Walmart closes 5 stores

[GagHalfrunt]

Now I understand. You hate unions because you're an opinionated & self important prick.

I was just checking to be sure.

Wow, what an intelligent and well-reasoned comeback. Tell me, by the time you got to the third word did you feel the urge to stop and scream for somebody to pay you more to finish the sentence? If so, it would explain a whole lot.

 

[MongGrel]

Wow, what an intelligent and well-reasoned comeback. Tell me, by the time you got to the third word did you feel the urge to stop and scream for somebody to pay you more to finish the sentence? If so, it would explain a whole lot.

I guess you're religious views carry over to anything in organized in real life, from the looks of it.

Politics is pretty much an off shoot of all those in general isn't it ?

 

[Darwin333]

Labor Unions aren't just about minimum wage, they're about raising wages, benefits & conditions for working people in general.

I keep hearing the argument that because Walmart pays close to the minimum wage that the taxpayers are subsidizing them. If that is in fact true then the taxpayers must be subsidizing all minimum wage jobs and as such shouldn't the argument be that it's Congresses job to fix?

I haven't heard that the working conditions were bad at Walmart.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I guess you're religious views carry over to anything in organized in real life, from the looks of it.

Politics is pretty much an off shoot of all those in general isn't it ?

Yeah, and the "less filling, tastes great" things is pretty much an offshoot of politics.

I just found it amusing that when confronted about my views on unions I was able to offer real life examples of working in a union and in management in a company with employees of that very same union and could use real world examples of union greed and corruption. And to counter that, he was unable to muster one logical word of how and why a union is a good thing, just pathetic childish name-calling. But I don't blame the pathetic child in this case. Of course he can't counter with real world examples of how unions are good and noble and just. THERE AREN'T ANY. So name calling is all that side of the argument can use. I'm surprised he managed to call me names in here, it must have been fighting against a lifetime of muscle memory to not spray paint them on a sign and march outside my house.

 

[Darwin333]

Address from all angles. I'm not against raising the minimum wage, and I wasn't exactly sending that directly against walmart, but again...that will put a dent in corporate earnings. And since those same corporate earnings are what keep our politicians in power....seems like a catch 22.

If another major chain did the same thing, I'd be saying the same thing. Walmart is not alone in their antics.

I don't see how it would hurt profits if everyone had to do it. The companies would simply raise prices accordingly since all companies would be seeing the same cost increase.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I keep hearing the argument that because Walmart pays close to the minimum wage that the taxpayers are subsidizing them. If that is in fact true then the taxpayers must be subsidizing all minimum wage jobs and as such shouldn't the argument be that it's Congresses job to fix?

I haven't heard that the working conditions were bad at Walmart.

If working conditions were that bad inside Wal-Mart people wouldn't work for Wal-Mart. That's the part of the equation that the anti business whack jobs can't understand. If the employees can get more money and/or better conditions working elsewhere they would and Wal-Mart would be forced to raise wages and/or benefits to compensate ans attract workers. The fact that Wal-Mart can pay what they do and keep the stores fully staffed proves that that is what the job is worth, it proves that the employees are not worth more money and it proves that conditions are not better elsewhere for employees of the same skill level. Period. If you don't like working at Wal-Mart, don't work at Wal-Mart. And if that's the best job you can get, then that's the best job you're qualified to hold.

 

[Free_Speech]

And you hate unions because... what, exactly?

I'll tell you why I hate unions.
a) This isn't 1920
b) They operate just like the US Gov't:Get elected,collect money,then sell out the people they're supposed to be looking out for.

 

[MongGrel]

If working conditions were that bad inside Wal-Mart people wouldn't work for Wal-Mart. That's the part of the equation that the anti business whack jobs can't understand. If the employees can get more money and/or better conditions working elsewhere they would and Wal-Mart would be forced to raise wages and/or benefits to compensate ans attract workers. The fact that Wal-Mart can pay what they do and keep the stores fully staffed proves that that is what the job is worth, it proves that the employees are not worth more money and it proves that conditions are not better elsewhere for employees of the same skill level. Period. If you don't like working at Wal-Mart, don't work at Wal-Mart. And if that's the best job you can get, then that's the best job you're qualified to hold.

