Retail Employees Will Never Improve Their Lot As Long As You Want Really Cheap Stuff and Big Sales

It is interesting that the left-leaning Huffington Post breathlessly rages against Walmart and others for long hours, underpaid workers and what they say are bad health care offerings, and yet also tells readers (almost as breathlessly) where to find the cheapest prices on a wide variety of goods . . . turkeys, Christmas decorations, electronics and the like.

So . . . umm . . . anyone see an issue with this?

Simply, if we want the lowest possible prices, how can we expect workers to be better paid, have better company-sponsored health insurance and not work holidays (when millions of people push away from the table and storm the big boxes for ground-breaking deals)?

It can’t work that way.

That $899 big screen TV you bought last week was a great deal. Nobody had a better price. You checked. You don’t care if the store that sold it to you made any money because you got a great deal. But you saw the same TV on sale at another store for $988, still a good deal, but not the best. Like everyone else, it’s the pre-holiday bargain that counts.

In the end, you really don’t care too much about what store workers make, whether or not they are full-time or part-time or whether they have health insurance. You want the best prices before you spend your own hard-earned money.  And millions of shoppers agree with you.

But if you give workers a $2-an hour raise and pay for at least part of their health insurance, that $899 TV disappears. It may now be a $950 TV, and if another store has a better price, you’re going there.

If the average Walmart employee makes somewhere just north of $9 an hour, and let’s say there are 1.4 million workers, a $2 an hour raise for everyone would equal some $2.8 million a day in wage increases, and around $12 million or so each week (assuming five working days) and $624 million in increased wages a year.

So how can a Walmart (which, as the country’s largest employer, is the biggest target for such discussions . . . no pun intended), add those costs while still maintaining its “low price guarantee?” You tell me. And we haven’t even added health care costs, overtime, or ongoing raises. I also just threw out the $2 an hour increase. I’m sure that would be considered a low number by many, given that $11 an hour certainly doesn’t seem to be a huge improvement over the $9 base, though I’m also sure such a bump would be more than welcomed by those currently struggling to make end meet.

While I haven’t seen any real info on what the bottom line number is on the “we want better pay” scale, I also haven’t seen anyone write about how retail outlets can maintain their pricing edge while boosting employee pay and benefits. Trust me, if one company increases its costs, another one will undercut it somehow.

It’s all well and good to rant about how companies only care about making money, and not about employees, that really doesn’t say much. Of course companies are in business to make money. Of course retail can suck. And maybe smaller businesses that do well are better able to recycle those profits back into the business as well as improved employee pay and benefits.

But until someone shows me how, on a large scale, a retail company like Walmart, Target, Sears or Kmart can keep the rock bottom prices you want while at the same time increasing employee costs, I’m at a loss, as are millions of hard working American workers.

GOP Stung by Romney Loss and the Second-Guessing Has Begun

We can frame the election, and the failure of Mitt Romney to capture the flag, a number of different ways, but most Republican pundits are getting it wrong, targeting the “pandering” of the Dems to a variety of voting blocks and special interest groups and creating a divisive campaign that sharpened a class war between, in essence, those who work and those who want government freebies.

They couldn’t be more off the mark.

Let me note that I’m a white heterosexual guy just a few years short of 60 years old. I grew up in a wealthy town, went to private schools, worked as a reporter and editor for a small daily newspaper, worked on Wall Street as a marketing guy then a product manager and owned a small business. I own a house and a very large 12-year-old SUV. I’m a father, consider myself a political moderate and a capitalist.

Romney should have had me at hello. He shoulda, coulda and woulda won if he and his party eliminated the stupid mistakes, kept on the old Romney’s more moderate positions and embraced the idea that America isn’t made up of old white guys like me.

Instead of outlining specific ideas on how he would put America and its business back on track, in the face of unemployment topping out above 10 percent and falling by election time to around 8 percent (and probably significantly higher since a chunk of people stopped bothering to look for work), he followed a “no information” policy that seemed offered no new ideas, boldness or, in the end, leadership.

