Pro H-1B Visas

No matter HOW you argue it, H-1B (foreign worker visa, usally given out to skilled laborers like engineers, nurses, doctors, etc etc) is GOOD and the US government needs to remove limitations on the max number allowed per year.

Why is it good?

1) You get SKILLED labor. In another words, these people are skilled workers who are going to be working jobs that are high paying. Higher income = higher taxes = more money for social infrastructure.

2) They fill jobs that are NOT going to be filled with the US labor pool. There are certain industries that the American people are usually adverse to, including high tech and healthcare. American businesses need to fill these jobs to make more money. (And of course.. more money = more tax.) Hospitals need doctors and nurses to treat the people... people of THIS country. If these jobs are not filled, it's the American people who ultimately suffer financially, and even perhaps, physically.

3) They are not liabilities. Other than benefits from their employers, they do not qualify for unemployment insurance, tax benefits, medicare, social security, etc.

4) NONE of the country's resources (education, social welfare, etc) were used to train these people so we're really harvesting OTHER countries' crop.

5) Protects against jobs, and hence potential tax revenue, leaving US borders. If these companies bring them here, you get BETTER quality of work (because you can now control quality) and keep their income here.. which means you can tax it. If you outsource these jobs to other countires, then it's just money down the drain b/c their government will get to tax money that the American company has spent.


On CNBC, there were these arguments about H-1B employees:

1) They compete against skilled American employees.

- What the hell? Our economy is based on COMPETITION, not protectionism. What are we? Freakin' communists? Your job is not secure, nor did anyone tell you that it will be or should be secure. If you can't compete, then nature will ultimately take you out. That's just law of evolution. (Don't blame me. Blame Darwin.)

- How many Americans actually apply for these jobs? Really, if there were THAT many applicants, why would companies go out of their way to pay THOUSANDS of dollars sponsoring a foreign national (thanks to wonderful US gov't bureaucracy) AND pay them US salary? There is a CLEAR lack of supply for skilled workers in US, and yes, Bill Gates agrees with this.


2) H-1B Visa employees come here, learn the skills, and go back to their countries with the money earned here.


- This is the most ignoramus comment ever in so many ways.

ONE: If you were an American employer, would you hire a FOREIGN national so you can train his ass? NO! You're gonna hire someone who already knows the stuff. I know this b/c I've DONE this. I don't hire dumb asses. American OR foreign. Dumb ass is a dumb ass whether he/she's in China, India, US, or Mars.

TWO: If you were an engineer from a rural town in India where the average income is about $300/year who get to work in Silicon Valley where the average income is $65k/year, are you telling me they actually have a FINANCIAL incentive to go back? I'm not an Indian engineer from rural India... and this might be a WILD guess... but I doubt he'll want to go back (from pure financial perspective).

THREE: How much do you really save as an employee (American or foreign national) anyway? Going back to that example above... let's say he (a single with no dependents and standard deductions) makes $65k/yr. At 35% tax bracket, he's taking home $42,250/yr or $3,520/mo. Average 1 bdrm apartment in Silicon Valley costs $1000/mo, which leaves him $2,520/mo. Car payment, gas, insurance, maintenance (on let's say bare minimum Honda Civic) is going to be at LEAST $600/mo. That leaves him $1920/mo.

What about cell phone? $45/mo. Probably internet. $50/mo. TV/Cable $50. He has to eat. $200/mo. Go out and socialize. $300/mo. Clothes. $100/mo. YOu figure you add random costs of about $300/mo... and you end up with about $1000/mo in an IDEAL case. I guarantee this. I've been an engineer in Silicon Valley.. but saving $1000/mo is not easy.


Summary: H-1B visas are GOOD for the economy. Makes no sense in legalizing illegal immigrants yet limiting H-1B visas. Just plain stupid.

Jim Kramer's Mad Money = Dumbest Investment Advices ever

There's this guy on CNBC (finance + business channel) show called Mad Money with Jim Kramer. He gives out supposedly "good" stock tips.

Total joke.

I don't understand how people think some of those late night informercials that teach about financial freedom (like Carleton Sheets, Robert Kioysaki, etc) are get rich scams but however the fact that this guy Kramer has a TV show makes him any more legit. In fact, I think Kramer is more of a get rich quick scammer more than anyone else I see on TV. (Ok, maybe Don Lapre is still the greatest and most interesting scammer.)

