In my experience, outside of IT positions, the hardest workers are women of a certain maturity. Reliable, hard working, no hassles, friendly, honest, etc. Those qualities make for an excellent employee.
@gqcarrick: Technically, I wasnt saying that IT people work hard, but IT nationwide has a high turnover, so managing them (and all highly skilled technical people) has its own set of rules and norms. I have a fabulous rapport with IT and technical people and I think the primary reason is that I dont try and BS them by telling them I know how to do their jobs, I dont. I do, however, facilitate their ability to DO those jobs without a bunch of corporate micro managers staring over their shoulder. That rapport may be why I like Giz so much. I am not a technical person, but I communicate with them very well. I would LOVE to manage some of the talent I see at Giz every day. Working with people of this caliber is a dream come true for a non-nerd techincal manager such as myself. (And the nerds usually love me back.)
I think the most ridiculous revelation in the article is the movie reviews stuffed into the envelopes. Seriously? You hated the movie so much that you skipped the perfectly usable web interface for writing reviews? You were so frustrated you had to furiously scribble your review on a napkin and shove it into an envelope?
I'd like to blame it on just generic old-people/new-tech syndrome....but then what are they doing on NetFlix? Grandpa, I told you, you don't need NetFlix. Just go talk to Frank down at Video King. You know he loves to hear your reviews.
I had never even thought of sticking things other than the returned movies into Netflix envelopes. Maybe I should put a "Thank you" note in the next time I send one out.
The Boston Globe did this same thing months ago and their pics showed rather young (college aged) kids working there. And everyone wore bright red netflix t-shirts, looked like a Chinese factory but with more overweight people
There should be some kind of sliding scale, with someone who rents "From Justin To Kelly" shot on site, while someone who rents, say, the original "Manchurian Candidate" getting time off for having excellent taste.
People bitch about how Netflix is the death of video stores and Wal-Mart is the death of the local store. That is a just plain bullshit. The CONSUMER is the death of these stores.
If you hate Netflix or Wal-Mart dont shop at them. Problem is they provide a service that is seen more valuable to most people, which is why other stores die off. This isnt the 50s.
@archercc: 100% honest question. Simply curious as to your perspective.
If a company intentionally takes a loss over the short-term in order to woo consumers or violates labor laws to keep costs down or over-orders from producers to induce capital investment and then reduces their purchasing costs leaving the producer in a lose-lose situation or uses its girth to manipulate municipalities in a way that disfavors other sellers...is it still solely the consumer's fault?
@archercc: well i don't shop at netflix or walmart.
There are no walmarts even remotely close to me (nyc), and as for netflix, i don't like paying a subscription when i only rent maybe 1 movie every couple of months.
@Matthew Izberskiy: Your personal tastes and preferences are not relevant. The fact that Netflix is driving smaller video rental chains out of business implies that a majority of people prefer their service. A majority of people also do not live in NYC, or a similar location where zoning laws prohibit the opening of a Walmart.
Anyway, if you believe that free capital movement is good, then you would also have to believe that the only people who are hurt when Netflix drives out small video rental stores are the owners of those rental stores. Through Netflix (and Walmart), consumers reduce the cost of their regular consumption basket, and can spend the remaining money elsewhere, stimulating other industries. The jobs lost in small video rental businesses are replaced by multiple ones in those other industries, since reinvestment gains are multiplicative.
Not hiring union labor? Importing all of their cheap shit? Having brand names make cheap shit products specifically for them?
If people want cheap imported shit then they are still providing the service that everyone ones. Wal-Mart couldnt force Hanes to make cheaper shit specifically for them if they were not given the buying power by the consumer.
@archercc: I don't actually entirely disagree. I was just curious whether you thought if a business does things that are sketchy (or make ethical choices that one personally wouldn't be comfortable making), whether they bear any ethical responsibility for those decisions under your outlook, or whether sole responsibility rests with the consumer.
I happen to think that both people and entities should act in an ethical manner. But I recognize that others disagree.
They dont abuse their workers so the union argument is grey. It might appear unethical if you are in a union but seeing as how most of us arent the "reasonable person" wouldnt see it that way.
Everyone imports their shit now. Everything is made in China. Apple products are made in the same factory as Dells (and both are sold at Wal-Mart now).
The unique thing that Wal-Mart can do is have companies make shittier versions of their products. They do that because of their buying power. However, GM sells other cars than Caddilac. Are they unethical for pandering to people who cant justify a Caddy?