He and his advisers seemed to take every opportunity to trip themselves up. Whether it was the long talk about not releasing his tax returns, flip-flops on key issues like health care, abortion, the auto industry or outsourcing jobs, Romney presented himself as a moving target even for those who supported him. And while that support was often lukewarm, thanks in large part to GOP hardliners who continually questioned his “conservativeness,” he did end up with the Republican flag and a chance for the big prize.

Even the most Democratic observer would have to admit that at the start, President Obama looked fabulously vulnerable. But Romney was done in by his party’s far right turn and his willingness to chuck the supposedly “moderate” Romney for the far-right one. 

The fact that he wasn’t very good on his political feet added to a growing sense that this thing was slipping away. And in dramatic fashion . . . despite the high rate of unemployment, rising debt, virulent hate for Obama and a mystifying (and I’d argue non-existent) war on religion . . . the Republicans lost, and Romney was turned into just another guy who couldn’t close the deal.

Anderson Cooper, Art Smith and Anne Burrell Are Gay . . . And I Don't Care

Anderson Cooper is gay. And I don’t care.

That he felt it was important for him to come out was his business, but I just really don’t care. Should I like him more or less because he’s gay? Is he better at his job because he’s gay? Nicer? Less serious? Better looking? I’m thinking none of the above. Bottom line is that it just doesn’t matter to me at all if a person’s gay or not gay.

Chefs Art Smith and Anne Burrell are gay. Does that make them better chefs? Do I want to try their food because they’re gay.  No. I want to try their food because they’re good chefs.

And the list goes on and one, and since it’s campaign season, this is why I think Republicans are completely on the wrong side of this. A lot of people just don’t care, and see politicians as denying gays of the rights non-gays have. Marriage, healthcare, property rights, employment rights, estate rights. And sooner or later, it’ll bite the GOP on the ass.

Because people get pissed when their friends are denied rights just because they are gay.

I’m old and happen not to be gay, and if I don’t care if someone’s gay or not gay, then what about the wave of younger people? They’ll vote on these social issues. And they don’t want the clock rolled back . . . they want it moving ever forward. And that means the same rights for everyone. If someone wants to come out, great, but for me, it doesn’t change the game.

Republicans are riding the wrong wave . . . the  “anti” wave may over time kill the party, or leave it to old white guys who just love having their heads buried in the sand. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt your marriage. Loving same-sex couples don’t hurt your household. Gay parents don’t hurt you or your kids or how you raise your kids. While some rage that same-sex marriage imperil the “institution of marriage,” I don’t quite get that. You can be well married without a religious ceremony and I’m not sure the marriage track record is all that great in some respects . . . kids still get abused, people still get divorced, etc. etc. So I take those rages as just that . . . rages against something that some people don’t like. But the issue is bigger than that, nd much bigger than the ragers.

When I was a kid, there were no gay people (of course there were, but who knew?). Nobody was out, nobody talked about gay people . . . Times have changed. It’s easier for gays to come out. The social “stigma” is ending. That’s a good thing. Not a bad thing. It’s a civil rights issue, and denying gays equal rights is wrong. I don’t want to deny anyone the rights I have. And while Republicans say they want less government, they seem more than happy to monitor and regulate what goes on in the bedroom (and between you and your doctor, but we’ll deal with that another time).

Keep an eye out . . . Republicans have ruled the political playground in the past, but rolling the clock back is the wrong move for them. They would do well to roll back their extreme social positions and draw more people into their tent. Otherwise, they’ll self destruct.

There's No Kick Ass in This Presidential Campaign

Apparently the Three Stooges are running the Romney campaign. Battered for months over his business experience, something the campaign had touted as a competitive advantage against the Obama economic morass, Romney has found himself trying to fight off the ropes and regain the upper hand as the negatively heated battle enters its final three months.

Unfortunately for the GOP nominee, there’s only one guy who could continually fight off the ropes and win, and that’s Muhammad Ali . . . and, Mitt, you’re no Muhammad Ali. Romney should be pounding Obama, but stumbles, non-specific answers, no public blueprinting of policies, an almost desperate clinging to “no tax cuts for the rich,” and an upstream fight on many social issues ad the Republicans are gasping for air.