One of his advices... "Buy low, sell how is a myth. Buy high and sell higher, that's how you make mad money!" Oh brother. I wonder how many people who actually listen to him are actually rich.

He advocates FLIPPING stocks like how people FLIP real estate. There is no value added to the economy when people do that. No value = no profit. You just end up paying shitload of capital gains tax and fill those exciting IRS forms.

Investing is just like working out. If you take steroids and pump iron hard for one month, sure you might see some results. But how long is that gonna last? Or sprinting a marathon.. how much distance can you cover? Or marrying someone you met a month ago... how long will this love-y dubby phase last when you barely know the person?

Slow and steady wins the race b/c quite frankly... race is longer than most people think.
Invest for LONG term. That's how you create REAL value, thus REAL profits. You don't believe me? Ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Peter Lynch, etc etc.

How does this Kramer guy actually consider stock flipping a form of investing? It's TRADING, NOT investing in, stocks. Sure, there are plenty of people who actually make money (and lots of it) trading stocks, but for the average Joe and people w/o strong stomach, this is really a BAD strategy.

There's this article about investing, easy to understand, concise, and to the point... to the RIGHT point: http://maivoice.blogspot.com/2007/02/start-investing-early-rule-of-72.html

Free Lunches at Public School are BAD

Yes. Some kids need to starve.

Before I go on..

This blog is ALL about advocating SELF-EMPOWERMENT and criticizing SELF-ENTITLEMENT. I believe the only way a society can help itself is by letting individuals take control over their lives, including finances, health, and personal guidelines. There is nothing a goverment can do that will change or help people unless people themselves want to change.

Does mandated universal public education make people want and value education? No.

Does all this government spending on why people need to get their fat asses off the couches and go out to exercise make people want to get healthier and value their bodies? No.

Will mandated universal health insurance improve the health of the population? Probably not.

Now, all this has to do with personal desire. People get what they MUST have, not what they're told to have. When you legislate these things to people, it's just a law and that's all it is. The most important thing that's lacking is DESIRE.

Now... going back to the starving kids issue..

When you give out things for free, people automatically associate FREE with ZERO value. That's when people start taking things for granted, including free meal programs at public schools. In fact, I think giving kids free meals is actually a form of welfare. We're training kids to think that the government will take care of them and that they don't have to fight for their share since they'll get things for free.

Don't get me wrong. I've had free public school meals. I am VERY grateful that they existed. I have plenty of friends who were in positions of need, and have benefitted from them. However, like myself, many of these people have eventually learned to stand on their own two feet and not rely on government for the rest of their lives.

In fact, I would argue that if some of these kids starved a couple of times when they were young, they would develop a drive and motivation to stand on their own and NOT to rely on anyone else b/c they think they DESERVE it. Better to suffer a little early than to suffer (and complain) for YEARS later.

Do I propose that we ban public school lunches? No. The government should subsidize the food program, not make it free. Let the families come up with the rest so they'll value, not take for granted, these food programs.

Is having a large military good for capitalism?

This one is more of a thought provoking question rather than an opinion.

On one hand I do tend to think that it is PRO-capitalistic to have a large military that is capable of defending the nation and its business interests. I would even argue that US got powerful thanks in large part to the military. Large military usually implies stable government, and stable government is a pre-requisite to businesses and investors moving into the region. Same reason why businesses move out of ghettos and poor countries.. b/c if their safety is threatened, there really isn't a profit motive that's motivating enough to risk your life and investment.

On the flip side, I also think it's actually anti-capitalistic b/c it's a HUGE financial liability that the society has to pay in order to have security. And of course, putting security ahead of freedom almost always leads to mental "poverty", which can lead to financial poverty. The fact that US military spending represents 25-30% of US budget is ridiculous. Can you imagine spending one forth of your income on home security systems?

Any thoughts?

Senseless Cap

So there is now a growing sentiment among general population and the politicians that we should somehow put a cap on the salaries and bonuses of CEOs. They think that CEOs are getting outrageous financial compensation.

WHY? This is the dumbest shit I've heard!!! Out-freakin'-rageous!

What's next? Overthrow the bourgeoisie and reinstate proletarianism? Burn businesses down and start communal farms? Stamp IDs on people's foreheads and convert them into communist drones? Build Soviet style housing/buildings where the floors aren't leveled? Dress people in uniforms and condemn invidual thoughts?

My gawd.