Devo - Whip It (Video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_QLzthSkfM

 

[MongGrel]

I'll tell you why I hate unions.
a) This isn't 1920
b) They operate just like the US Gov't:Get elected,collect money,then sell out the people they're supposed to be looking out for.

Twit.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Twit.

ROFL!! And another intelligent response.


Try to get this through your head: Labor is supply and demand. Period. And unskilled labor is supply and demand taken to the ultimate degree. The market decides what a job is worth. If jobs can be filled at $x.xx then they are filled. If $x.xx is too low the jobs are left unfilled and the wage must rise.

So please, explain in tiny words, why a company that is a business, not a charity, should be obligated to pay employee A $10 a hour to perform unskilled labor when employee B can do the same job just as well for $9 an hour.

Do that without hurting yourself and without sounding like an idiot (okay, without sounding like an even bigger idiot) and I'll come over to your side of this argument. Why does Wal-Mart have to pay A $10 an hour instead of paying B $9 an hour? And why does A deserve to keep that job at $10 an hour when B wants it too and can perform it just as well for less money?

 

[Vic]

Kinda off topic, but Walmart fought for years to put in a store on an undeveloped lot right next door to a Costco in my area. I was never opposed to it but a lot of people were. Finally, the city permits it, but only on the condition that Walmart spend millions on local road improvements.
So, the new Walmart opened around 9 months ago and.. hardly anyone shops there. The parking lot is always empty, while the Costco continues to do insane business.
But thanks, Walmart, for that new intersection!

 

[Vic]

Ugh.. Gag just doesn't get it. Sure a business can do almost anything it wants to (that's legal), but that doesn't mean that it should.
Business (of any kind) is about reputation, which on the corporate level translates into branding. Consumers purchase certain brands because they trust the company and its reputation.
That trust is incredibly hard to acquire, and once acquired, is usually a company's most valuable asset. Without consumer trust in the brand, a company will eventually fail, no matter how well it conducts the rest of its business.
So, with that in mind, how well is Walmart doing to protect its brand reputation vs how well its competitors are doing? Not very good it seems.

 

[MongGrel]

ROFL!! And another intelligent response.

Not wasting the time at this point.

All ready responded.

 

[DrDoug]

If working conditions were that bad inside Wal-Mart people wouldn't work for Wal-Mart. That's the part of the equation that the anti business whack jobs can't understand. If the employees can get more money and/or better conditions working elsewhere they would and Wal-Mart would be forced to raise wages and/or benefits to compensate ans attract workers. The fact that Wal-Mart can pay what they do and keep the stores fully staffed proves that that is what the job is worth, it proves that the employees are not worth more money and it proves that conditions are not better elsewhere for employees of the same skill level. Period. If you don't like working at Wal-Mart, don't work at Wal-Mart. And if that's the best job you can get, then that's the best job you're qualified to hold.

It's attitudes like these that allow businesses to get away with what they do today. The white knights for business who go don't realize that they are cutting their own throats. They believe that the people at the bottom are worthless but they will whine like stuck pigs when they go to a store and get shitty service from low-paid scrubs. They want top notch service from knowledgeable employees and yet say that these employees deserve shit wages. The only reason many of them don't want employees at the bottom to be better paid is that they selfishly care only for how much it might cost them in higher costs for goods and services. They whine some more when the latest gadget, game or whatever costs an arm and a leg. And all the while they cheer rising executive pay and corporate profits, as if it's their football team that is kicking ass.

People who work at the bottom in minimum skill jobs are the 'bearings' in our economic engine. Wages are the grease that keeps those bearings lubricated. These 'bearings' keep things moving, they keep things clean, they keep shelves stocked and so much more. The most important points are that they are doing shit that you want done because it makes life better for everyone, including you, and that they are doing something that you and others like you will not do. If they weren't there there doing their jobs then your quality of life would suffer. Their pay, like yours, has stagnated for decades and yet you would push to keep their wages down rather than insist that business finally pay up for all of the productivity gains that they have enjoyed over the last few decades. The bearings are running dry and need greased but corporations believe that their bearings can run with even less grease!

Try that with the wheel bearings on your car.

Wage stagnation in large corporations is a problem. Companies are making money hand over fist, executives are rolling in dough and everyone else is treading water or slowly sinking while squabbling amongst themselves. I'm sure that nothing I say will change your mind on anything as I have encountered this mindset many times before, so I will end my conversation with you here instead of beating my head against a wall.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Not wasting the time at this point.

