PDA

View Full Version : wal-mart evil



dbogjohnson
April 8th, 2008, 01:55 PM
im against wal mart [but not enough not to buy from them]
i think their TOO big of a cmpany and we should all stop buying from them until they downsize:angry:
the same with sams club

princefigs
April 8th, 2008, 02:06 PM
im against wal mart [but not enough not to buy from them]
i think their TOO big of a cmpany and we should all stop buying from them until they downsize:angry:
the same with sams club

Yeah, this whole free enterprise and private ownership thing is way over rated...i mean, who the hell do they think they are? Trying to be the most powerful company in America? what the hell? Nope, we should impose a special Walmart tax....a tax on being too successful.

.....................
...................
...................

Snoop
April 8th, 2008, 02:07 PM
I don't like this poll - I think it's dumb - but I voted no. How would you like it if I told you to downsize because you're too fat?

DevilPup John
April 8th, 2008, 02:11 PM
Yeah, lose some weight you fat jerks!

Honestly, free market economy folks...

Socialism is an evil evil monster, that soon grows into Communism...

And I did not watch my buddies die face down in the mud to watch this country become Communist!

princefigs
April 8th, 2008, 02:26 PM
And I did not watch my buddies die face down in the mud to watch this country become Communist


Word..........
I lost a few friends over in the sandbox myself, friend.

Seriously, this thread is retarded.....

dbog, you really need to explain your position on this.

tinkerbell
April 8th, 2008, 02:26 PM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/80563/

The story of the Shank family is heartbreaking in the sense that it could happen to anyone. Driving home one night, Debbie's car was hit by a tractor-trailier, leaving her brain-damaged and paralyzed. After collecting health insurance money for hospital bills (Debbie's policy with Wal-Mart paid for over $400,000 worth of emergency care), the Shanks sued the trucking company responsible for the accident, hoping to provide for Debbie's long term needs. Now Wal-Mart has sued the Shanks, citing a line of fine print in Debbie's insurance policy that entitles the company to any lawsuit settlement. Wal-Mart intends to collect $470,000 from the Shanks, despite the fact that this will undoubtedly bankrupt Debbie's family.

I HATE Wal-Mart!!! HATE HATE HATE!!!!
I have NEVER EVER NEVER had a positive experience in a store..My girlfriend was almost shot in one just last week. The Employees are treated poorly and the customers are treated worse. The only good thing about them, is they are inexpensive..I will over pay for anything in order not to shop there.

dbogjohnson
April 8th, 2008, 02:29 PM
my position is the same as yours,i hate wall mart,i think it will lead to communism, and im proud to say i havent bought from them for a month [neither have my parents], and i also think this thread is retarded...
waiting
...
...
no debate going on, oh well, but wait snoop why did you and 2 others vote no whats your position?

Snoop
April 8th, 2008, 02:32 PM
no debate going on, oh well, but wait snoop why did you and 2 others vote no whats your position?A store or a chain of stores is only as evil as the people who run it. The US Govt. allows the stores to operate so they can't be evil :embarassed:

Harrison383
April 8th, 2008, 02:33 PM
im against wal mart [but not enough not to buy from them]
i think their TOO big of a cmpany and we should all stop buying from them until they downsize

I suppose the one benefit of being hypocritical is that you are either saying something agreeable, or doing something agreeable. So that's something.

I guess.

Anyway, the whole anti-WalMart jive is pretty weak. So far, your only 'justification' is that it's 'too big'. I'm not 100% sure what you're defining 'too big' as. But hey, I'll just frame your argument for you.

Obviously you can't be referring to the thousands and thousands of people receiving a paycheck. So you must be referring to the amount of stores. With that large inventory they have they are able to negotiate lower prices, pass the savings to the consumer, and thusly drive mom'n'pop out of business.

I mean, there couldn't possibly be any benefit to having that many stores, the infrastructure to sustain them, and the financial backing to do anything 'good' with it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501598.html)

I'll give you the most important part of the article:


Over the next few days, Wal-Mart's response to Katrina -- an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers

And definitely the best line:


Cliff Brumfield, executive vice president of the Brookhaven-Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, said he was impressed with Wal-Mart's preparations.

"They were ready before FEMA was," he said.

princefigs
April 8th, 2008, 02:58 PM
my position is the same as yours,i hate wall mart,i think it will lead to communism, and im proud to say i havent bought from them for a month [neither have my parents], and i also think this thread is retarded...
waiting
...
...
no debate going on, oh well, but wait snoop why did you and 2 others vote no whats your position?

I was being VERY sarcastic....you are making claims like " it will lead to Communism" but you are not offering any support for it.

This is not even debatable in the fashion you presented it.

Ivan
April 8th, 2008, 03:20 PM
im against wal mart [but not enough not to buy from them]
i think their TOO big of a cmpany and we should all stop buying from them until they downsize:angry:
the same with sams club


Way to commit yourself to a cause! Complete genius.

Some will complain that corporations are too big and private citizens are making tooooo much money and there should be some control in place to stop billionares in their tracks; and in the same breath approve of every single government entitlement program; regulatory committees to 'even out the playing field'; restrictions on growth; environmental laws, financial bailouts of families unable to pay their bills, universal healthcare, etc.

All this and still want to increase nearly every form of taxation that exists and will enthusiastically support presidentials candidates who endorse all the above.

And Wal Mart is evil because they are a successful entity that represents the opportunities and possibilities of a capitalistic system.

JINGObc
April 8th, 2008, 04:32 PM
Wal-Mart is the ultimate inflation fighter for the average Jingo. Mom and pop stores do suffer, but there is a trend in artesian mom and pop stores producing better quality products at higher profit margins because they appeal to a certain group of the population, like the delicious, satisfying, microbrewery craze. Silly old capitalism, how dare you make people rich and keep prices low.

CliveStaples
April 8th, 2008, 06:44 PM
The story of the Shank family is heartbreaking in the sense that it could happen to anyone. Driving home one night, Debbie's car was hit by a tractor-trailier, leaving her brain-damaged and paralyzed. After collecting health insurance money for hospital bills (Debbie's policy with Wal-Mart paid for over $400,000 worth of emergency care), the Shanks sued the trucking company responsible for the accident, hoping to provide for Debbie's long term needs. Now Wal-Mart has sued the Shanks, citing a line of fine print in Debbie's insurance policy that entitles the company to any lawsuit settlement. Wal-Mart intends to collect $470,000 from the Shanks, despite the fact that this will undoubtedly bankrupt Debbie's family.

So Wal-Mart is evil...because it wants contractual obligations to be met?

I don't think Wal-Mart is evil; I certainly don't think that it's "too big" (accumulation of private property can, at the event horizon, give an individual or corporation enough scarcity advantage to become tyrannical, but Wal-Mart is very, very far away from that). I think that it provides entry-level work and cheap goods, both of which benefit the poor.

Yes, they tend to push out local competitors--because their customers prefer Wal-Mart. Offering a better alternative is a good thing.

Apokalupsis
April 8th, 2008, 09:53 PM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/80563/

The story of the Shank family is heartbreaking in the sense that it could happen to anyone. Driving home one night, Debbie's car was hit by a tractor-trailier, leaving her brain-damaged and paralyzed. After collecting health insurance money for hospital bills (Debbie's policy with Wal-Mart paid for over $400,000 worth of emergency care), the Shanks sued the trucking company responsible for the accident, hoping to provide for Debbie's long term needs. Now Wal-Mart has sued the Shanks, citing a line of fine print in Debbie's insurance policy that entitles the company to any lawsuit settlement. Wal-Mart intends to collect $470,000 from the Shanks, despite the fact that this will undoubtedly bankrupt Debbie's family.
FYI: Walmart dropped the suit. Debbie Shanks got to keep the money. Also, this isn't a Walmart thing, but a company thing. That's normal procedure after a company pays a large insurance settlement and the employee wins a suit from the faulting party. Nearly ALL companies do that. It's called subrogation.

There was just a lot of media coverage because 1) Walmart is always painted as the big mean guy, and 2) it was terrible tragedy for Ms. Shanks.

DevilPup John
April 9th, 2008, 05:19 AM
Word..........
I lost a few friends over in the sandbox myself, friend.

Seriously, this thread is retarded.....

dbog, you really need to explain your position on this.

At least someone caught the joke...

Sadly I doubt anyone could guess where it is from.

But I agree, the thread is a little on the retarded side.

dbogjohnson
April 9th, 2008, 05:29 AM
And Wal Mart is evil because they are a successful entity that represents the opportunities and possibilities of a capitalistic system.
yes but what about the thousands of stores being put out of buisness because of wal mart? i read the whole post i know all that stuff will happen, but what else is there to do about all the people loosing their stores???
[i dont know]

DevilPup John
April 9th, 2008, 05:32 AM
my position is the same as yours,i hate wall mart,i think it will lead to communism, and im proud to say i havent bought from them for a month [neither have my parents], and i also think this thread is retarded...
waiting
...
...
no debate going on, oh well, but wait snoop why did you and 2 others vote no whats your position?

How is Wal Mart going to lead to communism?

Unless I am not understanding something...

If we tried to limit Wal Mart that would be more communist than Wal Mart is...

So... how is Wal Mart communist?

dbogjohnson
April 9th, 2008, 05:35 AM
A store or a chain of stores is only as evil as the people who run it. The US Govt. allows the stores to operate so they can't be evil
well good point but i dont think this is what wal mart intended originally, they were a regular buisness not taking up to much space, but then they got to popular, and started to destroy shops almost exactly like wal mart, and then they started to do that all around the country, but they cant help that their popular.
then again they could if they downsised
and then again as said from ivan quote:

Some will complain that corporations are too big and private citizens are making tooooo much money and there should be some control in place to stop billionares in their tracks; and in the same breath approve of every single government entitlement program; regulatory committees to 'even out the playing field'; restrictions on growth; environmental laws, financial bailouts of families unable to pay their bills, universal healthcare, etc.

All this and still want to increase nearly every form of taxation that exists and will enthusiastically support presidentials candidates who endorse all the above.and i just broke one of my 5 rules on how to debate, oh well...

Snoop
April 9th, 2008, 05:36 AM
yes but what about the thousands of stores being put out of buisness because of wal mart? i read the whole post i know all that stuff will happen, but what else is there to do about all the people loosing their stores???
[i dont know]Think of it this way - in professional sports, the best teams usually win and some of the worst teams go out of business. That's a good thing because it raises the quality of the game (unless you like paying to watch bad teams play).

dbogjohnson
April 9th, 2008, 05:39 AM
Over the next few days, Wal-Mart's response to Katrina -- an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers
i guess youre right there
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Think of it this way - in professional sports, the best teams win and some of the worst teams go out of business. That's a good thing because it raises the quality of the game (unless you like paying to watch bad teams play).
well what if wal mart is eventually everywhere we see, and there isnt a store bwith only one property owning???

Snoop
April 9th, 2008, 05:43 AM
well what if wal mart is eventually everywhere we see, and there isnt a store bwith only one property owning???Your English communication skills are lacking here.

If Wal-Mart is everywhere and owns everything, then I would complain.

southernbelle
April 9th, 2008, 07:25 AM
I LOVE Walmart! I come from a VERY small city....where there was ABSOLUTELY no where else to shop. Seriously, no where. Without Walmart, that town would go under. The two main employers are Walmart, the Papermill, and the prison. Take away any one of those, the city would flop. Now, since I live in a much bigger city.....I have alot more choices...I shop there alot less...but, I will always shop at Walmart. You can't beat their prices, their selection or the convience of being able to buy kids church shoes and milk in the same store.