CEOs of (successful) companies get paid according to their performance and the value they create. If he/she raises the value of the company by a million dollars and gets a $10,000 bonus, is that too much? Probably not. How about a billion dollars and $10 million in compensation? Too much? Why? In both cases, it's only 1%.. except in second case, MORE people got richer and MORE people got hired... and MORE tax was collected... and MORE was given back to society.

What da hell is this wrong with these people? They think somehow their f*cked up poor mentality is virtuous ... as if they were Robin Hoods or something. Robin Hood STOLE from corrupt government officials, not honest businesses.

If anything, Robin Hood, if he were alive, would argue against cap on CEO pay if he saw how generous some of these CEOs are. Voluntary redistribution of wealth, he would argue, is WAY more effective and efficient than that forced by the government. When was the last time you heard Medicare or social welfare running smoothly and without problems? All that does is create dependency and financial liability. It doesn't HELP society. It hurts it.

Discrimination and Capitalsm

There is no correlation between discrimination and capitalism. In fact, some might actually argue that capitalism usually leads to corruption and greed, and thus more discrimination. Does it really?

I tend to think otherwise. Imagine a society that is in dire need of labor for economic expansion. If you keep ignoring (or even hating) a certain segment of the population, the business man is ignoring a potential supply of workers who would help him expand his business and thus making him richer.

LA Riot for instance. People eventually healed and came to senses that senseless violence and ignorant hatred of others based on race is pointless. I am not saying racism is over or that the society is fully integrated. But when you are a member of the society (regardless of race), you realize you cannot survive or make any progress without the rest of the capitalist society, which include people of other races. To make progress in capitalism, you MUST interact with others.

But one might argue that communism is actually better in integrating the different races together. Does it really? Imagine a society where people get paid not based on performance, but based on what the society tell you. Would the society tell you that the minorities get paid same as the majority? I doubt that.

Not as thought provocative as other my posts.. but still, my 2 cents.

Down with Unions

Why do people still think that unions are good for the people? Unions are OUTDATED. Defunct. Irrelevant.

Sure, in the old days of industrial economy where the laws weren't as structured and the capitalists were somewhat evil, you needed to have the protection and power of the group. I would even say that unions helped to raise the living standards of the employees, which in turn made the country richer because now more people had more to spend. More to spend = more economy flow = stronger and better country.

What I propose is that it's now no longer necessary, and even HARMFUL, for people to form or join unions.

1) It is an outdated concept. We no longer need such individual protectionism from a group other than from the existing laws of the government. We're now in the information age, and the industrial aspects of the economy have been pretty much relegated to the third world countries. What matters now is not your strength, but your knowledge.

2) It makes the US economy inefficient. If unions FORCE businesses to pay higher wages while lowering the work hours (and hence potential productivity), businesses and their profts will suffer. They will find ways around it. How? They go to countries like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, where people WILL work more for less. (Unionized) American workers are complaining that the businesses are moving out of the country... BUT this is the reason why!

For example, a unionized construction worker that holds up a stop sign on roads near construction sites in NYC gets roughly $45 per hour (i saw this on 20/20), with time and a half for overtime. Now, is that fair? That's more than $100,000 a year in salary. Should he get paid 3x what teachers get paid? Does this worker really create $100,000 in value by standing there, with his gut sticking out, making rude noises at passing by ladies, and holding up a sign that basically a wooden POLE can do?

Another example, high tech industry in US by FAR the best in the world. I don't care what people say about China or India.. the biggest tech companies are in the US. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc etc. Why? Innovation, hard work, passion... and NO unions. This is true for the finance industry and any other industry where people are applying INFORMATION to make money. People in these industries are paid for performance and hard work, not some union telling them how many hours they can work or how much to get paid. Manufacturing (and other unionized) industries can't compete with their couterparts in rest of the world because of self-entitlement and unions that employees belong to

3) Creates more of self-entitlement. If people expect shit, they're not gonna go out there and fight for their fair share. The biggest reason why the US auto makers can't compete against the Japanese: that damn pension plan. Imagine you create a business for the sole sake of paying for your employees' retirement. Who in the WORLD would want to keep that business going? If I were the CEO, I would close shop, salvage whatever I can, and move on. Pensions are LIABILITIES that hinder the growth of the businesses. I would go as far as to say that the US auto makers are doomed, and so are the pension plans that go with them.



[ After thought ]


I can go on and on about how unions are basically useless and we should just get rid of them for once and for all. But I won't b/c I don't want to get ulcer.