I dont like Wal-Mart but I cant hate them. They provide white goods at cheap prices, they provide jobs, and they promote from within. Im sure the first response is that the jobs are near slave labor and horrible jobs. Well, then why do people line up for them and why have most of the managers been there for a decade? Sounds like, for the right person, its a GOOD job.
@archercc: I don't have a problem with importing goods, and I don't have a problem with making and selling low-end products at a low-price for willing consumers of those products.
I do have a problem with a business creating intentional market inefficiencies via near-monopolistic tactics in order to radically undermine a market in the short-term so that they remain the only legitimate source of goods, purchasing power, and employment in the long-term.
And, I do have a problem with the long-term effect on producers of goods and employees in small communities - all of whom see their own personal wages and purchasing power decrease. It is not radically unlike the old "company store" system.
Is it illegal? Usually, no. Is it slave labor? Of course not.
If Wal-Mart were a friend of mine instead of a corporation, would I call him a douchebag or would I simply blame his customers? Sure, I'd wonder why anyone did business with him, but I'd also call him a douchebag.
08/16/09
08/16/09
08/16/09
Sure you can. But you'll still need the disk in the tray to play.
08/16/09
By the way, you can't fart either? We should join a club!
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
I'd like to blame it on just generic old-people/new-tech syndrome....but then what are they doing on NetFlix? Grandpa, I told you, you don't need NetFlix. Just go talk to Frank down at Video King. You know he loves to hear your reviews.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Really interesting read though.
08/05/09
08/05/09
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/08/23/netflix/
08/05/09
08/05/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
06/12/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
Because really, that's when I'm gonna need something to do.
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
netflix is killing local video rentals, 3 video rentals closed down near my residence.
05/27/09
People bitch about how Netflix is the death of video stores and Wal-Mart is the death of the local store. That is a just plain bullshit. The CONSUMER is the death of these stores.
If you hate Netflix or Wal-Mart dont shop at them. Problem is they provide a service that is seen more valuable to most people, which is why other stores die off. This isnt the 50s.
05/27/09
If a company intentionally takes a loss over the short-term in order to woo consumers or violates labor laws to keep costs down or over-orders from producers to induce capital investment and then reduces their purchasing costs leaving the producer in a lose-lose situation or uses its girth to manipulate municipalities in a way that disfavors other sellers...is it still solely the consumer's fault?
05/27/09
There are no walmarts even remotely close to me (nyc), and as for netflix, i don't like paying a subscription when i only rent maybe 1 movie every couple of months.
05/27/09
Anyway, if you believe that free capital movement is good, then you would also have to believe that the only people who are hurt when Netflix drives out small video rental stores are the owners of those rental stores. Through Netflix (and Walmart), consumers reduce the cost of their regular consumption basket, and can spend the remaining money elsewhere, stimulating other industries. The jobs lost in small video rental businesses are replaced by multiple ones in those other industries, since reinvestment gains are multiplicative.
05/27/09
Not hiring union labor? Importing all of their cheap shit? Having brand names make cheap shit products specifically for them?
If people want cheap imported shit then they are still providing the service that everyone ones. Wal-Mart couldnt force Hanes to make cheaper shit specifically for them if they were not given the buying power by the consumer.
05/27/09
I happen to think that both people and entities should act in an ethical manner. But I recognize that others disagree.
05/27/09
They dont abuse their workers so the union argument is grey. It might appear unethical if you are in a union but seeing as how most of us arent the "reasonable person" wouldnt see it that way.
Everyone imports their shit now. Everything is made in China. Apple products are made in the same factory as Dells (and both are sold at Wal-Mart now).
The unique thing that Wal-Mart can do is have companies make shittier versions of their products. They do that because of their buying power. However, GM sells other cars than Caddilac. Are they unethical for pandering to people who cant justify a Caddy?
I dont like Wal-Mart but I cant hate them. They provide white goods at cheap prices, they provide jobs, and they promote from within. Im sure the first response is that the jobs are near slave labor and horrible jobs. Well, then why do people line up for them and why have most of the managers been there for a decade? Sounds like, for the right person, its a GOOD job.
05/27/09
I do have a problem with a business creating intentional market inefficiencies via near-monopolistic tactics in order to radically undermine a market in the short-term so that they remain the only legitimate source of goods, purchasing power, and employment in the long-term.
And, I do have a problem with the long-term effect on producers of goods and employees in small communities - all of whom see their own personal wages and purchasing power decrease. It is not radically unlike the old "company store" system.
Is it illegal? Usually, no. Is it slave labor? Of course not.
If Wal-Mart were a friend of mine instead of a corporation, would I call him a douchebag or would I simply blame his customers? Sure, I'd wonder why anyone did business with him, but I'd also call him a douchebag.