Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.80.4.76

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Hating Google for Success

"Big Search" is now responsible for your life's problems

     
8:58 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:May 6, 2005
posts:3
votes: 0


Why do you think people have such a problem with the success of companies? From Wal-Mart to Microsoft, it seems that being successful is enough to bring about hatred from naysayers.

I happen to like the integration that Microsoft has brought me. I can copy an Excel spreadsheet and paste it into Word or Outlook. It just works, and works well.

I happen to like that Adobe Photoshop can read my Illustrator files, edit them as a bitmap, and paste into Premiere.

I even like that WalMart brings me extremely low prices when mom-and-pops can't, and gives many, many more people jobs than mom-and-pops ever would dream to be able to do.

We tend to love to hate the rich and the successful. Why? The rich are the investors in small and medium (and large) businesses. I never got a job from a poor person.

So when Google becomes dominant in search and adverising and everything else "net" -- I admire them. I only wish I had bought at $135.

Google will continue to get better. More and more of its products will bring webmasters and advertisers - and visitors - together. I may switch to msn or yahoo because they fulfill my needs better, but I will NOT do it simply because Google is "too successful."

3:27 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 6, 2005
posts:134
votes: 0



If your site enjoys even a medium of success, you can face many of the same issues that G and Walmart face too. Many of the same people that enjoy bashing the big boys, will some day soon, be the big boys themselves.

I agree, that's a problem I wish I had.;)

7:45 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Mar 17, 2005
posts:296
votes: 0


I seriously doubt that I would ever get "big" enough to lock employees in a store overnight (to stop the stock boys from stealing) or to refuse to pay workers for their actual hours, or to shut down a store because six meat packers decided to unionize, or build a superstore at the feet of Aztec pyramids, or subcontract jobs to companies that employ illegal immigrants, etc. etc.

Those failures are failures of ethics, not size.

Are we to believe that once you get "big" you become unethical? If that is the case, then that's a very strong argument for limiting the growth of such entities even more rigorously.

Unless you enjoy getting screwed.

There are plenty of large organizations which can and do play by the rules. The idea that those of us who don't like the policies of Wal-Mart "hate" every "big" corporation is pure hogwash. It is a fine example of a non-argument employed by those who can not and will not discuss a topic intelligently and who refuse to obtain even the most rudimentary facts.

8:22 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 29, 2005
posts:866
votes: 0


>>>Many of the same people that enjoy bashing the big boys, will some day soon, be the big boys themselves<<<

I think in this day and age you don't get big without being that way from the beginning. I don't see a single corporate big boy out there that isn't cut throat already. I just believe that some(read:wal-mart) are just plain evil.

8:42 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Mar 17, 2005
posts:296
votes: 0


Just gotta LOVE Costco!

[commondreams.org...]

Mass-retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club warehouse chain, has emerged as the high-road model. While Wal-Mart fights aggressively to stop any union organizing whatever, Costco has agreements with the Teamsters for 16 percent of its employees and has extended most of the benefits to its entire workforce.

A BusinessWeek analysis shows Costco's average hourly wage is $15.97, far above the Wal-Mart (Sam's Club) $11.52 figure, even excluding the 25 percent of Wal-Mart workers who are low-paid part-timers.

The yearly employer contributions to health care -- Costco, $5,735; Wal-Mart, $3,500. Of Costco employees, 82 percent are covered by the health plan; Wal-Mart, 47 percent. Employee turnover at Wal-Mart is three times higher than Costco's.

And then comes the clincher, suggesting the low-road approach may not be so clever after all: Costco's profit per employee is $13,647; Wal-Mart's, $11,039.

Paying good wages and benefits, says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, "is not altruistic; this is good business."

8:42 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Nov 3, 2005
posts:54
votes: 0


"Are we to believe that once you get "big" you become unethical? "
Yes, and Greedy.
But eventually it comes the day when you have to face your Waterloo (Historyproof low).
8:47 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Mar 17, 2005
posts:296
votes: 0


zikos,

The Costco statistics prove that profitablity and ethical treatment of labor go hand in hand.

Why does Wal-Mart hate their stock holders so much that they won't maximize profits by cultivating a happier, more productive work force?

2:58 am on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


There are several distinctions here. Walmart and Google are not monopolies, even "virtual" ones. Walmart doesn't even have a majority, let alone a monopoly, of any business it's in. The same goes for Google, with spades -- its plurality of the search market is apparently shrinking, even.

Then there are legal monopolies -- Alcoa, for instance.

Then there are the criminal-conspirator monopolies -- drug cartels, labor unions, and Microsoft dominate this category.

Microsoft treats its employees badly, so rumor claims, (and at least one federal judge determined they stepped beyond the bounds of law in that.). Walmart (family experience here) treats its employees comparably to its competitors. As for forcing employees to pay Danegeld to the Teamsters, that's a bigger crime than any I've ever heard Walmart accused of. (I personally suspect Teamster propaganda whenever the "walmart monopoly" canard comes out -- because it is such absolute nonsense, unless "monopoly" has taken on a completely different meaning from its legal and customary one. That suspicion is often confirmed by related comments, as it was here. Note the similarity of the Walmart accusations and the Boston Globe accusations against Quinn -- in both cases the hand of the REAL monopoly (teamsters/Microsoft) is visible.

But other companies that are not monopolies (and never will be) treat employees badly. If you treat the PUBLIC badly enough, you can treat your employees well. But if you're the kind of person who does the one, you're unlikely to do the other.

4:37 am on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Mar 17, 2005
posts:296
votes: 0


There are facts, and then there are conspiracy theories masquerading as facts. Fantastically contrived speculation penned by one long practiced in obfuscation does not warrant a serious response.

One can call oneself "open" but when one's projects are characterized by the blatant manipulations of an unaccountable hierarchy at the expense of the pubic good, then any claim to the moral superiority of the whistleblower surpasses mere questionabilty and approaches the absurd.

Will Rodgers said he never met a man he didn't like, what he would say of a meta man, we will never know.

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members