2006-10-23 19:25:35 · 5 answers · asked by Ricky 5 in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
probably target-- wal-mart is terrible to it's employees. you should check out nickel and dimed by barbara ehrenreich... she did an experiment to see if it were realistic to live off of minimum wage or to work at wal-mart and her findings were pretty ridiculous (in the way that wal-mart treats its employees).
in response to hercspin... what?!?! walmart is better for the economy? what economics class did you take? extend affordability? really? you ought to look into that...
wal-mart lowers prices so that other business cannot compete and then are forced to close. in which case, they jack up their prices (now having a monopoly in the area) and no one can afford anything. just for future reference--monopoly = baaaaaad for consumers. and you should rethink the whole idea about "just because their employees cant live on that wage..." doncha think the poor, i.e. wal-mart employees, need the help more than anyone else?
2006-10-23 19:32:04 · answer #1 · answered by christian 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wal-Mart is better for the economy and extends affordability for their consumers who also deserve consideration as they include all ranges of economic classes. There is a heck lot more to ponder when thinking through a business' worth than solely the wage of employees.
2006-10-23 19:39:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Target definitely, since Walmart doesnt provide medical insurance for their employees (among other things of course).
2006-10-23 19:34:39 · answer #3 · answered by kutingtingting 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Target definetly!
PLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! watch "wal-mart the high cost of low prices" it is very important!
2006-10-23 19:34:42 · answer #4 · answered by darrkadlubowski 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
probably target
2006-10-23 19:26:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