There’s no kick ass on either side, and with just a few weeks to go, both campaigns are bordering on boring with an massive overdose of inaccurate ads, misleading speeches and, in the case of Republicans, stomping on Obama for policies they voted for in years past.

It didn’t have to be this way for Romney. Clearly the plan was to hammer Obama on the lousy economy, high unemployment rate and spiraling deficit. If only that were true . . . Romney has stumbled, bumbled and  flopped at nearly every turn.  While the negatives ads have landed body blows, Romney isn’t very good on his feet and his verbal gaffs, not the least of which was insulting the London Olympic organizers during his first overseas as the then-presumptive GOP nominee.

Mitt, just smile and say you are really looking forward to watching the games in “this great city.” Sheesh, how tough is that? They’re our allies, Mitt.

Now both convention love fests are behind us (thank goodness), and the race begins in earnest. Well, maybe not in earnest since this is politics, after all. The Dems seemed to come out of their convention a bit better off, since they didn’t have an actor going way off script. The big talk about the GOP convention has turned out to be Eastwood’s speech, even though Ann Romney tried her best to convince us her husband is a really nice guy. Michelle Obama played the “Obama is you” card  . . . so now we’re supposed to love these guys as much as their dedicated and loving wives do. Not quite.

We’ll see if the Republicans can term their campaign ship around. I have my doubts. I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of nearly every social issue one can think of, and one has to wonder how big a deal that will be come election day. It happens to be a biggie for me.

Romney should be pummeling Obama in the polls, but with the two neck and neck, with various battleground states leaning a bit towards Obama, it’s a toss-up now and probably will be in November. The GOP will get its base out, but the Dems may struggle to get the young voters they nabbed four years ago. Hold on, and keep the remote handy, because those damn ads are only going to get worse.

Ann Curry Takes the Bullet for NBC's Today . . . Ok Bullets

Getting fired sucks. Getting hung out to dry by your employer in front of tens of millions of people really sucks. Poor Ann Curry. She took the bullet for some faltering of the Today Show brand amid ABC’s Good Morning America’s ratings rise.

Nevermind that the rumor mill was churning for some time before her bosses made sure we all knew she in trouble . . . called too earnest during the fluff segments of the multi-hour show . . . said not to get along all that well with the recently re-signed (for a reportedly $25 million a year) Matt Lauer . . . I don’t really get that part, since they’d worked together for years, and it does take two to tango.

Curry’s career flopped about in the high-profile rating’s game as every real news outlet and “celebrity” news outlet guessed at who would replace her. Let’s not forget that Curry, too, was part of the multi-year team that kept Today on top of the ratings heap. And is it not possible that Good Morning America has improved in recent months?

So the other day, after a few minutes of really awkward and tearful goodbyes, Curry was gone . . . poof. So after 15 years at the Today show, and seven Emmys for her reporting, Curry was booted.

Savannah Guthrie, continuing her meteoric rise within the network, was named Curry’s replacement (though Friday’s show aired without the usual lead-in host names on screen or audio). Guthrie certainly seems to have the chops to make it as a co-host, but who knows. Viewers may put some of their heat on Guthrie, though I’m guessing NBC’s malicious and inept handling of Curry’s axing will take most of it.

Steve Capus, head of NBC News, apparently couldn’t wait to get one more kick in when he told The Hollywood Reporter, that NBC had “given her a year to prove herself.”

“We gave her a year to prove herself, and ultimately we came to the conclusion that she had played at the highest level she could," he said. "When you’re in the major leagues of our profession, you’ve got to continue to be at peak performance in order to stay there."

While he went on to say Curry had good hard news chops yadda yadda, if I were Curry, I would have appreciated it if my employer could have shown some restraint and his boots off my neck in public. All that said, the rumors and leaks came from somewhere . . . my vote’s from inside the NBC ivory tower.

So now Curry will wander the land doing interviews and stories as Today anchor-at-large (whatever the heck that is).

She’s a good news interviewer, perhaps overly earnest at times, and I look forward to seeing more of her work.