All ready responded.

ROFL!! No you didn't. You were 100% unable to address the question. Just admit it. You can't explain why a business should be obligated to pay an employee more than the going rate for a job. That doesn't make you stupid, nobody can explain that. What makes you stupid is continuing to argue the point when you can't put forth a single coherent argument in favor of the position. That's REALLY stupid.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Ugh.. Gag just doesn't get it. Sure a business can do almost anything it wants to (that's legal), but that doesn't mean that it should.
Business (of any kind) is about reputation, which on the corporate level translates into branding. Consumers purchase certain brands because they trust the company and its reputation.
That trust is incredibly hard to acquire, and once acquired, is usually a company's most valuable asset. Without consumer trust in the brand, a company will eventually fail, no matter how well it conducts the rest of its business.
So, with that in mind, how well is Walmart doing to protect its brand reputation vs how well its competitors are doing? Not very good it seems.

Doesn't mean that it should? Seriously? Are you unable to distinguish between employee and shareholder? Employees are not entitled to a slice of the pie just because a business is successful. Profit participation is the benefit to assumption of risk. If you assume the risk of owning a business you get the profit and if it fails you're holding the bag. Employees are entitled to a salary, nothing more, nothing less. They can choose to receive a salary in exchange for work or they can choose not to, it's pretty simple. If they want to share in the profits than put up the cash and assume the risks.

Can an unskilled laborer like a stocker or greeter or porter or janitor or carriage chaser walk across the street and get a better deal at Target or CVS or Kroger's? Does Microsoft give the guy that cleans the bathroom stock options? Those are not part of the compensation package for unskilled labor. In fact, it can be argued that a publicly traded company CAN'T overpay employees. Their legal fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders, they can't give away the profits to the guy in the mailroom just because it feels good and he needs the money. He's getting what he deserves or he knows where the door is.

An employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. I'm not union and I'm not the least bit worried about my job. Why? Because I'm good at it and because I'm paid to be good at it. I'm 100% free to change jobs at any time if someone offers me more money. My employer is 100% free to replace me if they can find someone more skilled at the same price or equally skilled for less money. That works for the vast majority of businesses and the vast majority of employees. My company has the comfort of knowing I have to perform the job well or I'm out. I have the comfort of knowing they have to compensate me fairly or I can leave and make more. Tell me what's wrong with that relationship? Why does any person need protection beyond the marketplace factors that set wages? If you can't make more elsewhere then you're being paid the proper amount. Wal-mart does not chain their employees up at night. They're free to walk out the door and with that comes the freedom to find a different job. If they can't, then Wal-Mart is the best job available and Wal-Mart is not responsible for their lack of options, nor is Wal_Mart obligated to subsidy them beyond their true worth in the workplace.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Gag, aside from acting like a troll, your entire point of view appears to be based on the idea that the only factor involved in doing business is ROI. If that were the case, why would anyone produce goods or direct services when providing investment money, insurance and, analysis are obviously better investments? Oh wait, since there is only so many markets for those companies, other investors are "forced" into less lucrative markets, right? If only they had the education and smarts to get those top slots. Guess they'll just have to take what the market gives them. Oh wait, I forget the wealthy have more tools, options and, resources than the poor and don't need unions.

Your reasoning is simplistic, your attitude obnoxious and, I should know better than to feed the troll.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Gag, aside from acting like a troll, your entire point of view appears to be based on the idea that the only factor involved in doing business is ROI. If that were the case, why would anyone produce goods or direct services when providing investment money, insurance and, analysis are obviously better investments? Oh wait, since there is only so many markets for those companies, other investors are "forced" into less lucrative markets, right? If only they had the education and smarts to get those top slots. Guess they'll just have to take what the market gives them. Oh wait, I forget the wealthy have more tools, options and, resources than the poor and don't need unions.

Your reasoning is simplistic, your attitude obnoxious and, I should know better than to feed the troll.

And what is the point of business? Can you truly not tell the difference between business and charity? One pays money what a job is fairly worth and one gives it out because someone needs it. Your naive and simplistic view of this is somehow confusing the two and thinking pay is based on need rather than value to the company. What color is the sky in your world?

