mart.
Yeah, but do they really compete?
Do they even have the same clientele?
I feel like Costco is just an elitist wholesaler, where through the ultra-consumer support of its "members"--the Suburban-owning suburbanites who live in the new sprawling developments nearby--it can well afford to keep its employees happy. Unlike Costco, Wal-Mart is just a $0.99 store gone awry, luring in the poor and the cheap with the low prices on the shoddy crap, and paying employees as though they are shoddy crap as well. (Okay, I realize these are gross generalizations, but c'mon, just because they are two big boxes, does that necessarily mean they are fierce competitors?) I think it is great that Costco treats employees pretty well. I think that calling them altruistic for such a practice is a stretch, when to me, it is clearly easier for them to pay their employees better. But what do I know anyway.
And also, I agree with Justin: fewer rights, fewer jobs, fewer local businesses. (But I love the sign anyway)
To those sour-faced defenders of the "free" market and its necessarily poor treatment of the bottom rung: I do not apologize. Other than that, this image needs neither description nor comment.
Before reading your post I came across this article. It is about Jim Sinegal, the chief executive of Costco Wholesale, who doesn't believe he must pay poorly and skimp on benefits to be competitive with stores like Wal Mart.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3268811
Posted by: GSH | 07/20/2005 at 14:26
I get it. It's witty social commentary and a play on words. But I can't get past the grammar. Shouldn't it be "fewer jobs in Canada"?
Posted by: Justin | 07/21/2005 at 11:31
Yeah, but do they really compete?
Do they even have the same clientele?
I feel like Costco is just an elitist wholesaler, where through the ultra-consumer support of its "members"--the Suburban-owning suburbanites who live in the new sprawling developments nearby--it can well afford to keep its employees happy. Unlike Costco, Wal-Mart is just a $0.99 store gone awry, luring in the poor and the cheap with the low prices on the shoddy crap, and paying employees as though they are shoddy crap as well. (Okay, I realize these are gross generalizations, but c'mon, just because they are two big boxes, does that necessarily mean they are fierce competitors?) I think it is great that Costco treats employees pretty well. I think that calling them altruistic for such a practice is a stretch, when to me, it is clearly easier for them to pay their employees better. But what do I know anyway.
And also, I agree with Justin: fewer rights, fewer jobs, fewer local businesses. (But I love the sign anyway)
Posted by: Gaela | 07/22/2005 at 22:40