Union bad. Business good.

No quick fix.

Thomas Sowell takes my breath away.

No quick fix for economic 'disparities'

By THOMAS SOWELL

Syndicated columnist

The media and academic obsessions with economic "disparities" have gone international. Recent news stories proclaim that most of "the world's wealth" belongs to a small fraction of the world's people.

Let's go back to square one. Just what is "the world's wealth"?

You can check in your local phone book, surf the Internet or do genealogical research: There is no one named "The World." How can a nonexistent being own wealth?

Human beings own wealth. Once we put aside lofty poetic nonsense about "the world's wealth," we at least have a fighting chance of talking sense about realities.

Who are these minority of the world's population who own a majority of the world's wealth?

They are the population of the United States, Western Europe, Japan and a few other affluent countries. How did these particular people come to possess so much more wealth than other people?

They did it the old-fashioned way. They produced the wealth that they own. You might as well ask why bees have so much more honey than other creatures.

The rhetoric of clever people can verbally collectivize all the wealth that was produced individually, and then they become aghast at the "disparities" that are magically turned into "inequities" in the distribution of "the world's wealth."

Have all the people in the world had an equal chance to produce wealth? No, nowhere close to an equal chance – either in the world or within a given society.

Geography alone makes the chances grossly unequal. How were Eskimos supposed to grow pineapples or desert bedouins to learn to fish?

How were people in the Balkans supposed to have an industrial revolution like that of Western Europe, when the Balkans had neither the raw materials required by an industrial revolution nor any economically viable way of transporting raw materials from other places?

The geographic handicaps of Africa would fill a book. French historian Fernand Braudel said: "In understanding Black Africa, geography is more important than history."

Geographic disparities are just the tip of the iceberg. Innumerable cultures have evolved differently in different places and among different peoples in the same places. No given individual controlled this process, and each generation began with the particular culture that generations before them had created.

Some cultures proved to be more economically productive at given places and times, and other cultures proved so at other places and times.

In our own time, the economic effects of these cultural differences often dwarf the effects of differences in material things like natural resources.

Natural resources in Uruguay and Venezuela are worth several times as much per capita as natural resources in Japan and Switzerland. But income per capita in Japan and Switzerland is about double that of Uruguay and several times that of Venezuela.

Nobody likes to see poverty in a world where technology and economic know-how already exist that could give everyone everywhere a decent standard of living.

All you have to do is change people. But have you ever tried that?

The quick fix is to transfer wealth. But decades of trying to do that with "foreign aid" has left a dismal record of failure and even retrogression in the Third World.

Some countries have themselves made changes that lifted them from poverty to prosperity. Indeed, the affluent countries of today were once living in poverty.

But they didn't do it with quick fixes or by turning a dangerous power over to politicians.

Current Health Insurance Policies Suck

I, as a consumer of health insurance business industry, am strongly against HMO companies covering unhealthy people, including smokers, overweight people, drug users, and alcoholics. I don't understand why I and other health-focused people should pay higher rates to cover these liability people. Why do I get punished even though we make huge sacrifices to keep our health at optimum?

These people are digging their graves with their teeth. They create BAD habits for themselves, including overeating, smoking, and poisoning their bodies with foreign substance. I'm not even talking about people w/ uncontrollable biological factors, like cancer, genetic deformities, etc. I'm talking about people who CONSCIOUSLY choose to destroy their health.

Yeah, i hear the argument "some people are genetically predisposed to getting fat." Yes exactly, and that's why they are obese. Because they believe it and won't do a DAMN thing about it.

Average American is 30 lb heavier now than he/she was 30 years ago. Do people change as species in 30 years? Has the homo sapien kind changed GENETICALLY in the last 30 years? Are our newborn babies HEAVIER now than they were 30 years ago? NO. Culture has changed. Eating habits has changed. Lifestyle has changed.

People believe in anything they hear on TV. Dopes. Might as well believe in something that's gonna make your life better.

I chose to believe that I can have a long healthy life, but I do understand that I have to make sacrifices and need to put in WORK to get it. Thus, people like me should be REWARDED, not punished.

Just like welfare, universal health coverage policies are DUMB.

Biotech Play

Usually, I defend Bill Gates against people's criticisms towards his company. But this one, I'm not so "sold" on.