I'm going to keep asking this because it amuses me how quickly you and the others holding this non-tenable position scream "Troll!!!" when what you're really screaming is "I CANT ANSWER THAT!! ARRRGGHH!!!"

What obligation does a business have to pay its employees more than the market value?
What right does an employee have to a job if a different person can do it better or cheaper?

Until you can sensibly answer those questions you can keep screaming "Troll!!!" all you want, but it's just misdirected anger. I'm not responsible for the lack of options for the average Wal-Mart employee. Can they go across the street to Target or KMart or Kroger or Piggly Wiggly and make more? Simple question, yes or no? If they can, why don't they? And if they can't, they're getting paid fairly for the value they deliver to the employer. Run a business someday. Until you've been on both sides of the employer/employee relationship you'll never evolve beyond that hopelessly rose-tinted idealistic viewpoint of everyone making enough money to skip happily through the daisies. Employees sell their services to the highest bidder. If nobody is willing to bid more than Wal-Mart is for those services you need to stop your whining and take a good, hard look at the real value of those services. They call it unskilled labor for a reason.

And I defy you or anyone else to come up with a valid, workable, successful business plan that pays employees what THEY think they deserve rather than the actual value of what the marketplace determines they're worth. Can you? If you can, go ahead and do it, you can revolutionize the business world. And if you can't, have the common courtesy to shut up and stop bitching at Wal-Mart and other employers for not being able to do it.

 

[Darwin333]

It's attitudes like these that allow businesses to get away with what they do today. The white knights for business who go don't realize that they are cutting their own throats. They believe that the people at the bottom are worthless but they will whine like stuck pigs when they go to a store and get shitty service from low-paid scrubs. They want top notch service from knowledgeable employees and yet say that these employees deserve shit wages. The only reason many of them don't want employees at the bottom to be better paid is that they selfishly care only for how much it might cost them in higher costs for goods and services. They whine some more when the latest gadget, game or whatever costs an arm and a leg.

If that was true then the big box stores wouldn't have put all the mom and pop's out of business. People sort of like good service but what the really want, as has been proven, is to be able to get their shit at the cheapest price they can and service be damned.

People who work at the bottom in minimum skill jobs are the 'bearings' in our economic engine. Wages are the grease that keeps those bearings lubricated. These 'bearings' keep things moving, they keep things clean, they keep shelves stocked and so much more. The most important points are that they are doing shit that you want done because it makes life better for everyone, including you, and that they are doing something that you and others like you will not do.

I doubt that it's jobs most of us won't do it's that most of us either got some sort of education or learned a trade that gives us a far better quality of life than stocking shelves. I'd pick friggen fruit if it paid 25% more than what I currently make.

If they weren't there there doing their jobs then your quality of life would suffer. Their pay, like yours, has stagnated for decades and yet you would push to keep their wages down rather than insist that business finally pay up for all of the productivity gains that they have enjoyed over the last few decades. The bearings are running dry and need greased but corporations believe that their bearings can run with even less grease!

That isn't a corporations job though. It never has been and it never will be. Walmart catches a lot of slack because they are the biggest employer but a metric shit ton of other jobs pay minimum wage too. If that is the entirety of your argument then why single out Walmart instead of Congress? We have minimum wage laws for a reason and it's hard to argue that if any job should pay the bare minimum we as a society set it would be the shelf stockers of the country.

Wage stagnation in large corporations is a problem. Companies are making money hand over fist, executives are rolling in dough and everyone else is treading water or slowly sinking while squabbling amongst themselves. I'm sure that nothing I say will change your mind on anything as I have encountered this mindset many times before, so I will end my conversation with you here instead of beating my head against a wall.

The only reason wage stagnation is a problem is because of government monetary policy.

 

[ttown]

You might want to look into their museum deal with Arkansas before you try to say what you said above with a straight face. That's just one of the slimy tax deals they have made to benefit themselves directly. Regarding Walmart and receiving public welfare, the wages of every single one of their employees who is on welfare are what they are benefiting from. The same goes for any company where their pay is so low that the employees qualify for welfare benefits. I'm sure glad to know that you are fine with Walmart underpaying their employees so that you and I get to make up the difference in their pay.