AnGeLOfMuSiC
April 9th, 2008, 09:56 AM
I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart as a company as it does just what capitalism entails which I support. I do, however, absolutely HATE going into one. In my experience, they have always been absolutely digusting and dirty. And really, I've never gotten much better prices on things in Wal-Mart than I do at my local Kroger and I've never bought their clothes. The areas around Wal-Marts are always a mess too. The parking lots are filthy and I always see tons of Wal-Mart bags flying around everywhere and even on people's personal property that is right across the street. That's partially the shopper's fault but it'd be nice to see the stores take better care of their surroundings as well as the inside of the stores more.

dbogjohnson
April 9th, 2008, 11:22 AM
If Wal-Mart is everywhere and owns everything, then I would complain
what about 70% of everything?[its pretty likley]
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart as a company as it does just what capitalism entails which I support. I do, however, absolutely HATE going into one. In my experience, they have always been absolutely digusting and dirty. And really, I've never gotten much better prices on things in Wal-Mart than I do at my local Kroger and I've never bought their clothes. The areas around Wal-Marts are always a mess too. The parking lots are filthy and I always see tons of Wal-Mart bags flying around everywhere and even on people's personal property that is right across the street. That's partially the shopper's fault but it'd be nice to see the stores take better care of their surroundings as well as the inside of the stores more.
the employes act that way because they dont get paid enough. payment is the companys job
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I LOVE Walmart! I come from a VERY small city....where there was ABSOLUTELY no where else to shop. Seriously, no where
thats because no one wants to make a shop by them because they know for a fact they'll get bought out by wal mart

AnGeLOfMuSiC
April 9th, 2008, 12:29 PM
thats because no one wants to make a shop by them because they know for a fact they'll get bought out by wal mart

Then they need to figure out a way to compete with Wal-Mart. They need to have even lower prices and even better stuff. Wal-Mart has become as big as it has because it's what the PEOPLE want. If no one shopped there, then there'd be no Wal-Mart. But obviously, they have a ton to offer that appeals to a large number of people. If the smaller mom & pop stores offered something that could compete, they wouldn't go out of business. It sucks to see sometimes but that's just capitalism.

Apokalupsis
April 9th, 2008, 12:30 PM
the employes act that way because they dont get paid enough. payment is the companys job
Obviously...if Wal-Mart was not paying enough, then no one would work for them. The employees have chosen to work there for the wage they were offered. If they needed more money, then they should find employment elsewhere with better pay. Don't blame the going rate (which is all the company should be willing to pay), blame those who accept the lower pay for themselves. When is personal accountability going to enter the equation here?

Mr. Hyde
April 9th, 2008, 12:46 PM
I don't like WalMart. For all the "We sell for less" talk, I've rarely ever seen anything actually sold for less. Look no further than the electronics section. Look at the greatest Hits games. $19.99 at every other store around...and ALSO the same at Walmart...so I assume the "Less" part is metaphor or there's small print I keep missing.

I will admit, they foods they sell that Jewel sells ARE cheaper than at Jewel, but I'd rather shop at Jewel (better sales, discounts, etc).

I go to a Walmart and I have to hunt down people for where something is like I'm on some kind of freaky safari. If it's not the ALWAYS present sound of some kid screaming (and not from being beaten as kids SHOULD be screaming from) it's the auditory bukkake of propaganda, "Here at Walmart! WHat's new at Walmart!? CHECK OUT OUR SALES! SIG HEIL!"

If you order something online from there, or if it's cheaper at the online Walmart, you STILL aren't going to get it for less in the store (despite their "If it's cheaper elsewhere, we'll beat that price" policy). Why? Because the store, according to a manager, doesn't have to beat it's own prices (the policy doesn't say that).

I don't like standing at ANY checkout while an employee sits on the phone with a finger in the air telling ME to wait. "Wait a second" shouldn't exist in a cashier's vocabulary, nor should any similar phrase. I got things to do bitch, so you need to either learn to multitask or fast track the cops because in two seconds if this isn't being rung up it's getting pocketed and I'm walking out.

Sticky floors. It's not a porn theatre (or even a regular theatre), so I shouldn't have to feel like I'm walking on tape. When I have to use a parkinglot to scrape my shoes clean, your store has a floor nastier than a crackwhore's moneymaker.

Convinience is the ONLY real selling point Walmart has, and it's a sad one. Sure, you can buy a score of different things at Walmart all at once, but ask for some detailed help and watch the retardation unfold like a poorly scripted tv sitcom (like House. House sucks). I can go to Ace or a mom-and-pop hardware store (I always prefer the latter) and get some quality information and a MUCH larger selection of what I might possibly need. I'd rather drive the hour to Gamestop than pick up a game at Walmart because the people there actually know more about what I'm looking for.

The censorship of products is ridiculous too. I can get the Hitman trilogy and choke, poison, shoot, slash, stab, and kill to my hearts desire (and it does on occasion to kill efficiently without the hassle of dealing with reality)...but I can't get a decent cd because it'll stripped of all authenticity via the "No we can't have naughty words" mentality. BS. If you can sell posters of Hanna Montana in some dolled up pedophilic display then you can good and damn well sell me my uncensored Hillary Duff cds.

Apokalupsis
April 9th, 2008, 03:30 PM
I don't like WalMart. For all the "We sell for less" talk, I've rarely ever seen anything actually sold for less. Look no further than the electronics section. Look at the greatest Hits games. $19.99 at every other store around...and ALSO the same at Walmart...so I assume the "Less" part is metaphor or there's small print I keep missing.
Couple of things...

1) There's very little markup on electronics as it is. You won't find substantial savings from any retailer. I've found at times that on certain items, WalMart may be cheaper, others BestBuy, and yet others, Circuit City. No company will be cheaper than the others 100% of the time on 100% of their stock. WalMart isn't an outlet store so they can't be that much cheaper on their electronics.

They do however, sell more less expensive models and products made by more "entry" level manufacturers. So in that regard, it's quite possible to always get the "cheaper" camera, or TV or camcorder at WM than it is elsewhere...but cheaper isn't always better. Then again, some people's priority is cheaper/more affordable, and not necessarily better or comparable quality.

Lastly, the electronics department (well, PC's anyway) is where stores actually LOSE money (especially on laptops) since 1) the markup isn't very high at all and 2) the shelf-life of the products is fairly short. These particular departments make their money in attachments and accessories (to which there is a much higher markup) and for some (like BestBuy) services and service/replacement plans.

2) Walmart is cheaper on items outside of electronics (clothing, baby supplies, toys, etc...).

We go to WalMart primarily for diapers and sometimes certain groceries (at the local Super WalMart). The savings are significant in those departments.



I go to a Walmart and I have to hunt down people for where something is like I'm on some kind of freaky safari.
That's true. But then WalMart isn't a sales center like BestBuy or Circuit City, but rather 100% merchant. Their employees aren't trained to be informed about product like the other 2 mentioned places. That isn't WM's intent or purpose as a shopping place, and is one of the ways that WM can offer cheaper pricing.



Convinience is the ONLY real selling point Walmart has, and it's a sad one.
Convenience and cost in most departments. Outside of that, I would agree.

CliveStaples
April 9th, 2008, 03:49 PM
I don't like WalMart. For all the "We sell for less" talk, I've rarely ever seen anything actually sold for less. Look no further than the electronics section. Look at the greatest Hits games. $19.99 at every other store around...and ALSO the same at Walmart...so I assume the "Less" part is metaphor or there's small print I keep missing.

Console gaming is probably the only department that doesn't feature lower prices. But almost every other item in electronics is sold for less--CD players, iPods, CDs, DVDs, DVD players, stereos, headphones, speakers, computers, keyboards, mouses, (some) computer games (although the popular ones usually go for retail price), and televisions.


I will admit, they foods they sell that Jewel sells ARE cheaper than at Jewel, but I'd rather shop at Jewel (better sales, discounts, etc).

As long as the price isn't a limited-time offer (Only for THREE DAYS!!!!), bring in the coupon and Wal-mart will match the price (no BoGo).


I go to a Walmart and I have to hunt down people for where something is like I'm on some kind of freaky safari. If it's not the ALWAYS present sound of some kid screaming (and not from being beaten as kids SHOULD be screaming from) it's the auditory bukkake of propaganda, "Here at Walmart! WHat's new at Walmart!? CHECK OUT OUR SALES! SIG HEIL!"

The thing I don't like are the commercial jingles that worm their way into your cerebellum.

And looking for help shouldn't be a problem--customers in our town experience quite the opposite problem; they can't get away from people offering to help them.


If you order something online from there, or if it's cheaper at the online Walmart, you STILL aren't going to get it for less in the store (despite their "If it's cheaper elsewhere, we'll beat that price" policy). Why? Because the store, according to a manager, doesn't have to beat it's own prices (the policy doesn't say that).

Erm, and every Wal-Mart has an official computer that you can either personally place the order at or have an associate place the order for you.


I don't like standing at ANY checkout while an employee sits on the phone with a finger in the air telling ME to wait. "Wait a second" shouldn't exist in a cashier's vocabulary, nor should any similar phrase. I got things to do bitch, so you need to either learn to multitask or fast track the cops because in two seconds if this isn't being rung up it's getting pocketed and I'm walking out.

Complain to a CSM or member of management. If any cashier got that complaint, they'd at least be on notice--and that's only if they have a perfect record. That kind of crap gets you fired.


Sticky floors. It's not a porn theatre (or even a regular theatre), so I shouldn't have to feel like I'm walking on tape. When I have to use a parkinglot to scrape my shoes clean, your store has a floor nastier than a crackwhore's moneymaker.

Shop in the morning. The floors are machine-cleaned and -waxed after closing, so when you shop later in the day, there's a buildup of gunk (dirt, various fluids from sodas, children, homeless people, and slobs) that no mop or broom can clean out.


Convinience is the ONLY real selling point Walmart has, and it's a sad one. Sure, you can buy a score of different things at Walmart all at once, but ask for some detailed help and watch the retardation unfold like a poorly scripted tv sitcom (like House. House sucks). I can go to Ace or a mom-and-pop hardware store (I always prefer the latter) and get some quality information and a MUCH larger selection of what I might possibly need. I'd rather drive the hour to Gamestop than pick up a game at Walmart because the people there actually know more about what I'm looking for.

First, GameStop is horrible. Their whole "Do you want to reserve this game that we're being paid to promote? No? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you..." schtick is annoying. And it's like watching G4: Nobody knows jack sh*t about the games, the lowest rating they ever give is "3 stars--worth playing".

Second, if the hardware guy can't help you, then it's because he's new. Our hardware guy knew every item on every peg and shelf in his 3-4 aisles.


The censorship of products is ridiculous too. I can get the Hitman trilogy and choke, poison, shoot, slash, stab, and kill to my hearts desire (and it does on occasion to kill efficiently without the hassle of dealing with reality)...but I can't get a decent cd because it'll stripped of all authenticity via the "No we can't have naughty words" mentality. BS. If you can sell posters of Hanna Montana in some dolled up pedophilic display then you can good and damn well sell me my uncensored Hillary Duff cds.

And they'll sell Cosmo, but not Maxim. What gives?

Ivan
April 9th, 2008, 09:17 PM
I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart as a company as it does just what capitalism entails which I support. I do, however, absolutely HATE going into one. In my experience, they have always been absolutely digusting and dirty. And really, I've never gotten much better prices on things in Wal-Mart than I do at my local Kroger and I've never bought their clothes. The areas around Wal-Marts are always a mess too. The parking lots are filthy and I always see tons of Wal-Mart bags flying around everywhere and even on people's personal property that is right across the street. That's partially the shopper's fault but it'd be nice to see the stores take better care of their surroundings as well as the inside of the stores more.


