The WalMart concept does not work everywhere
-
I doubt that. Did you work in systems? Are we talking about corporate work or retail work. Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid. Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill? Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I doubt that.
Most stubborn people do.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Are we talking about corporate work or retail work.
You don't read much. I said low-end job, it was obviously retail.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid.
Once again, you know little. For one, Wal-Mart already paid very close to that amount in most areas. For two, that law only pinned certain business just because they have large stores. How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines? Also, you better check your stats against what Wal-Mart pays for low-end jobs compared to places like Burger King and McDonalds.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill?
Are you on crack? Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
I guess moral superiority is worth the high prices and poor selection those mom & pop stores had. I well remember various mom and pop stores. Some were good, but many had high prices, poor quality, limited selection, and would try to rip you off worse than any big box retailer. I like low prices, wide selection, and stores being open until 10 at night.
Those weren't high prices. That's the price they cost for all parties involved to have a livable wage. Wal-Mart is screwing a lot of people so that we can consume more than we need.
This statement is false.
-
And you propose???? The free market model isn't perfect, but everything else has been worse.
Enforcing a livable wage for all employees. And providing health care. They are one of the largest "profiting" companies because of these mal-practices. This is free exploitation not free enterprise.
This statement is false.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I doubt that.
Most stubborn people do.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Are we talking about corporate work or retail work.
You don't read much. I said low-end job, it was obviously retail.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid.
Once again, you know little. For one, Wal-Mart already paid very close to that amount in most areas. For two, that law only pinned certain business just because they have large stores. How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines? Also, you better check your stats against what Wal-Mart pays for low-end jobs compared to places like Burger King and McDonalds.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill?
Are you on crack? Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Most stubborn people do.
Name calling?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't read much.
Assuming a bit here no?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once again, you know little.
I detect a pattern here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines?
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact. No accusations, just the facts. And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Are you on crack?
Ok, look, in critical thinking this is a falacy and is commonly used as a tactic when trying to support a weak argument. I get it. You love Wal-Mart. Good for you.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart. But your right they are friggin' huge. They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs. The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage. They do squeeze out local businesses to dominate the market share. And tax payers do compensate for these practices by subsidizing the efforts. Those are facts.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers.
And now your speaking for me. I never said that only Wal-Mart does this. But they are the poster child. If you want to insult instead of debate the issue, then it belongs in the soapbox.
This statement is false.
-
Why do you sound happy about this? Yes, I am not a big fan of Walmart, but neither am I a big fan of Unions. The German people do not want to do morning cheers? Give me a break. This is no different a tactic to raise morale and build a sense of team than a soccer team having a rah rah session before a big game or a boxers coach pumping them up before a big fight. Geeze man... As far as quality and price go, you get what you pay for. I have bought crappy stuff at a walmart and have also bought good stuff there. It all depends on the 'STUFF'. You buy a TV there, as long as you buy a decent brand how can it matter? So the union has flexed it's muscle and forced a company out of a region. Big deal. I doubt that Walmart will go cower into a corner over it. 85 stores to them is a hardly a drop in the bucket. When I worked for Lenscrafters many moons ago we had a go at the euro market and tried to open several stores in the UK and found it impossible. The costs were so friggin high because shippers wanted a mint, all the store managers demanded company cars because 'well that's just how it is bloody done in the UK chap'... I guess the US is just a unique place with a unique mindset. Maybe that is good, maybe that is bad...
Well, we're seeing the difference in cultures. Here in America we glorify business and money. Over there it seems to be more of a quality of life issue.
This statement is false.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Most stubborn people do.
Name calling?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't read much.
Assuming a bit here no?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once again, you know little.
I detect a pattern here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines?
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact. No accusations, just the facts. And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Are you on crack?
Ok, look, in critical thinking this is a falacy and is commonly used as a tactic when trying to support a weak argument. I get it. You love Wal-Mart. Good for you.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart. But your right they are friggin' huge. They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs. The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage. They do squeeze out local businesses to dominate the market share. And tax payers do compensate for these practices by subsidizing the efforts. Those are facts.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers.