Being that you started your post with that whopping lie it should be no surprise to anyone that the rest of your diatribe isn't worth spitting on.

After much googling and binging... Outrage Not Found. I didn't find anything, but I'm guessing they got some special rate in exchange for them picking up 100% of the cost to bring life to an otherwise dead city. If I guessed wrong and your outrage is really regarding the Art Museum that walmart sponsors by subsidizing YOUR admission, then don't go.

If you think there is something wrong with a company employing many people to build a Walmart museum they charge nothing for to visit -- that brings tourists to *Bentonville* Arkansas, then don't go. If you don't like they occasionally put on a $5 concert where *ALL* proceeds go to charity, then don't go.
You really seem to suck up the liberal lies with all your outrage that a company is able to make it in this world without being a dependant of the federal government.

You might try reading the rest of my post.
I address everything you mention -- only with a more positive outlook on life than you do.
You'd even discover that i'm not "fine" with subsidizing the income of unskilled labor.

Have a great rest of the day... and quit hating. (Not really... your hating at anyone more successful than yourself is entertaining)

edit: Just wanted to add... I'm off to Walmart to shop for next week's lunches. Need me to pick you up anything?

 

[ttown]

I still do not see the animosity towards Unions is justified.
...snip...
Makes the Tea Baggers that support getting rid of them sound pretty dense IMHO.

Then you might want to do a bit more research or at least put yourself in the employers shoes before you show your hatred of gays by calling people that fight for (even your) freedom a slang term intent on disgusting imagery mostly associated to fags.

You are the one who used a slur here.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[nickqt]

Then you might want to do a bit more research or at least put yourself in the employers shoes before you show your hatred of gays by calling people that fight for (even your) freedom a slang term intent on disgusting imagery mostly associated to fags.

Now that's hilarious.

 

[touchstone]

Kinda off topic, but Walmart fought for years to put in a store on an undeveloped lot right next door to a Costco in my area. I was never opposed to it but a lot of people were. Finally, the city permits it, but only on the condition that Walmart spend millions on local road improvements.
So, the new Walmart opened around 9 months ago and.. hardly anyone shops there. The parking lot is always empty, while the Costco continues to do insane business.
But thanks, Walmart, for that new intersection!

That is the most heartwarming Walmart story I've ever heard.

 

[Jeff7]

I believe the reason sights are set on the short term is because that is all that matters to the executive of today. If it keeps paying off, great! If not, milk it dry and move on to the next cash cow. In too many corporations that's all that matters today. I believe that the reduction in the top marginal rates are the reasons the executive of today looks to maximize profit and compensation. When the top rates were high it made no sense for a company to pour excessive levels of pay into the executive boards of their companies. Past a certain point, the government was taking a large chunk of the income. This acted as a check valve on excessive pay, forcing companies to reinvest that income in their company. They did this via new projects, expansion, better pay and benefits for the employees and so on. The point is, they put the money back into the company rather than hand it over to the government. The government tax policy influenced the way businesses conducted themselves, go figure!

Once tax rates dropped some executives realized that they could instead dump the cash into their bank accounts and all they had to do was make the company look good. Add to that the incentive it gives executives to further reduce expenses by off-shoring to the lowest bidder and cut back on wage and benefit increases and you have the mess we are in today. We need new, higher tax rates for the executive earners of today.

People who undercut those who seek to improve their lot in life by supporting those who would take advantage of them need to have their head examined.

Another issue is being able to largely compensate executives via stock options.
The idea, allegedly, is that they'll be motivated to increase the long-term profitability and stability of the company, thereby increasing the market value of the stock.

In reality, they are being compensated only via the value of the stock, therefore their only real goal is to increase the (perceived) value of the stock; the company's real profitability and stability are secondary. There are various accounting tricks that can help decouple the stock value from the value of the company.
"Oh look, we can shuffle around worker pension money and cut benefits for people who are depending on that income, and make it look like we were more profitable than we actually were. Neat!"
Or you can cut back on all expenditures, including new equipment and R&D, further inflating short-term profitability, then jump ship with a lavish severance package. So what if the company's future has effectively been destroyed? All the people who "matter" are going to be making bank regardless.



Concerning tax rates: Hell, it works even at lower levels. I invest in my 401k and IRA in part because of the tax incentives. Because of the 401k, a few thousand extra dollars are going to be spending a few decades in stocks and bonds, rather than going straight into taxes.