Interesting. Here in Tucson the Wal-Marts (Super Wal-Marts, anyway) are very clean and well kept. Decent neighborhoods too. It is the K-Marts that are sespools. They seem to higher their cashiers from the deaf,dumb and blind school.
Our Targets are pretty nice, too.

Mr. Hyde
April 9th, 2008, 09:26 PM
They do however, sell more less expensive models and products made by more "entry" level manufacturers. So in that regard, it's quite possible to always get the "cheaper" camera, or TV or camcorder at WM than it is elsewhere...but cheaper isn't always better. Then again, some people's priority is cheaper/more affordable, and not necessarily better or comparable quality.
I'm always willing to pay more for something that's better quality. I don't want to pay less, and then have to deal with coming in and getting it fixed/exchanged/etc. because what I bought, while cost efficient in the short run, was a hunk of crap that's now going to end up costing more time and potentially more money than it originally should. But on that, we DID pick up an MP3 player for Dan for his birthday last year (the last I can recall willingly going there) and it broke less than a week after he got it. IIRC, the earphones started falling apart THAT DAY. It was all aggravation station for me.

2) Walmart is cheaper on items outside of electronics (clothing, baby supplies, toys, etc...).
I dunno. I can get a pack of smokes at Walgreens for half the cost of Walmart, and at the Tobacco stores (when we went) I could get them for even less. With the discounts I get at Jewel, I can get basic necessities for cheaper than WM too. *cues audience member to say "Well that's great...FOR YOU!"*

That's true. But then WalMart isn't a sales center like BestBuy or Circuit City, but rather 100% merchant. Their employees aren't trained to be informed about product like the other 2 mentioned places. That isn't WM's intent or purpose as a shopping place, and is one of the ways that WM can offer cheaper pricing.
It's a lack of intent that costs them my business. I prefer the quality, and the specialties, of the smaller stores and the specialty stores. WHen I go to buy automotive supplies, I want to talk to someone who knows more about cars than me. ANd I've noticed a more detailed selection at the specialty stores, which I like. I'll pay a buck or two extra for something if the guy helping me REALLY knows his business and the quality's better or it's something hard to find.

As far as covenience goes, I don't mind going to several different places to get everything done. I get a more personable experience, and I leave feeling satisfied with my participation in the economy.

Console gaming is probably the only department that doesn't feature lower prices. But almost every other item in electronics is sold for less--CD players, iPods, CDs, DVDs, DVD players, stereos, headphones, speakers, computers, keyboards, mouses, (some) computer games (although the popular ones usually go for retail price), and televisions.
Cigarettes cost me more. That's at least two departments, as per a bet with Syl (she thinks WM saves money) I'm checking the automotive department tomorrow and comparing it with nearby automated transport maintenance and supply product centers.

As long as the price isn't a limited-time offer (Only for THREE DAYS!!!!), bring in the coupon and Wal-mart will match the price (no BoGo).
If WM is going to match the price, why even buy it from there? WHy go through the hassle of getting the same price elsewhere, when I get that original price where I was already shopping?

And looking for help shouldn't be a problem--customers in our town experience quite the opposite problem; they can't get away from people offering to help them.
It's always been a problem for me. Available Customer Service is for me what NY Taxis are for black people: Non-existent.

Complain to a CSM or member of management. If any cashier got that complaint, they'd at least be on notice--and that's only if they have a perfect record. That kind of crap gets you fired.
Why complain? They lost my business; that's complaint enough.

Shop in the morning. The floors are machine-cleaned and -waxed after closing, so when you shop later in the day, there's a buildup of gunk (dirt, various fluids from sodas, children, homeless people, and slobs) that no mop or broom can clean out.
I've never seen that problem where I work. If there's a spill, one of us gets on it immediately. The only thing I hate about Jewel is the constant TCF promotions. Ya got a big sign, your employees walk the store constantly, I don't need a near-constant update on how great you are...and I don't want garbage stickers either. I don't like getting asked about that. Why do I want a sticker for my trash? And self Checkouts. Self checkouts ANYWHERE suck. Saves time my...no it doesn't. It doesn't save time when EVERY item gets sent back or takes a half hour to scan.

First, GameStop is horrible. Their whole "Do you want to reserve this game that we're being paid to promote? No? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you..." schtick is annoying.
Never happens to me. I go in. I wave. I pick up something and ask if it's good (on occasion). At the one back home, they knew me. I went there pretty often. Here it's too far away so I don't go as much. But even then, I don't respond to sales pitches or reservation questions. It gets met with a terribly awkward silence caused by a body gesture that depends on how awkward I want it to get.

CliveStaples
April 9th, 2008, 09:38 PM
Cigarettes cost me more. That's at least two departments, as per a bet with Syl (she thinks WM saves money) I'm checking the automotive department tomorrow and comparing it with nearby automated transport maintenance and supply product centers.

Yes, I forgot cigarettes. It kind of fits into their "moral high ground" attitude.


If WM is going to match the price, why even buy it from there? WHy go through the hassle of getting the same price elsewhere, when I get that original price where I was already shopping?

Well, of course you won't go to Wal-Mart just to buy the same thing for the same price. But since Wal-Mart sells most things for less than its competitors, and since the price of its competitors is easily accessible from their newspaper ads, why not just go to Wal-Mart? At worst, it's just as cheap as where you were going; at best, it's even cheaper. (Walton's Wager?)


It's always been a problem for me. Available Customer Service is for me what NY Taxis are for black people: Non-existent.

"Fathers" would have been funnier, but meaner.


Why complain? They lost my business; that's complaint enough.

Think of the other customers; tell the management that they've lost your custom because of the conduct of that cashier. They'll change things in a jiffy.

dbogjohnson
April 10th, 2008, 05:33 AM
Then they need to figure out a way to compete with Wal-Mart
thats my point i dont think anyone can, and eventuall for that fact they will be bought out, this is why they need to downsize [im not even talking a big downsize, just enough to give otheer stores a chance]

Obviously...if Wal-Mart was not paying enough, then no one would work for them. The employees have chosen to work there for the wage they were offered. If they needed more money, then they should find employment elsewhere with better pay
i personally think they should find a better job
i bet if you went to your local grocery store, and worked thee saame job, then youd find the same payment,or more

Mr. Hyde
April 10th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Well, of course you won't go to Wal-Mart just to buy the same thing for the same price. But since Wal-Mart sells most things for less than its competitors, and since the price of its competitors is easily accessible from their newspaper ads, why not just go to Wal-Mart? At worst, it's just as cheap as where you were going; at best, it's even cheaper. (Walton's Wager?)
But I don't go to Walmart. I mean, just to this point, we've seen a false-step in their major advertising. "We sell for less" actually means, "Some stuff we sell for less." It's like when you look at their exchange counter, they have a big sign that says, "Money orders". What it DOESN'T say is, "Here at Walmart, we allow you to make money orders." You can't cash a money order there despite (and she actually had the audacity to point at the sign on this one) the lack of anything saying you can't cash a money order there.

And then there's the return policy scandal (as I call it). I take a copy of Manhunt back because the game sucked. I get it exchanged for another copy by saying "The game was defective...it just didn't work" which isn't entirely a lie. The controls suck, the graphics look like they never moved past Beta, and the list goes on. But they give me another copy. I go back to the greeter and try to get a return sticker for that one. As my now held copy wasn't opened, I had the right to return the item for a cash refund. NOTHING in store policy says otherwise. Yet, after a very loud and heated argument with the greeter, and a manager, I had to leave. I have since refined the plan to get around the human element. Just go back a different day or go to a different store.

"Fathers" would have been funnier, but meaner.
I wasn't gonna go that far.

Think of the other customers; tell the management that they've lost your custom because of the conduct of that cashier. They'll change things in a jiffy.
If it's a major issue I'll complain. If an employee is a dick to me, I'll get confrontational. But the waiting issue is something I'll just go elsewhere to avoid.

thats my point i dont think anyone can, and eventuall for that fact they will be bought out, this is why they need to downsize [im not even talking a big downsize, just enough to give otheer stores a chance]
Sure you can compete with Walmart. It doesn't need to downsize. Other businesses need to step up. When the PS3s, Wiis, and all were coming in, I worked with a guy who had another job at Radioshack and he'd talk to the customers into walking down to his store to make the orders to avoid the lines and hassle because Radioshack offered a better deal in the situation. Instead of standing in line at god awful hours of the morning, you place an order, they deliver it.

I've run into several customers personally who railed about how Walmart was cheaper, but ended up shopping where I work because the employees were more helpful, friendlier, and went beyond others. Customer service, selling things Walmart doesn't sell, location, demographic targetting, these things can really help you compete against it.

dbogjohnson
April 10th, 2008, 08:37 AM
Sure you can compete with Walmart. It doesn't need to downsize. Other businesses need to step up. When the PS3s, Wiis, and all were coming in, I worked with a guy who had another job at Radioshack and he'd talk to the customers into walking down to his store to make the orders to avoid the lines and hassle because Radioshack offered a better deal in the situation. Instead of standing in line at god awful hours of the morning, you place an order, they deliver it.

I've run into several customers personally who railed about how Walmart was cheaper, but ended up shopping where I work because the employees were more helpful, friendlier, and went beyond others. Customer service, selling things Walmart doesn't sell, location, demographic targetting, these things can really help you compete against it.

good point...qaulity over quanity
thats all for me i have nothing to debate

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2008, 05:42 PM
But I don't go to Walmart. I mean, just to this point, we've seen a false-step in their major advertising. "We sell for less" actually means, "Some stuff we sell for less." It's like when you look at their exchange counter, they have a big sign that says, "Money orders". What it DOESN'T say is, "Here at Walmart, we allow you to make money orders." You can't cash a money order there despite (and she actually had the audacity to point at the sign on this one) the lack of anything saying you can't cash a money order there.

And then there's the return policy scandal (as I call it). I take a copy of Manhunt back because the game sucked. I get it exchanged for another copy by saying "The game was defective...it just didn't work" which isn't entirely a lie. The controls suck, the graphics look like they never moved past Beta, and the list goes on. But they give me another copy. I go back to the greeter and try to get a return sticker for that one. As my now held copy wasn't opened, I had the right to return the item for a cash refund. NOTHING in store policy says otherwise. Yet, after a very loud and heated argument with the greeter, and a manager, I had to leave. I have since refined the plan to get around the human element. Just go back a different day or go to a different store.

Personally, I think your story is crap. No manager I've ever had would ever even consider doing that. In fact, they force you to go against Wal-Mart policy to please the customers: No receipt for that game that's already opened and no game inside? Sorry, no can do. "WHAAAAA! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I WANT A MANAGER!!!!" Manager: "Okay, let's do it just this one time."

That's how it always goes. "Do it just this once."


If it's a major issue I'll complain. If an employee is a dick to me, I'll get confrontational. But the waiting issue is something I'll just go elsewhere to avoid.

Good luck. The "minimum cashiers possible" business strategy is used pretty ubiquitously.

sylouette
April 10th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Personally, I think your story is crap. No manager I've ever had would ever even consider doing that. In fact, they force you to go against Wal-Mart policy to please the customers: No receipt for that game that's already opened and no game inside? Sorry, no can do. "WHAAAAA! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! I WANT A MANAGER!!!!" Manager: "Okay, let's do it just this one time."

So you're calling Hyde a liar? That's nice.

I remember him telling me this exact story at the time it happened.

Obviously, you praise the ground your managers walk on. I'd be willing to bet your picture is posted for every month you worked/work there as "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH". That's great. Loyalty is a great asset for a company.

But your calling Hyde a liar is exactly our point. THAT'S the type of customer service we get at Walmart. It used to be that the customer was ALWAYS right. And it's not just Walmart, certainly. But nowadays, that's not the case. Sure, Hyde may have not been being completely honest in that transaction, but it goes totally against the way customer service used to be and should be. "The customer is ALWAYS right."