The takeaways? Business is tough . . . rating are all that really counts . . . never trust your employer . . . no job is forever . . . and keep a Kevlar vest handy . . .

Suspending Common Sense as Volume Increases Over Fracking Risks

Sometimes politicians seem confused by their jobs, and, thus, fail to do their jobs. They are elected to represent “the people,” not just some of the people and certainly not business before people.

Such is the case with “fracking.”

This is one of those “do the right thing issues.” Fracking is the process of injecting water and various chemicals deep underground under high pressure to drive gas and other petroleum products out of the ground into pumping stations.

The problem is that this process seems to pollute the ground and water in the ground, hence the drinking water of those in relative proximity to fracking. The industry and many politicians dispute this, but there is growing evidence groundwater pollution is a major issue and will become even more of an issue as the process spreads to more areas. There are other issues, such as huge amounts of water used (up to 5 million gallons per well), radioactive wastewater and fracturing underground formations.

For some reason, Republicans are again on the wrong side of an issue. But since they in general oppose the EPA and many regulatory constrictions, fracking has become another political sticking point between the GOP and those who think slower is better.

This type of stance by Republicans reinforces the public view that they are bought and paid for by special interest groups. (A perception that people have of most all politicians, regardless of party.) In this case, the oil and gas industry, which continues, along with much political assistance, to push for more fracking and fewer regulations.

Now to my way of thinking, this is the kind of thing we should make sure is safe before we expand it. Just makes sense, since pumping chemicals into the ground would seem to be a risking proposition as far as pollution goes. So the “do the right thing” stand should be let’s make sure this is safe first.

Some politicians, money blinding their clear, or sensible sight, disagree, saying energy and more jobs are a priority. I’d argue that making sure you aren’t poisoning people is a primary priority. And while I understand over-regulation can crimp business, this is why the government, on a federal level needs to mandate moratorium on fracking until independent studies show it is safe.

In some cases, politicians have passed legislation banning the disclosure of chemicals and other ingredients companies inject into their wells. And in Pennsylvania, doctors are allowed to see a list of chemicals used, but are forbidden to discuss them with patients. How is this possible? Another example of politicians stepping between a doctor and his or her patient. Outrageous.

Bitch about regulation if you want, but in the long run sensible regulations save us money we might later spend on cleanup. (BP and the Gulf mean anything?) And, frankly, I wouldn’t want any gas company fracking in my back yard . . . I’m guessing narrow-minded politicians wouldn’t either. Maybe they should spend some time with a family whose water smells like chemicals and burns like gas before they decide to allow unfettered fracking over the growing protests of their constituents. 

Fox Studio Taken Over by Muppets as Pundits Call for Rescue by Transformers

BREAKING NEWS: Police in New York have just reported that Fox News studios have been taken over by a group of rabid Muppets, at least 50 first-graders and assorted characters from the movie Lorax.

According to police, the attack on Fox was prompted by recent comments by Fox commentators about the Muppets and Lorax.

On Tuesday, host Lou Dobbs railed against "The Lorax," along with the Japanese children's film, "The Secret World of Arrietty. "Hollywood is once again trying to indoctrinate our children," he warned. He claimed that the movies were "demonizing the 1% and espousing green energy policies."


Dobbs said "The Lorax" was about "a woodland creature that speaks for the trees and fights rampant industrialism." He replayed a clip of the Lorax demanding to know who chopped down a Truffula Tree.
"The President's liberal friends in Hollywood targeting a younger demographic using animated movies to sell their agenda to children," he alleged.


Previously, the Muppets came under fire from a Fox face for brainwashing young children with a liberal agenda.

Police reported that Fox personnel had sent out a call to the Transformers to rescue them. Although some Fox executives suggested such a call was not needed, and noted that the Transformers are illegal aliens. They added that clearly the kids and the characters are an even bigger threat than the Decepticons.

Late today there was no word from the studio other than the Muppets saying they were trying to talk with the Fox pundits, but they were too stupid to understand the difference between reality and puppets. The Muppets and kids are demanding an apology from Fox.