So part of the requirement for biotech companies receiving investment money from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is that they have to share data with each other, even if they are competitors. This makes sense, from utilitarian point of view. Greater collaboration means greater progress, which means greater medical breakthroughs, cheaper cost of healthcare, and overall improved livelihood for all man kind.

Great. Dandy.

But.. what about profit motive? I am not saying all biotech companies should do everything SOLELY based on profit (in fact, I believe, corporations that directly impact our lives on the basic necessities level, including energy, biotech, housing, food, etc. companies should be actively engaged in making our lives better b/c after all we are the golden geese that feed them), but it is profit-drive that keeps innovation coming and businesses processes more efficient.

When you these biotech companies to collaborate, that pretty much takes away the whole intellectual property leverage away from these companies. Then what would motivate them to work hard, innovate, and bring useful drugs to market?

Collaboration is important. But so is profit. Does Microsoft collaborate? No because then its profit is gonna be doomed. Kind of hypocritical on Bill Gates part, if you ask me.

By the way, government FORCING biotech and medical companies to give out free or low cost drugs is just plain FASCIST. Redistribution of wealth by force is called socialism... but by will of the generous companies and individuals is called capitalistic charity. I would even go far as to say that capitalism is not only the best form of economy, but also the most moral.

Healthcare Apocalypse

Oh great, (California) government mandated universal healthcare. Say goodbye to efficiency and say hello to higher taxes (article):

The plan includes a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance and that all but the smallest businesses offer it. Under the plan, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people because of their medical problems and the state would subsidize an estimated 1.2 million low-income people who don't currently qualify for Medi-Cal.

While the plan requires everyone to contribute something toward the goal of universal health care, the truth is that people already pay a “hidden tax” in the form of higher premiums that subsidize care for the uninsured, Liu said.

She added that the plan emphasizes “shared responsibility,” with no one organization solely responsible for improving health care. Individuals, employers, health care providers, health insurance companies and the government each have a role to play, she said.

Great. Another brilliant government idea. This is just as bad as government building housing and trying to run them. What happens to these gov't housing? They turn into crack houses and the neighborhoods turn into ghettos.

This policy is ridiculous. First of all, who in their right mind who think that having universal insurance policy automatically to equals good public health? There are plenty of people who can and do have health insurance but still have shitty health. Is health insurance going to make these lazy ass couch potatoes into healthnuts? No amount of government policy is going to change people except themselves. Some might say, "oh health insurance is a preventative thing so everyone needs it and is entitled to it." If that's so true, government should mandate that people exercise at least an hour a day instead.

Second, there's no where in constitution that says health insurance is a RIGHT. I am not saying that health insurance is afforable by everyone, but so are houses. Then we should have government policy for mandatory cheap housing for everyone. Why? BECAUSE that's retarded and it will kill businesses. Businesses are there to make a PROFIT! If you force health insurance companies to cover people who are too high risk, you're telling them there is no profit. No profit = No business = No economic progress = Recession = No jobs = No money = No food = Pissed off people who will want a freakin' revolution.

Third, this policy will almost guarantee higher rates for EVERYONE. This is dumb. Why punish everyone for the few? For example, I go to gym everyday and watch EVERYTHING I eat. Why should I pay the same rate as the next guy, who's food group consists of fat, sugar, and more fat and lives on his couch with beer and chips...? To me, that makes no sense. If I take care of my health, I should be rewarded by paying LESS not SAME as that guy who doesn't give a damn. This guy is going to be a LIABILITY to society because of his choices in life, and the society will pay dearly later in his life from all that medical treatments he will need. And who pays for that? Most likely, TAXPAYERS. If I lessen the burden on society, then I need to be rewarded. Some people are digging graves with their own teeth. F*ck it. Let them.

Point #3 is not a NEW concept... it's the same concept as current tax system: you make more, you pay more. You make less, you pay less.

The more that the gov't institutes these dumb policies, it's the PEOPLE who are gonna suffer in the long run. Other than basic social infrastructure needs (like police, fire, hospitals, roads, etc), government should lay off making business decisions and telling people what they need.

Wonderful Gov't Waste

Ah yes. Another BRILLIANT politician with nothing better to do than tell the people and the businesses what to do on some mindless topic:

... Democrat Senator Carl Krueger feels we should talk about the "killer iPod". So he wants to ban the iPods on the streets of New York.