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2008, 07:00 PM
So you're calling Hyde a liar? That's nice.

A "liar"? No. Given my extensive experience in customer service at Wal-Mart, I doubt that his story is true. It might be true, but I doubt it.


I remember him telling me this exact story at the time it happened.

Obviously, you praise the ground your managers walk on. I'd be willing to bet your picture is posted for every month you worked/work there as "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH". That's great. Loyalty is a great asset for a company.

Uh, I hated the managers. I wanted Wal-Mart policy followed to the letter. I was really tired of giving away money to people who were obviously scamming us.


But your calling Hyde a liar is exactly our point. THAT'S the type of customer service we get at Walmart.

LOL

I would never call a customer a liar on the clock, and I never have. Even when I knew they were full of crap and were stealing merchandise or just trying to get money.


It used to be that the customer was ALWAYS right. And it's not just Walmart, certainly. But nowadays, that's not the case. Sure, Hyde may have not been being completely honest in that transaction, but it goes totally against the way customer service used to be and should be. "The customer is ALWAYS right."

Actually, sometimes the customer is wrong. When the customer comes in and doesn't set off the alarm, then when she leaves and her baby bag makes the alarms go crazy, she's obviously stealing crap. But at Wal-Mart, the customer is always right, so we couldn't do anything. Had to smile, apologize for the alarms, and thank her for coming to Wal-Mart.

Slipnish
April 10th, 2008, 07:42 PM
I honestly think corps that big should take a little better care of their employees. Wal Mart isn't "evil" per se, at least no more so than any other Fortune 500 company. However, when CEOs and those in charge have 50 million dollar bail outs, I sort of wonder if they provide adequate health coverage, cost of living raises, child care and so on for employees....

I know that corporate bigwigs NEED a 32 foot jacuzzi, but come on... two of them?

dogssup
April 10th, 2008, 07:44 PM
I honestly think corps that big should take a little better care of their employees. Wal Mart isn't "evil" per se, at least no more so than any other Fortune 500 company. However, when CEOs and those in charge have 50 million dollar bail outs, I sort of wonder if they provide adequate health coverage, cost of living raises, child care and so on for employees....

I know that corporate bigwigs NEED a 32 foot jacuzzi, but come on... two of them?

Walmart does NOT provide good health coverage, cost of living raises, etc.
Read my huge copy and paste above your post.

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2008, 07:55 PM
What, this:


The hidden cost of working at WalMart is the dependence by many WalMart workers on public assistance - costing tax-payers millions of dollars every year.

The tax-payers voted for that public assistance; if they don't want public money going to healthcare, they should vote that way.

sylouette
April 10th, 2008, 07:57 PM
A "liar"? No. Given my extensive experience in customer service at Wal-Mart, I doubt that his story is true. It might be true, but I doubt it.

:huh: Well then you ARE calling him a liar! Jesus f*cken Christ, what part of THAT paragraph says otherwise?


Uh, I hated the managers. I wanted Wal-Mart policy followed to the letter. I was really tired of giving away money to people who were obviously scamming us.

Yeah, like it was YOUR money. Give me a break, Clive. So you're telling me that you have NEVER tried to return something for less that what the policy states?

Tell me you haven't so I can turn it around and tell you that I doubt your story is true. Come on.


I'm waiting. :knuppel2:




LOL

I would never call a customer a liar on the clock, and I never have. Even when I knew they were full of crap and were stealing merchandise or just trying to get money.

Walmart Manager: "I present to you, Clivestaples....the EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH pin"

Clive: "HAIL SAM WALTON!"


Actually, sometimes the customer is wrong. When the customer comes in and doesn't set off the alarm, then when she leaves and her baby bag makes the alarms go crazy, she's obviously stealing crap. But at Wal-Mart, the customer is always right, so we couldn't do anything. Had to smile, apologize for the alarms, and thank her for coming to Wal-Mart.

I've heard of "Jewel" (I'm sure you're familiar with that grocery store...being a Wheaton College veteran and all) having that policy, but never Walmart...and certainly, leaving a store with a basket full of stolen goods is not what I had in mind on the subject of the customer being wrong or right.

Anyway, you must work for some remarkable Walmart, because there's been several times when the alarm has gone off when I've gone through and it was because the product they scanned something that should have been removed and wasn't. What did they do? They stopped me, asked for receipt, and went through every bag verifying what was on my receipt to see what set off the alarm.

My opinion is that when that happens....the person should get an automatic refund for the item that set off the alarm...not only for being inconvenienced but it's a slight embarrassment having that happen. Everyone assumes you're guilty until proven innocent in a case like that.

dogssup
April 10th, 2008, 07:58 PM
What, this:



The tax-payers voted for that public assistance; if they don't want public money going to healthcare, they should vote that way.

if walmart gave better wages and health care that issue would be reduced.

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2008, 08:10 PM
if walmart gave better wages and health care that issue would be reduced.

Except that, obviously, the public doesn't want health care funding reduced, or they'd elect to reduce it.

If Wal-Mart offered compensation below the fair market value for the labor, then there's plenty of money to be made by going in and offering fair market value compensation for the same job. Apparently, you think Wal-Mart is terribly managed and is vulnerable to competition.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

:huh: Well then you ARE calling him a liar! Jesus f*cken Christ, what part of THAT paragraph says otherwise?

Remind me, which finishing school did you attend?

I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying that I think he may be embellishing his story.


Yeah, like it was YOUR money. Give me a break, Clive. So you're telling me that you have NEVER tried to return something for less that what the policy states?

Let's see, the one thing I ever returned for money instead of a replacement was a calculator from Target, and I got a full refund because I had my receipt.


Tell me you haven't so I can turn it around and tell you that I doubt your story is true. Come on.

Your doubt is meaningless; my doubt is based on my experience with Wal-Mart's Customer Service department and their return policy.


I'm waiting. :knuppel2:

A bat? Really? You certainly aren't humble about your perceived rhetorical force, are you?


Walmart Manager: "I present to you, Clivestaples....the EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH pin"

Clive: "HAIL SAM WALTON!"

...huh?

So when I provide good customer service, I'm a tool of the Man, and if I ever provided anything less, then I'm part of the terrible Wal-Mart customer service team?

I wasn't employee of the month, I didn't like my managers, and I didn't like the failure to adhere to the written policy. But I was being paid to do a job, so I did it, and you can't make me feel bad about that.


I've heard of "Jewel" (I'm sure you're familiar with that grocery store...being a Wheaton College veteran and all) having that policy, but never Walmart...and certainly, leaving a store with a basket full of stolen goods is not what I had in mind on the subject of the customer being wrong or right.

If you steal something right in front of management, they can't stop you. They can't even touch you. All they can do is call the cops and let you walk out the door.


Anyway, you must work for some remarkable Walmart, because there's been several times when the alarm has gone off when I've gone through and it was because the product they scanned something that should have been removed and wasn't. What did they do? They stopped me, asked for receipt, and went through every bag verifying what was on my receipt to see what set off the alarm.

They can only do that with your consent.


My opinion is that when that happens....the person should get an automatic refund for the item that set off the alarm...not only for being inconvenienced but it's a slight embarrassment having that happen. Everyone assumes you're guilty until proven innocent in a case like that.


What a surprise, a customer wanting free money from Wal-Mart.

starcreator
April 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM
But I don't go to Walmart. I mean, just to this point, we've seen a false-step in their major advertising. "We sell for less" actually means, "Some stuff we sell for less." It's like when you look at their exchange counter, they have a big sign that says, "Money orders". What it DOESN'T say is, "Here at Walmart, we allow you to make money orders." You can't cash a money order there despite (and she actually had the audacity to point at the sign on this one) the lack of anything saying you can't cash a money order there.

And then there's the return policy scandal (as I call it). I take a copy of Manhunt back because the game sucked. I get it exchanged for another copy by saying "The game was defective...it just didn't work" which isn't entirely a lie. The controls suck, the graphics look like they never moved past Beta, and the list goes on. But they give me another copy. I go back to the greeter and try to get a return sticker for that one. As my now held copy wasn't opened, I had the right to return the item for a cash refund. NOTHING in store policy says otherwise. Yet, after a very loud and heated argument with the greeter, and a manager, I had to leave. I have since refined the plan to get around the human element. Just go back a different day or go to a different store.

With all due respect, if I had known the full circumstances, I wouldn't have given you a refund. It would have been incredibly obvious to me that you were trying to usurp their policy (http://www.walmart.com/returns), which states very clearly that opened software is not eligible for a return. First, by misleading them on the "defective" issue, you should not have been entitled to the new copy in the first place - which was the basis on which you sought a refund. Secondly, in order to execute a return for cash payment, you require a receipt for the product showing your payment in cash - which you didn't have, as you only had the receipt for the old product.

Mr. Hyde
April 11th, 2008, 07:21 PM
With all due respect, if I had known the full circumstances, I wouldn't have given you a refund. It would have been incredibly obvious to me that you were trying to usurp their policy (http://www.walmart.com/returns), which states very clearly that opened software is not eligible for a return. First, by misleading them on the "defective" issue, you should not have been entitled to the new copy in the first place - which was the basis on which you sought a refund. Secondly, in order to execute a return for cash payment, you require a receipt for the product showing your payment in cash - which you didn't have, as you only had the receipt for the old product.

The idea works. Since they staple (IIRC) the original receipt to your return receipt, you could effectively tear the new receipt away and trash it, then keep the old one and go to a different store and return it completely within the bounds of the policy.

Bottom line being: The moral highground store sold me a "snuff-game" and I felt I should get my money back because the product sucked. If you go to a theatre and the movie sucks, you can get your cash back on it. At most gaming stores, you can get your cash back within a reasonable period if the game blows or there's a problem.


I'm saying that I think he may be embellishing his story.
If I embellished it, it'd sound more interesting. They may have an unspoken policy of "Just this once" but I didn't get that treatment. I got the "No way, Jose" treatment.

KevinBrowning
April 11th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Wal-Mart could certainly treat its employees better, but it is not evil simply for being a large and successful company. That should be obvious. Putting a limit on the amount of money people can earn is not a very good economic strategy, and generally leads to widespread poverty and tremendous violence, as shown in communist nations in the last century.

dogssup
April 11th, 2008, 09:08 PM
Pretty evil to go into Latin America and create virtual slave labor.

KevinBrowning
April 11th, 2008, 09:22 PM
Pretty evil to go into Latin America and create virtual slave labor.

Is it your assertion that Wal-Mart owns slaves in Latin America? If so, do you have a shred of evidence for that claim?

dogssup
April 11th, 2008, 09:41 PM
They are even trying to force down labor costs in emerging Asia. It seems even $0.40 cents an hour--the estimated wage in China--is too high for the heartless executives at the front offices in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Walmart: Evil (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_5_12/ai_n6051897)

a Honduran woman named Isabel Reyes, who works for a textile company in San Pedro Sula that makes shirts and shorts for Wal-Mart. With quotas constantly rising, she now works 10 hours a day, sewing sleeves onto 1,200 shirts a day for about $35 a week. The 37-year-old seamstress can't hold her infant daughter without gulping anti-inflammatory pills.

KevinBrowning
April 11th, 2008, 10:28 PM
They are even trying to force down labor costs in emerging Asia. It seems even $0.40 cents an hour--the estimated wage in China--is too high for the heartless executives at the front offices in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Walmart: Evil (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_5_12/ai_n6051897)

a Honduran woman named Isabel Reyes, who works for a textile company in San Pedro Sula that makes shirts and shorts for Wal-Mart. With quotas constantly rising, she now works 10 hours a day, sewing sleeves onto 1,200 shirts a day for about $35 a week. The 37-year-old seamstress can't hold her infant daughter without gulping anti-inflammatory pills.