I'll tell you why I hate unions.
a) This isn't 1920
b) They operate just like the US Gov't:Get elected,collect money,then sell out the people they're supposed to be looking out for.

a) So? We're still people. We haven't changed much in many tens of thousands of years. Plays written in ancient Greece, when translated properly, are still relatable. We have better sanitation, access to information, and technology, but the underlying "human" is still the same. Many problems are still the same, and our tendency to try to exploit others for our own benefit is still alive and well.

b) The same can be said of any organization. We're prone to corrupt things. That's one reason behind the setup of the US government: To try to dampen corruption through concentration of power. Unions can do that too.
Yet our republic faces sell-out corruption in the leadership, but neither I nor you is calling to abolish it as an untenable means of governing people.

...
The only reason wage stagnation is a problem is because of government monetary policy.

And I can only wonder about how much of that comes about because of "friendly" deals between the regulators and the regulated.

...
An employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. I'm not union and I'm not the least bit worried about my job. Why? Because I'm good at it and because I'm paid to be good at it. I'm 100% free to change jobs at any time if someone offers me more money. My employer is 100% free to replace me if they can find someone more skilled at the same price or equally skilled for less money. That works for the vast majority of businesses and the vast majority of employees. My company has the comfort of knowing I have to perform the job well or I'm out. I have the comfort of knowing they have to compensate me fairly or I can leave and make more. Tell me what's wrong with that relationship? Why does any person need protection beyond the marketplace factors that set wages? If you can't make more elsewhere then you're being paid the proper amount. Wal-mart does not chain their employees up at night. They're free to walk out the door and with that comes the freedom to find a different job. If they can't, then Wal-Mart is the best job available and Wal-Mart is not responsible for their lack of options, nor is Wal-Mart obligated to subsidy them beyond their true worth in the workplace.

It can also mean that the entire market is depressed. During the recession, a lot of people were paid $0 because they'd been laid off. Was that the proper amount?
Japan has been facing economic problems for quite a long time, too. You can have an entire economy or market that's depressed, whether it be through natural market forces, or through bad policy. I don't know why it should be seen as destructive if you're working to remedy a bad situation.

 

[Jhhnn]

If that was true then the big box stores wouldn't have put all the mom and pop's out of business. People sort of like good service but what the really want, as has been proven, is to be able to get their shit at the cheapest price they can and service be damned.

I think it's more about selection & immediate gratification.

I doubt that it's jobs most of us won't do it's that most of us either got some sort of education or learned a trade that gives us a far better quality of life than stocking shelves. I'd pick friggen fruit if it paid 25% more than what I currently make.

That isn't a corporations job though. It never has been and it never will be. Walmart catches a lot of slack because they are the biggest employer but a metric shit ton of other jobs pay minimum wage too. If that is the entirety of your argument then why single out Walmart instead of Congress? We have minimum wage laws for a reason and it's hard to argue that if any job should pay the bare minimum we as a society set it would be the shelf stockers of the country.

You fail to question the basic premises of the system as it is, a system that fails to properly value necessary work. Somebody needs to stock the shelves, flip the burgers, clean the restrooms, haul off the trash, sort the mail, all of that stuff. We need somebody to do that a lot more than we need the lootocracy.

We're too quick to admire & respect great wealth even as we begrudge it to the little guys we actually need more. At some point, we need to examine the notion that the Rich getting richer is somehow more important & more desirable than the little guys getting richer. It's not like the little guys will offshore investment to undercut the economy, ya know?

We also need to look beyond the corporate definition of corporate purpose & methods. Why let the holders of great wealth define the bounds on their wealth & the power it carries? Or should we insist that their obligations are really greater than merely to the stockholders?

The only reason wage stagnation is a problem is because of government monetary policy.

So what? Hard money inhibits growth. Just imagine where we might be today had the FRB pursued a hard money policy in the wake of the ownership society, just like they did in the early part of the Great Depression. When money is scarce, it's hoarded, making any economic shock worse other than for those able to hoard huge amounts of it.

We obviously need growth to restore & maintain our "Work for a living" model of how to distribute goods & services throughout the economy. Otherwise, we need a new model & a different headset to go with it.