Yes, he is planning to introduce a law which would make the use of the iPod, the BlackBerry or any other handheld illegal, when crossing the streets of New York. No matter how funny or weird that might sound to you, his intentions are pretty serious. He claims that the number of fatal accidents caused by what he calls “the iPod oblivion” is increasing in New York and as an example he brings the case of a young man who died last month. Apparently, the 23 years old man got hit by a bus while inattentively crossing a street, with his mind focused on what the iPod was playing. He did not cite though any scientific study concerning the rise of such fatal, iPod-related accidents.

Who voted these morons to office anyway?

If you're so dumb as to not be careful while crossing the street, let alone while having an earphone in your ear, then get hit by a LARGE freakin' bus that you cannot miss even from 3 blocks away, then.. you probably deserved it.

Then he goes onto say:

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital.

Yes people. Once we have people getting hit by cars or buses while chewing gum
, we need to ban gums for good. Oooh.. what if it's a couple and they were kissing? Then we definitely need to ban kissing. How about talking? We DEFINITELY have to ban talking.

Gov't is there to provide basic needs of the society.. not to tell us how to live our lives or to protect idiots.

If you ask me, it's just another ploy to fine good hardworking people and to get voters' approval.

Walmart: the new scapegoat

Look at this crap: Another anti-Walmart rally:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest private employer, must face a class-action lawsuit alleging as many as 1.5 million female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions.

Man I am getting sick of these employees trying to screw their boss for their lack of talent, skill, and ability. If it's such a BAD place for employees, how did they achieve this?

Wal-Mart was recently named one of the "50 Best Companies for Latinas to Work for in the United States" by LATINA Style Magazine. Wal-Mart was chosen because of its programs and initiatives that help Latina professional working women.

Wal-Mart was recently named one of the "Top 40 U.S. Companies for Diversity" by Black Enterprise magazine. The publication also listed the company as one of the "10 Best Companies in Marketing Diversity." Wal-Mart was selected because of its continued commitment to diversity, both internally and externally.

Wal-Mart has established a $25 million private equity fund for women and minority-owned businesses to empower entrepreneurs.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there were few women who might've been discriminated, because let's face it, there's bound to be one stinkin' apple in the harvest in a company of 1.5+ million employees.

Side note: These Walmart employee women were definitely NOT sexuallyharassed. Have you ever been these women? They look like a hybrid between a sumo wrestler and a train wreck. If they were sexually harassed, that has to be the biggest case of beer goggles.. EVER. And don't let me get into the women who SHOP at Walmart. Eck. They make the Walmart employee women look hot.

Why should the entire company suffer as a result of few bad apples? And what do people expect from people who make minimum wage in their 50's and 60's? World class mannners? Walmart is like the freakin' military. You go there because you have no choice, not because you wanted to.

This is another classic example of people trying to get free lunch. Instead of trying hard to create value like entrepreneurs like Sam Walton, who built the company from scratch, these people are out to screw every successful business out there. What's with this mentality of, "oh you're rich? then i'm gonna sue."

These assholes have no idea how HARD it is to start a company and to make it. What it takes. What kind of pain and mental anguish entrepreneurs have to go through TO make it. These dreamkillers, when asked for help, don't give a damn about the dreamers. When they do make it, oh... it's HUNTING season.

And what about these lawyers that make a living out of finding faults of companies or people with deep pockets? Fuck kind of lawyers are we producing? They're lack of moral sensibility and integrity makes the US the country with 90% of the world's lawsuits. If you ask me, these morons can't sell their shit so they have to prey on the successful by bitching and complaining about what is WRONG with the world.

I wouldn't be surprised if these moron employees and f*cker lawyers are in the same boat as these retarded gov' employees and officials who think big companies are automatically evil. Why break up Microsoft? Did they stifle innovation or enhance innovation? Why force stupid Sarb-Ox laws to companies that had NOTHING to do with Enron scandals and have been good with their accounting all this time? Why punish Walmart for the mistakes of the few?

Do you know who gets hurt in these moronic litigations? Us. The consumers. Same as the payout they demanded from Morris and Phillips. The company is gonna relay the cost of the litigation to the REST of the consumers... and it's WE that end up paying for it all.

I am sick of people saying Walmart is evil. If it's so evil, why da f*ck do you still shop there?

Walmart is good. Walmart is GREAT! It singlehandedly raised the standard of living of even those with minimal income, by making everything CHEAP!

Listen people. Stop blaming others and look at your damn mirror. There's nothing wrong with the world. It's you.