It is unfortunate that some nations have not developed as much as the West, but that does not make Wal-Mart evil. Obviously they pay more than those people could make otherwise where they live, or they would not be working there. Keep in mind that a dollar in China or Honduras will buy a lot more than a dollar in the USA.

dogssup
April 12th, 2008, 04:11 AM
It is unfortunate that some nations have not developed as much as the West, but that does not make Wal-Mart evil. Obviously they pay more than those people could make otherwise where they live, or they would not be working there. Keep in mind that a dollar in China or Honduras will buy a lot more than a dollar in the USA.

I've been to both of countries.

A dollar isn't enough to sustain themselves on or their family.

And 40 cents isn't a dollar. It's 40% of a dollar.

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2008, 05:09 AM
They are even trying to force down labor costs in emerging Asia. It seems even $0.40 cents an hour--the estimated wage in China--is too high for the heartless executives at the front offices in Bentonville, Arkansas.

If the wage was too low, people would refuse to work for it. The question is whether their is adequate competition in these areas. The solution is most likely to increase development and industry there, not to decrease it.

dogssup
April 12th, 2008, 07:22 AM
If the wage was too low, people would refuse to work for it. The question is whether their is adequate competition in these areas. The solution is most likely to increase development and industry there, not to decrease it.

It would not matter if Walmart was the only industry in China or Latin America. 40 cents an hour is terrible pay. Walmart is trying to lower their wages! Not having "adequate competition" is no excuse to financially rape another country.
I'm also skeptical of your claim that if it is too low people wouldn't work there. They have little choice.

LiberalTruth
April 12th, 2008, 07:23 AM
Wal-mart is the shining symbol for capitalist greed. I have absolutely no problem with their success, but with the means they use to achieve it - which is anything really. They treat their employees badly, sell sub-standard goods from China and third-world countries for more than the pennies they were bought for and they expand like a freaking rabbit's family.

I do not like Wal-Mart. I go to Target if I need the convenience of a mega superstore. Of course my parents couldn't care less...but I can't stop them ALL the time. Even before the Shank story came out, I was repulsed by Wal-Mart's ideals (no, not the smiley face and 'Always low prices!'). It has driven countless out of their homes and businesses all for the sake of corporate greed.

Wal-Mart owns capitalist America. And we can do nothing about it because Americans are so materialistic, individualistic and greedy, that they will cling to their flawed capitalist economy at all costs. Communism, or at least Socialism would keep gigantic corporations like Wal-Mart in check. I hate to use a crude example but the government is like the prostitute of major corporations. And Americans are the neglected children of said prostitute.



Socialism is an evil evil monster, that soon grows into Communism...

And I did not watch my buddies die face down in the mud to watch this country become Communist!


See, that's what we've been conditioned to think since the 50's. Socialists and Communists are evil, they worship the Devil and eat babies. Exactly why is capitalism so amazingly awesome? Let's take an example of Socialist country like France VS good ol' BIG MONEY US. France has a better healthcare system, better public education system and more kids going to college because (gasp!) it's actually AFFORDABLE, the higher taxes they pay go towards keeping the streets safe, getting kids off those streets and into school and assistance programs, social welfare is so much more efficient...the list is endless. Now what is evil about that? Everything you say stems from pre-conditioned stereotypes we've been taught so that we can believe our country is the greatest in the world because we're CAPITALISTS!

So, go Communist! :afro:

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2008, 12:54 PM
It would not matter if Walmart was the only industry in China or Latin America. 40 cents an hour is terrible pay.It would be terrible pay here. If the only alternative to $0.40 an hour is to work in the fields for $0.20 an hour, then Wal-Mart's offering a better wage. Prices, including that of labor, varies from market to market. The nominal value is not always the same as the real value.


Walmart is trying to lower their wages! Not having "adequate competition" is no excuse to financially rape another country.You don't understand. If there were adequate competition for the labor, Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to "financially rape" another country--although "rape" involves a lack of consent, which is not the case with voluntary trade. Say Wal-Mart tries offering only $0.01 an hour--but their competitor, Wall-Mart, decides that they want to attract more/better workers, so they offer $0.02. Wal-Mart won't employ anyone, since all the workers will flock to Wall-Mart. Competition ensures fair market prices.


I'm also skeptical of your claim that if it is too low people wouldn't work there. They have little choice.Sure they do. Go work somewhere else, doing something else.

And if there truly are no alternatives, then Wal-Mart is providing jobs where there were none before. That's called "development"--do you not like seeing third world countries develop economically?

dogssup
April 12th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Since walmart pays $9-10US/hr here in the US, what would be so painful for wallmart to give $1.25/hr to the chinese and latin american workers?

KevinBrowning
April 12th, 2008, 01:44 PM
I'm also skeptical of your claim that if it is too low people wouldn't work there. They have little choice.

Sure they have a choice. They can work someplace besides Wal-Mart. And if Wal-Mart is the only employment opportunity, it is indeed helping the people, regardless of the pay. A little money is better than none.

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2008, 07:01 PM
Since walmart pays $9-10US/hr here in the US, what would be so painful for wallmart to give $1.25/hr to the chinese and latin american workers?

...well, because prices are dictated by supply and demand. In China and Latin America, obviously the price of labor is lower. Why should Wal-Mart pay above the fair market value for the labor?

LiberalTruth
April 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM
...well, because prices are dictated by supply and demand. In China and Latin America, obviously the price of labor is lower. Why should Wal-Mart pay above the fair market value for the labor?

Of course when you look at from that standpoint, you're thinking exactly like the cigar-smoking executives who couldn't give a rat's backside about the welfare of the people whose labor they're exploiting to sell ridiculously cheap, substandard goods to Americans.

If the market of these goods isn't China or Latin America, but the US, where the price of labor is considerably higher, then these workers deserve the exact same payment. It's only fair. And it's not like doing so would run Wal-Mart into the ground. This is a company that had about a 300 billion dollar profit last year - paying impoverished overseas workers a few dollars more won't ruin them. Not that I'd mind seeing them ruined...

And that's why Wal-Mart should pay the fair market value for the labor. Not above, just fair.

We are after all, a country that prides itself on fair labor practices.

CliveStaples
April 13th, 2008, 01:25 AM
Of course when you look at from that standpoint, you're thinking exactly like the cigar-smoking executives who couldn't give a rat's backside about the welfare of the people whose labor they're exploiting to sell ridiculously cheap, substandard goods to Americans.

If the market of these goods isn't China or Latin America, but the US, where the price of labor is considerably higher, then these workers deserve the exact same payment. It's only fair. And it's not like doing so would run Wal-Mart into the ground. This is a company that had about a 300 billion dollar profit last year - paying impoverished overseas workers a few dollars more won't ruin them. Not that I'd mind seeing them ruined...

Why? The nominal price of labor in one country is based on the supply and demand of labor there. To put it another way: Should we raise the price of food to exorbitant rates to reflect the supply and demand for food in third world countries? If not, then why should we suppose the reverse?

And that's why Wal-Mart should pay the fair market value for the labor. Not above, just fair.


We are after all, a country that prides itself on fair labor practices.

Yes, fair labor--prices commensurate with the supply and demand for that good or service.

LiberalTruth
April 13th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Why? The nominal price of labor in one country is based on the supply and demand of labor there. To put it another way: Should we raise the price of food to exorbitant rates to reflect the supply and demand for food in third world countries? If not, then why should we suppose the reverse?

Okay, prices reflect the supply and demand ratio of the market , so if the US is the market for the majority of these goods, I see no reason for Wal-Mart not to pay these workers the same as American workers catering to an American market are paid. It's not like it would result in a massive loss of profits.

The market for food produced in the US isn't usually thrid world countries, unless it's in the form of aid, and so there would be no need raise the price of food. That said, the situation you describe isn't an accurate parallel to whole issue with Wal-Mart and overseas labor.

Aside from the financial reasons for Wal-Mart's unfair labor exploitation, it's only the right thing to do. The children of these workers (if they are not children themselves) go hungry on some days, can't afford school, and live in abject poverty. A few dollars more might make a difference in their lives, and that alone should outweigh any financial disadvantages to Wal-Mart's executives. A lot of people who make products that have Wal-Mart smiley faces, have very, very sad faces.:no:

CliveStaples
April 13th, 2008, 12:32 PM
Okay, prices reflect the supply and demand ratio of the market , so if the US is the market for the majority of these goods, I see no reason for Wal-Mart not to pay these workers the same as American workers catering to an American market are paid. It's not like it would result in a massive loss of profits.

The U.S. is the market for the good; China and Latin America are the markets for the labor. They are two distinct things.


The market for food produced in the US isn't usually thrid world countries, unless it's in the form of aid, and so there would be no need raise the price of food. That said, the situation you describe isn't an accurate parallel to whole issue with Wal-Mart and overseas labor.

Aside from the financial reasons for Wal-Mart's unfair labor exploitation, it's only the right thing to do. The children of these workers (if they are not children themselves) go hungry on some days, can't afford school, and live in abject poverty. A few dollars more might make a difference in their lives, and that alone should outweigh any financial disadvantages to Wal-Mart's executives. A lot of people who make products that have Wal-Mart smiley faces, have very, very sad faces.

As I said, if Wal-Mart wishes to engage in charity, by all means they are allowed to. But they are running a business; they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and they offer compensation that obviously a lot of people--i.e., their employees--find worth the labor.

If your criticism is that Wal-Mart isn't spending millions of dollars feeding the hungry and healing the sick, then you're criticizing quite a few more businesses--including those Mom and Pop stores, who don't spend their profits exclusively on helping the poor.

amymariah
April 13th, 2008, 12:39 PM
I don't like this poll - I think it's dumb - but I voted no. How would you like it if I told you to downsize because you're too fat?

LOL! Nice one. It bothers me that walmart takes away from the businees of other but who are WE too tell them they have to downsize. who are we to tell them to do anything? who are we to complain. And how many other companies are also really large, mcdonalds? I like shopping at walmart, its fun..teens in my small town go there on firday nights for fun:grin: If it was just a single store people would be coming from miles around just becuase its such a good store. If you dont like walmart itself..i mean as a store. you havent been up here. lol But seriosuly guys, what reall is the problem unless you yourself is a business owner. Im not big on large establishment at all but people can do what they want.

CliveStaples
April 13th, 2008, 12:49 PM
It bothers me that walmart takes away from the businees of other

They aren't really "taking away" from other businesses; rather, customers choose to buy from Wal-Mart instead of the other companies. By saying that Wal-Mart is "taking away" these customers, you're saying that they really belong to the other businesses--but customers don't belong to anyone.

Mithran
April 13th, 2008, 12:55 PM
Although I hate to say it, in this instance, Marx had it right.
The workers in a capitalists system arenít people, they are labor. The only thing that matters to them is the lowest possible price for the highest possible return. People are thus simple equations in the corporations cost/benefit analysis.

This is the definition of evil. Human beings are not individuals with rights, they are cattle. IF itís not Wal-Marts responsibility to pay a fair wage to its workers, whose responsibility is it? This further proves them evil, as a sociopath is characterized by their inability to have empathy for their victims, and an also has an inability to take moral responsibility for its own actions.

A prefect system, then for any corporation, would be to have a vast underclass that did all the labor for next to nothing, and a small elect few who have the actual wealth to purchase what goods they are making. They have invested interest in keeping poor nations right where they are.

amymariah
April 13th, 2008, 12:55 PM
They aren't really "taking away" from other businesses; rather, customers choose to buy from Wal-Mart instead of the other companies. By saying that Wal-Mart is "taking away" these customers, you're saying that they really belong to the other businesses--but customers don't belong to anyone.

Walmart does take away from other businness, you dont agree with my choice of words, but thats not the issue. You said customers are choosing to shop at wamart rather than the other businesses, if that isnt't "taking away" then what is it?and what is?

Mithran
April 13th, 2008, 01:02 PM
But seriosuly guys, what reall is the problem unless you yourself is a business owner. Im not big on large establishment at all but people can do what they want.

Do you realy have absolutely no knowledge of what is actually going on in the world? Is this just an act? Shopping seems to be all that matters to Americas.

Morality? Whats that? Oh never mind, turn the channel from the starving children, it has nothing to do with you...

CliveStaples
April 13th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Although I hate to say it, in this instance, Marx had it right.
The workers in a capitalists system aren’t people, they are labor. The only thing that matters to them is the lowest possible price for the highest possible return. People are thus simple equations in the corporations cost/benefit analysis. It is the same on both sides of the equation. Corporations are just a paycheck to many people--very few of Wal-Mart's employees chose to work there for reasons other than compensation.

It is mutually beneficial exchange.

EDIT: In fact, having dispersonal attitudes toward commerce helps to discourage (or at least temper the effects of) racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. If all I want is your money, or your goods/service, I'd be a fool to reject your offer just because you're black. Whereas if our personal opinions and emotions about our employer/employee are involved, the arrangement gets much messier.


This is the definition of evil. Human beings are not individuals with rights, they are cattle. IF it’s not Wal-Marts responsibility to pay a fair wage to its workers, whose responsibility is it? This further proves them evil, as a sociopath is characterized by their inability to have empathy for their victims, and an also has an inability to take moral responsibility for its own actions.Wal-Mart doesn't have a responsibility to pay a "fair wage"; they only have a responsibility to abstain from coercion. If they offer "too low" of a wage, then nobody will work for them--or their competitors will put them out of business by offering a higher wage.


A prefect system, then for any corporation, would be to have a vast underclass that did all the labor for next to nothing, and a small elect few who have the actual wealth to purchase what goods they are making. They have invested interest in keeping poor nations right where they are.Actually, the perfect system is decentralized and relies on many medium-to-small transactions, to disperse the risk of each individual trade; rely on too few customers or producers/executives, and any setback can be catastrophic (sickness, car accidents, hurricanes, etc.).

LiberalTruth
April 14th, 2008, 08:46 PM
The U.S. is the market for the good; China and Latin America are the markets for the labor. They are two distinct things.



As I said, if Wal-Mart wishes to engage in charity, by all means they are allowed to. But they are running a business; they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and they offer compensation that obviously a lot of people--i.e., their employees--find worth the labor.

If your criticism is that Wal-Mart isn't spending millions of dollars feeding the hungry and healing the sick, then you're criticizing quite a few more businesses--including those Mom and Pop stores, who don't spend their profits exclusively on helping the poor.

You still don't explain WHY Wal-Mart should pay the labor market price and not the price for the market of the end products.

CliveStaples
April 14th, 2008, 08:59 PM
You still don't explain WHY Wal-Mart should pay the labor market price and not the price for the market of the end products.

Because they're buying the labor; the price for the product produced by the labor is determined by the supply and demand for that product, not for the labor that produced it.

Mister Agenda
June 1st, 2008, 08:05 AM
Of course when you look at from that standpoint, you're thinking exactly like the cigar-smoking executives who couldn't give a rat's backside about the welfare of the people whose labor they're exploiting to sell ridiculously cheap, substandard goods to Americans.

If the market of these goods isn't China or Latin America, but the US, where the price of labor is considerably higher, then these workers deserve the exact same payment. It's only fair. And it's not like doing so would run Wal-Mart into the ground. This is a company that had about a 300 billion dollar profit last year - paying impoverished overseas workers a few dollars more won't ruin them. Not that I'd mind seeing them ruined...

And that's why Wal-Mart should pay the fair market value for the labor. Not above, just fair.

We are after all, a country that prides itself on fair labor practices.

What would be the motivation for WM to provide jobs in China and Latin America that pay the same as the jobs they offer in the USA? Charity? The low wages are WHY they are there, wages are part of the calculation of doing business in those locations: if they paid the same it would cost more to employ developing nation workers than USA workers: same wages PLUS you have to transport all that crap back to the selling point. So basically it goes like this: I am a peasant in severe poverty. WM comes along and offers double the wages I can get anywhere else with the skills that I have. Naive do-gooders get laws passed that require WM raise my wages to 20 times what I could get locally. WM pulls out. Now I'm back where I was. THANKS do-gooder, you helped me SO f***ing much!

Foriegn investment is part of development. Before it became politically incorrect to make business decisions based on business considerations, investment just like what WM is doing was done in places like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Over time the local populations gained the skills they needed to run their own factories and participate fully in the global economy. Workers in developing countries are being paid in more than cash, they are getting free training in skills that make them more valuable. Gradually, domestic investment takes off, wages rise, and foriegn investment moves to another country that is ready to start learning how to participate in the global economy.

This is how economic growth in the developing world works, and it has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other force in human history.
200 years ago, 90% of the world's population was in grinding poverty the UN would today classify as 'extreme'. Today only 16-17% are in extreme poverty, about another 16-17% in 'severe' poverty, about the same in moderate poverty, and about half not in poverty...and if you are reading this there is about a 95% chance you are not only rich compared to the rest of the world, but also compared to the rich 200 years ago. About a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 40 years, and if current economic growth is allowed to continue 20 more years, the same will be accomplished for ANOTHER billion.

It may not be pretty, but it works, and it is the only thing that ever has.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Because they're buying the labor; the price for the product produced by the labor is determined by the supply and demand for that product, not for the labor that produced it.

Not to mention the thousands of miles of travel, the expense of setting up plants and facilities in a foreign country, and the expense of transporting goods from a distant point of origin to point of sale. Local wages have to be low enough to attract this investment or WM would lose money doing it.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Walmart does take away from other businness, you dont agree with my choice of words, but thats not the issue. You said customers are choosing to shop at wamart rather than the other businesses, if that isnt't "taking away" then what is it?and what is?

YMMV may vary of course, but there are three WM's in my area, two of them are surrounded by thriving businesses and they're starting to pop up in the blighted area where they built the new one. At least in a community with sufficient population to support them, niche stores benefit from being located near a WM: you can purchase what you want to buy cheaply there and conveniently pick up some upscale shoes or eat at a restaurant while you're in the area.

Factoid: The typical WM customer earns about $10,000 less per year than the typical Target customer. WM is a store that caters to the poor both in terms of goods and providing entry-level jobs...have you ever heard of a WM lacking for applicants? They have been a major factor in holding down inflations, the most regressive tax known. If I've got an able-bodied African refugee with a little English, I can get him a job at WM making more than I ever did before 1990.

Yeah, they can sell cheap because they skimp on other stuff. WM is not the place to go for a quality shopping experience. It IS the place to go if you're making $7.00 an hour and have five kids.

Bobson52
July 6th, 2008, 09:58 AM
Wal-Mart is not evil per-se. We percieve it as evil becuase it is slowly monoplolizing the entire system. Every where that wal-mart goes it drives out competition. Also it's stuff is not very good quality.

FruitandNut
July 7th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Wal-Mart is not evil per-se. We percieve it as evil becuase it is slowly monoplolizing the entire system. Every where that wal-mart goes it drives out competition. Also it's stuff is not very good quality.

And often morally and ethically (directly and indirectly) questionably sourced -> the bottom line, top line, and the bit in-between being 'profit maximisation - period', so it appears.

A report from about 3 years ago gives a harsh indictment of their policies in the pursuit of the 'buck' - speaking to employees of their ASDA company over here, nothing much seems to have changed:

WAL-MART: THE WORKFARE COMPANY??
You only have to look at the cover of Wal-Mart’s 2004 Annual Report to know the company is facing trouble unlike any it has had to handle before.

“It’s my Wal-Mart,” asserts the slogan on the cover of the annual report.

At the bottom are these claims: “Good Jobs * Good Works * Good Citizen * Good Investment.”

Missing is any reference to “Always Low Prices.”

Stepped up and novel community and legal challenges confronting the company are making the mammoth retailer expend energy on repositioning its image. Hence the annual report, the major image-oriented television ads, the sponsorships on National Public Radio — listened to by few of its shoppers — and the huge surge in campaign contributions. Wal-Mart and its managers gave more than $2 million to federal candidates in the last U.S. electoral cycle, more than any oil company, and almost triple the level the company donated in the 2000 elections.

The company faces a class action lawsuit on behalf of 1.6 million women workers, alleging rampant employment discrimination at Wal-Mart.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has announced plans to spend $25 million a year with the ultimate goal of unionizing Wal-Mart, the largest private U.S. employer.

And the company — which has already lost more than 200 site fights — faces an even more-intensified resistance to its efforts to locate new stores, as it increasingly seeks to enter markets in more urban areas. In April, voters in the largely African-American and Latino working class town of Inglewood, California rejected a referendum that would have allowed Wal-Mart to open a Supercenter without being subject to normal municipal reviews.

But while on a bit of a public relations defensive, the company remains the colossus of U.S. — and increasingly global — retailing. It registers more than a quarter trillion dollars in sales. Its revenues account for 2 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

The company takes in more than one in five dollars spent nationally on food sales, and market researcher Retail Forward predicts Wal-Mart will control more than a third of food store industry sales, as well as a quarter of the drug store industry, by 2007. Wal-Mart is the largest jewelry seller in the United States, “despite the fact that the prime target market for jewelry — high-income women from 25 to 54 years — are the least likely of all consumers to shop for jewelry in discount channels,” as Unity Marketing notes. Wal-Mart is the largest outlet for sales of CDs, videos and DVDs. And on and on.

For two years running, Fortune has named Wal-Mart the most admired company in America. It is arguably the defining company of the present era.

The company’s business model has relied on new innovations in inventory management, focusing on ignored markets (low-income shoppers in rural areas — though this is now changing), and squeezing suppliers to lower their margins. But it has also relied centrally on undercompensating employees and externalizing costs on to society.

A February 2004 report issued by Representative George Miller, D-California, encapsulated the ways that Wal-Mart squeezes and cheats its employees, among them: blocking union organizing efforts, paying employees an average $8.23 an hour (as compared to more than $10 for an average supermarket worker), allegedly extracting off-the-clock work, and providing inadequate and unaffordable healthcare packages for employees.

Miller’s report’s innovation was in documenting how Wal-Mart’s low wages and inadequate benefits not only hurt workers directly, but impose costs on taxpayers. The report estimated that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year — about $2,103 per employee. These public costs include:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
$100,000 a year for the additional Title I [educational] expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of two children.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal healthcare costs of moving into state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
“There’s no question that Wal-Mart imposes a huge, often hidden, cost on its workers, our communities and U.S. taxpayers,” Miller said. “And Wal-Mart is in the driver’s seat in the global race to the bottom, suppressing wage levels, workplace protections and labor laws.”

Wal-Mart’s abuses are giving rise to countervailing efforts, but it is an open question whether the company has amassed such power that it will be able to defeat such initiatives.

In California, in November, the company was able to stave off by a 51-to 49 percent margin a proposition that would have required every large and medium employer in the state to provide decent healthcare coverage for their workers, with the employer contribution set at a minimum of 80 percent of costs.

Wal-Mart dumped a half million dollars into the anti-Proposition 72 campaign just a week before the vote.

“As one of California’s leading employers, we care about the health of our 60,000 employees here,” said Wal-Mart spokesperson Cynthia Lin, in celebrating the defeat of Proposition 72. “That’s why we provide our employees with affordable, quality health care coverage.”

“Prop. 72 was never about Wal-Mart,” she claimed. “It was about allowing businesses to operate without unreasonable government mandates, it was about the survival of small businesses and it was about consumer choice in healthcare benefits.”

The biggest immediate challenge facing Wal-Mart is the class action lawsuit filed by its women workers. The women allege that Wal-Mart pays female workers less than men, promotes men faster than women and men above more competent women, and fosters a hostile work environment. A federal judge ruled in June that the case could proceed as a class action.

“We strongly disagree with his decision and will seek an appeal,” says company spokesperson Mona Williams. “While we cannot comment on the specifics of the litigation, we can say we continue to evaluate our employment practices. For example, earlier this month Wal-Mart announced a new job classification and pay structure for hourly associates. This new pay plan was developed with the assistance of third party consultants and is designed to ensure internal equity and external competitiveness.”

Liza Featherstone, who has chronicled the claims of the women employees in her book Selling Women Short, says women workers report “a pattern of arbitrary, very subjective decision-making by management.” They report business meetings being held at Hooter’s or strip clubs.

The contradiction of a self-righteously moral company — which won’t sell racy magazines or CDs with parental advisory labels — permitting such behavior is a reflection of women employees’ powerlessness. “Unlike its female workforce,” Featherstone writes, “the women who shop at Wal-Mart can’t be ignored, and many of them have conservative values.”

But while Wal-Mart is willing to bend to consumer demand on marginal issues like covering over the headlines on Cosmopolitan magazine, it is not so flexible on respect for worker rights. Nor is there any sign of a consumer rebellion on anything like the scale necessary to make the company revisit its employment policies.

www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/122004/mokhiber.html

Feedback
July 7th, 2008, 03:11 PM
I came across an interesting study on Wal-Mart from Zenith Consulting. According to the study, Wal-Mart relies heavily on low cost price point items that give the false impression of across the board lower prices. In reality, 80%-85% of Wal-Martís prices are higher than its competitors as a group (the study I am citing below is based on nearly half a million price checks).

http://www.zenith-consulting.com/research/walMart/Wal-Mart-Strategy.pdf

If this study is correct, Wal-Mart is doing an amazing marketing job to convince people they have across the board lower prices when they really do not. On this thread alone I have seen multiple statements referring to Wal-Martís low prices. For example, that they ďpass the savings to the consumerĒ (post #9) or ďmake people rich and keep prices lowĒ (post #12) or ďYou can't beat their pricesĒ (post #22) or ďWalmart is cheaper on items outside of electronicsĒ (post #28) or ďWal-Mart sells most things for less than its competitorsĒ (post #32).

I did a brief search for other studies on Wal-Mart pricing and could not find any other comprehensive studies. Given the pervasive belief that Wal-Mart actually does provide the lowest prices on average, I would expect there be at least one comprehensive study showing this. For those of you that believe Wal-Mart does have the lowest prices, what do you base this belief on? What do you think of the study done by Zenith Consulting?

YamiB.
July 7th, 2008, 10:48 PM
I don't particularly like shopping at Walmart, if I want to buy something I prefer to go to a store particularly for that because I think I get a better selection.

As for being evil I think that they've certainly been guilty of some things that are at least morally questionable, but not more so than most other companies that are very successful.

LiberalTruth
July 16th, 2008, 08:38 PM
Wal-Mart FAIL.

<a href="http://failblog.org/2008/04/20/wallmart-fail/"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-628" src="http://failblog.wordpress.com/files/2008/04/wallmartfail.jpg?w=500" alt="Wal-Mart Fail" /></a><br /> <a href="http://failblog.org"></a>

*crosses fingers for no spam infraction*

marcos218
July 16th, 2008, 11:47 PM
This is ridiculous. You propose to boycott Wal-Mart because they make too much money. You are trying to punish them for being good, which does not make sense.


well what if wal mart is eventually everywhere we see, and there isnt a store bwith only one property owning???

If a monopoly forms, and does not provide services to the expectation of the public, it creates an opening for another company to challenge its market domination. If the monopoly performs perfectly well, in my opinion, there is no problem.

LeeshaForeverr
July 17th, 2008, 12:11 AM
I saw this video on youtube posted by sxephil:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gFa1YMEJFag&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gFa1YMEJFag&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
and the article to the part on wal-mart
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html

marcos218
July 17th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Wal-Mart dumped a half million dollars into the anti-Proposition 72 campaign just a week before the vote.

This next quote is from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Wal-Mart has the right to petition the government. Because they do so to benefit themselves is not evil, it is only intelligent.

Imagine a world where the government proposed a law stating "[your name here] will pay an additional 500% in taxes on everything". You have the ability to prevent this law by funding an opposition group. Doing so is not overly expensive. Do you prevent the new law? (And yes, I know I am oversimplifying the situation)

Besides, if society would stop 'picking up the tab' for employers like Wal-Mart who offer what is seen to be inadequate healthcare or pay, those employers would face new competition for labor from companies willing to provide for their workers. Would you rather work at a store with a great health-care plan, or with a terrible one?

dbogjohnson
July 19th, 2008, 10:40 AM
who are WE too tell them they have to downsize
we are the people of the u.s and we deserve a say in it.

dbogjohnson
August 18th, 2008, 10:59 AM
im not satisfied i still think wal marts evil
i watched a doc. on wal mart
the walton family makes 18 billion dollars a year...only 6000 of it goes to charity
the entire wal mart staff donates more then them
plus wal mart isnt an all american store 78% of their products are from asian countrys!

AND you know what they pay those people who make those products!
! 18 cents an hour

cds69
August 18th, 2008, 12:51 PM
Word..........
I lost a few friends over in the sandbox myself, friend.

Seriously, this thread is retarded.....

dbog, you really need to explain your position on this.

To say this thread is retarded is an insult to retards everywhere....

Wait, that wasn't pc was it? Damn.

thrashee
August 18th, 2008, 01:25 PM
we are the people of the u.s and we deserve a say in it.

We do have a say in it. Guess what we're saying every single time we stumble into the fluorescent glory of Walmart at 3:00 am to buy toilet paper, the latest Kayne West CD, and a frozen pizza?

cds69
August 19th, 2008, 07:53 AM
im not satisfied i still think wal marts evil
i watched a doc. on wal mart
the walton family makes 18 billion dollars a year...only 6000 of it goes to charity
the entire wal mart staff donates more then them
plus wal mart isnt an all american store 78% of their products are from asian countrys!

AND you know what they pay those people who make those products!
! 18 cents an hour

I hate it when people just blindly accept what they see in these stupid Youtube videos.

Quit being lazy. It takes like 10 seconds to google the truth.


This from MSNBC, " Wal-Mart keeps spot as top corporate charity; Wal-Mart Stores Inc. increased its U.S. charitable giving 10 percent last year to $272.9 million, the world’s largest retailer said Tuesday, likely defending its position as the country’s largest corporate donor of cash.
The rate of growth was lower than a year earlier, when Hurricane Katrina relief helped push the annual rise to 19 percent, but it was ahead of Wal-Mart’s 7 percent rise in net profit last year. The company’s profit for the fiscal year that ended Jan. 31 was $12.2 billion.

And by the way, the 272.9 Million is what the Corporation gives, the Walton Family give much more as individuals. For information on their giving, go to www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org.

And the Walton family does not "make 18 billion" per year from Wal-mart. As you see from the MSNBC quote above, the entire corporate profit for 2007 was 12.2 billion. The Walton Family owns 39% of the stock. So if all the profits were dispersed as stock dividends, then the family would collect about 4.76 billion before taxes. And this gets split among 8-10 family members.

dbogjohnson
August 19th, 2008, 12:31 PM
I hate it when people just blindly accept what they see in these stupid Youtube videos.
the video was from 2004... sorry i guess theyve changed scince then
[the video was a documentary hense the phrase doc.]
go to this link though [i found it on google]
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=monitor
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
quote:
One Winbo worker worked for a total of 321 hours in October of 2005. However, the
Labor Law stipulates that work hours shall not exceed 40 hours/week. Assuming 31 days
a month, the legal monthly work hours should be 184 hours. So, the extra 137 hours
worked should be considered overtime. Accordingly, if we calculate this month’s wage
by way of the Labor Law, the salary should be over 1,600
Yuan (including overtime compensation) ($200). The
actual salary received was 1,005 Yuan
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
quote

Wal-Mart is the single largest importer of foreign-produced goods in the United States, and the majority of its private-label clothing is manufactured in at least 48 countries around the world—and almost none in the United States.
link
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/walmart_5.cfm

cds69
August 19th, 2008, 01:28 PM
dbog,

Since you're a young man, and presumably interested in the way the world works, I'd like to offer some advice.

Read "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman. Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize winning economist and a proponent of the free market system.

You should also approach some of the other ODN members for suggestions on literature to read encompassing other schools of thought besides the free market system. You should strive for diversity into what you read and then you can decide for yourself what you beleive.

Above all, take things like youtube documentaries with a grain of salt. Yes there are some that will tell you many truths, but others will tell you that George W. Bush is the leader of a reptillian alien race bent on world domination through a "New World Order". And always double and triple check the facts.

With that said, I want to tell you that no, not much has changed since 2004. Wal-Mart was a leader in corporate giving then, much as they are now. Once can criticize Wally World for many things, but lack of corporate giving is not one of them. I am a boy-scout leader and I have personally solicited thousands of dollars in goods from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club over the years. They give often and freely.

As far as them using goods made overseas with cheap labor, you must ask yourself. What happens if we pressure Wal-Mart to quit selling these goods? Then that worker making 18 cents an hour now makes nothing and his family starves. But if that workers makes 18 cents an hour and the company he works for does well, other companies will move into the area. As the ratio of jobs to workers rises, so will the wages. Labor is a commodity like any other. When there is a large supply and a low demand, price will be low. But as demand rises, the prices (wages) will rise also.

Mithran
August 21st, 2008, 10:47 AM
Read "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman. Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize winning economist and a proponent of the free market system.


Yes read the guru of corporate greed personified, that will give you a balanced worldview.:idiot2: What is the agenda of these people?

Money. Power. Greed. Total privatization and utter corporate domination of everything under the sun. Yes, read Milton Friedman and become a drone of corporate power and be a robotic talking box for the machine, to make them richer, and richer, and richer. While the earth gets destroyed, and people are merely cogs in their machine of "wealth creation" to be used and abused as they see fit.

People donít matter, all that matters is greed and power. Milton Freidman will go down in history as the father of economic smoke screen that corporations use to manipulate and brainwash the masses.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I hate it when people just blindly accept what they see in these stupid Youtube videos.

Quit being lazy. It takes like 10 seconds to google the truth.
Really? How much are they getting paid then?




And by the way, the 272.9 Million is what the Corporation gives, the Walton Family give much more as individuals. For information on their giving, go to www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org.

What percentage of Wal Marts Profit is this? This is smoke screen. How much damage is Wal Mart doing, in externalities, to the world? Do you have those fact, Mr. Facts?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

cds69 disagrees: What a crock.

Is this a way to get an ad hom in without having to be called on it??

How childish.

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 10:50 AM
Yes read the guru of corporate greed personified, that will give you a balanced worldview.:idiot2: What is the agenda of these people?

Money. Power. Greed. Total privatization and utter corporate domination of everything under the sun. Yes, read Milton Friedman and become a drone of corporate power and be a robotic talking box for the machine, to make them richer, and richer, and richer. While the earth gets destroyed, and people are merely cogs in their machine of "wealth creation" to be used and abused as they see fit.

People don’t matter, all that matters is greed and power. Milton Freidman will go down in history as the father of economic smoke screen that corporations use to manipulate and brainwash the masses.

Besides the whiney nature of your post, the most telling thing, is that even though you apparently disagree with Mr. Friedman, (Nobel Prize Winning Economist) you offered no alternative literature for dbog to present your chosen dogma.

I, on the other hand, offered an opinion on a piece of literature, and then suggested that he approach other ODN members for their suggestions on literature on doctrines other the the free market system. Apparently your objections to the free market system also include the free market of ideas, otherwise you might have put your own ideology forth to compete.

dbogjohnson
August 21st, 2008, 12:00 PM
Besides the whiney nature of your post, the most telling thing, is that even though you apparently disagree with Mr. Friedman, (Nobel Prize Winning Economist) you offered no alternative literature for dbog to present your chosen dogma.

I, on the other hand, offered an opinion on a piece of literature, and then suggested that he approach other ODN members for their suggestions on literature on doctrines other the the free market system. Apparently your objections to the free market system also include the free market of ideas, otherwise you might have put your own ideology forth to compete.
you didnt answer on topic this is about wal mart, an evil corperation, you didnt even try to debate my last post you lost wal marts evil. all you did was suggest books.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
plus youve been proven wrong by 2 people, if theres any more eviidence that wal mart is a good company, then the debate continues

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 12:45 PM
you didnt answer on topic this is about wal mart, an evil corperation, you didnt even try to debate my last post you lost wal marts evil. all you did was suggest books.

Wrong. Go back and read. I suggested a book about the free market system that would illustrate some of the points I made. Then I went on and addressed your post:


With that said, I want to tell you that no, not much has changed since 2004. Wal-Mart was a leader in corporate giving then, much as they are now. Once can criticize Wally World for many things, but lack of corporate giving is not one of them. I am a boy-scout leader and I have personally solicited thousands of dollars in goods from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club over the years. They give often and freely.

As far as them using goods made overseas with cheap labor, you must ask yourself. What happens if we pressure Wal-Mart to quit selling these goods? Then that worker making 18 cents an hour now makes nothing and his family starves. But if that workers makes 18 cents an hour and the company he works for does well, other companies will move into the area. As the ratio of jobs to workers rises, so will the wages. Labor is a commodity like any other. When there is a large supply and a low demand, price will be low. But as demand rises, the prices (wages) will rise also.


plus youve been proven wrong by 2 people, if theres any more eviidence that wal mart is a good company, then the debate continues

Please show where I've been "proven wrong".

Mithran
August 21st, 2008, 01:08 PM
I will always call evil where I see it and I will not pull punches from people (Friedman) that are literally ideologically evil personified.
I very much doubt you will accept any other point of view other than the one you have.

But for others who might want an alternative view can try:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENGvjLZYAAA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENGvjLZYAAA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ki227rUFf_k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ki227rUFf_k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kieyjfZDUIc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kieyjfZDUIc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

or her book:http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

Yes I expect an attempted discredit of this particular source (if you want to test her research I dare you) by right wing corporately funded think tanks to follow shortly.

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 01:22 PM
[QUOTE=Mithran;325997]Really? How much are they getting paid then?

What percentage of Wal Marts Profit is this?

If you would bother to read the thread you would see I answerwed this question:


And the Walton family does not "make 18 billion" per year from Wal-mart. As you see from the MSNBC quote above, the entire corporate profit for 2007 was 12.2 billion. The Walton Family owns 39% of the stock. So if all the profits were dispersed as stock dividends, then the family would collect about 4.76 billion before taxes. And this gets split among 8-10 family members.


This is smoke screen. How much damage is Wal Mart doing, in externalities, to the world? Do you have those fact, Mr. Facts?

No, I don't. But perhaps since any such facts would bolster your side of the argument, it might be a novel idea for YOU to research and post those facts.


Is this a way to get an ad hom in without having to be called on it? How childish.

Childish? "Mr. Facts" would never stoop to being childish. If I wanted to be childish I'd probably just type a barely coherent rant full of names and criticisms with no basis. Much like your "guru of corporate greed personified" post.

Mithran
August 21st, 2008, 01:35 PM
No, I don't. But perhaps since any such facts would bolster your side of the argument, it might be a novel idea for YOU to research and post those facts.


This fact, as you admit, means that you donít understand the question. So therefore your entire argument is based on an idea for which you admittedly donít know about.

You wonít change your mind on this issue, I understand that. But donít put up the pretense that you know what "evil" is if you arenít even addressing the primary cost of this corporate evil: namely externalities. It is what is done in the dark that counts, any psychopath can pretend to be a good guy on the outside while in the dark they are raping and murdering.

Why donít you, who claim you know what youíre talking about, do your own research thatís not fed out of corporate power structures?

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 01:44 PM
Yes I expect an attempted discredit of this particular source (if you want to test her research I dare you) by right wing corporately funded think tanks to follow shortly.

If you were talking about me in this quote, you seem to have developed an incorrect assumption of my belief system based on my recommendation of a single book.

I believe in free markets, but not to the exclusion of all else. Crony capitalism is phony capitalism. In my opinion Blackwater has no business doing what our military can and should be doing. I'm also against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they are quasi-government entities rampant with cronyism.

But as the woman who wrote the book said, it's understandable that corporations make a profit, even off of a disaster. Capitalism and profit are not evil. If I asked the general questions "should companies be allowed to profit from someone's death"? You might say "absolutely not!". But what about companies that make coffins? Florists? Undertakers? Hearse manufacturers? Funeral homes? Cemetaries? Headstone sellers? Newspapers that print obituaries?

But thanks, while I may not agree with every assertion made in that book, it is definitely something I'll read.

Mithran
August 21st, 2008, 01:48 PM
But thanks, while I may not agree with every assertion made in that book, it is definitely something I'll read.

Thanks for being reasonable. Sometimes my anger at certain perceived injustices in the world comes out in rhetorical assaults. It wasnít meant personally at you at all.

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 01:58 PM
This fact, as you admit, means that you donít understand the question. So therefore your entire argument is based on an idea for which you admittedly donít know about.

You wonít change your mind on this issue, I understand that. But donít put up the pretense that you know what "evil" is if you arenít even addressing the primary cost of this corporate evil: namely externalities. It is what is done in the dark that counts, any psychopath can pretend to be a good guy on the outside while in the dark they are raping and murdering.

Why donít you, who claim you know what youíre talking about, do your own research thatís not fed out of corporate power structures?

I really love your debate style. You demand that those who debate against you offer up evidence which, even in it's absence, you claim will bolster your argument. Then if your opponent refuses to do your research for you, you claim that their refusal is tantamount to them "admitting they didn't understand the question" and therefore completely unqualified to offer their opinion in the first place.

Here's an externality for you. Due to the centralized distribution systems the Wal-Mart utilizes that would not have been utilized had their customers purchased their goods at independent local businesses, there has been a net decrease in oil consumption by millions of barrels, therefore reducing greenhouse emmissions and increasing the supply of oil.

dbogjohnson
August 22nd, 2008, 09:43 AM
Here's an externality for you. Due to the centralized distribution systems the Wal-Mart utilizes that would not have been utilized had their customers purchased their goods at independent local businesses, there has been a net decrease in oil consumption by millions of barrels, therefore reducing greenhouse emmissions and increasing the supply of oil.
so what?
even if i did read the books you reccomend i would highly disagree with the author, the oil save thing is good, but that still doesnt change facts, the fact that wal mart doesnt pay the factory workers in china fairly, the fact that theyre importing goods from a communist country,[and 47 others], and it still dosent change wal marts salary to AMERICAN workers[which is crudy]

cds69
August 22nd, 2008, 10:56 AM
so what?
even if i did read the books you reccomend i would highly disagree with the author, the oil save thing is good, but that still doesnt change facts, the fact that wal mart doesnt pay the factory workers in china fairly, the fact that theyre importing goods from a communist country,[and 47 others], and it still dosent change wal marts salary to AMERICAN workers[which is crudy]

dbog,

You're a young man. When I suggested that book, I didn't say, "hey, here's a book that will tell you what the whole truth of the world is, and it's gospel and you should beleive everything in it." I said it was one viewpoint and that other ODN members could offer books about other viewpoints. I'm by nature a person curious about the way the world works. I've read Mein Kampf by Hitler, but I'm not a Nazi. I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto, but I'm not a Communist. I've read the Bible cover to cover, but I'm not a Christian. I just started reading the Koran, but I'm not a Muslim. Education, even about beleif systems or political viewpoints you don't agree with is not a bad thing.

I would bet that if you ask any atheist in here most would say that they've read portions of the bible, if for no other reason than to discount it's legitimacy as "the word of God".

Now, to the subject. No Wal-Mart does not pay Chinese factory workers fairly, because they don't pay them at all! Wal-mart is not in the business of owning Chinese factories and employing Chinese factory workers. The companies that own these factories pay their workers. Their wages are not up to Wal-mart.

Yes Wal-mart imports goods from China, a Communist country. As does 95% of all discount retailers in the US.

As far as Wal-Mart's wages being "cruddy", I agree. That's why I don't work for Wal-Mart. I can name a thousand other companies with cruddy wages. That doesn't make them evil. And I'm sure that the people who are employed by Wal-Mart and are able to feed their families with that paycheck probably don't think they're "cruddy".

Mithran
August 22nd, 2008, 11:00 AM
Here, social externalities: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

Give it a price.

cds69
August 22nd, 2008, 11:03 AM
Here, social externalities: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

Give it a price.

LOL, come on mith. Have some pity on a brutha! I'm not going to watch a 90min vid to debate you.

Mithran
August 22nd, 2008, 11:59 AM
LOL, come on mith. Have some pity on a brutha! I'm not going to watch a 90min vid to debate you.

Then watch it for your own education then.

cds69
August 22nd, 2008, 12:08 PM
Then watch it for your own education then.

I will do that, for the same reasons I gave dbog to read that book (and others that people here on ODN might recommend). But can't right now. At work you know.

Who knows I might learn something, or at lease have something to debunk ;):

dbogjohnson
August 25th, 2008, 11:55 AM
youre book is very informative, and it changed my views of the buisness world, theyre right in a lot of categories. it lead me to a conclusion, youre a conservative and youre slowing change, thats why you think wal marts good

cds69
August 25th, 2008, 12:02 PM
youre book is very informative, and it changed my views of the buisness world, theyre right in a lot of categories. it lead me to a conclusion, youre a conservative and youre slowing change, thats why you think wal marts good

Change for change's sake serves no purpose.

I hope that you actually did read the book and aren't just being facetious. Even if you remove the 20% that could be considered politically motivated, the other 80% is just solid economic principals that are taught in colleges around the nation by Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Again, my intention wasn't to push my own personal views on you. I would also recommend reading a book on Keynesian Economic Philosophy. The Keynesian Philosophy is probably closer to what your present views are, advocating more government involvement and intervention in the markets. It would also be an interesting read for you.

dbogjohnson
August 25th, 2008, 12:09 PM
Change for change's sake serves no purpose.

I hope that you actually did read the book and aren't just being facetious. Even if you remove the 20% that could be considered politically motivated, the other 80% is just solid economic principals that are taught in colleges around the nation by Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Again, my intention wasn't to push my own personal views on you. I would also recommend reading a book on Keynesian Economic Philosophy. The Keynesian Philosophy is probably closer to what your present views are, advocating more government involvement and intervention in the markets. It would also be an interesting read for you.
i couldnt read it all in a couple days, cause i have school so i scanned through it
so you are a conservative?
anyway wal mart: they rip off chinese workers, and 48 countrys donate to their clothing line
plus around 78% of their goods are foreign
how is that a good thing?