And now your speaking for me. I never said that only Wal-Mart does this. But they are the poster child. If you want to insult instead of debate the issue, then it belongs in the soapbox.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Assuming a bit here no?
Read it in context. And, based on your post, you don't know what you are talking about.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I detect a pattern here.
Detect the pattern in context.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for?
You made them sound bad for them moving their stores because of it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact.
No duh. When did I deny this? I said it was an unfair law that pinned just a few companies like Wal-Mart - based off a something as abitrary as large stores (ie, retailers).
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Next time, actually read my post. I never once said this. And, how do you know other retailers weren't against this? Also, did you stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart was lobbying because they had more play money to lobby with than other stores who just have to deal with it?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart
Yes you are. The whole damn thread is about Wal-Mart. I said their employees aren't treated bad, you say they are. You never once mentioned another store in your gripes about taxes - just Wal-Mart. Stop with the petty arguing just to argue for argument's sake.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs.
Well, if that's not enough to make them evil, then what is? (That's sarcasm btw.) Bill G is also the richest man in the World, do you think that makes him evil?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage.
Most business could afford to pay their employees a bit more. But most business focus on the shareholders first - Wal-Mart is no different. Like I said already (the point you keep ignoring) they do pay better
-
Oh come on... you know you go for the ladies... :laugh:
This statement is false.
Women without front teeth do have certain advantages.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Assuming a bit here no?
Read it in context. And, based on your post, you don't know what you are talking about.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I detect a pattern here.
Detect the pattern in context.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for?
You made them sound bad for them moving their stores because of it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact.
No duh. When did I deny this? I said it was an unfair law that pinned just a few companies like Wal-Mart - based off a something as abitrary as large stores (ie, retailers).
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Next time, actually read my post. I never once said this. And, how do you know other retailers weren't against this? Also, did you stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart was lobbying because they had more play money to lobby with than other stores who just have to deal with it?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart
Yes you are. The whole damn thread is about Wal-Mart. I said their employees aren't treated bad, you say they are. You never once mentioned another store in your gripes about taxes - just Wal-Mart. Stop with the petty arguing just to argue for argument's sake.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs.
Well, if that's not enough to make them evil, then what is? (That's sarcasm btw.) Bill G is also the richest man in the World, do you think that makes him evil?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage.
Most business could afford to pay their employees a bit more. But most business focus on the shareholders first - Wal-Mart is no different. Like I said already (the point you keep ignoring) they do pay better
The majority of your post consists of insults. If you need to insult to debate the issue, then I'll pass. You're pretty funny. Enjoy the rest of your day and weekend. I'm not taking the bait anymore.
This statement is false.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
What I mean is, profit and greed are synonymous nowadays. They shouldn't be.
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies. We'll see how it goes as MS continues to outsource work as it forays into India and China. I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed. Microsoft indirectly also creates local job opportunities--certain technologies in general do--as if it weren't for these technologies that Microsoft has played a part in, I wouldn't be able to work out here with farmers as my neighbors. Do I sound defensive of MS? I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you? Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies. We'll see how it goes as MS continues to outsource work as it forays into India and China. I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed. Microsoft indirectly also creates local job opportunities--certain technologies in general do--as if it weren't for these technologies that Microsoft has played a part in, I wouldn't be able to work out here with farmers as my neighbors. Do I sound defensive of MS? I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you? Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMicrosoft pays it's employees a livable wage, and gives decent benefits. This may be different elsewhere, but not in the US. So no, they shouldn't be in the same basket. As for me, I've been to Walmart probably twice in the past 3 years, and I absolutely hate going there, for all the reasons you mentioned in your original post. X| X| X|
Chris Richardson
-
The majority of your post consists of insults. If you need to insult to debate the issue, then I'll pass. You're pretty funny. Enjoy the rest of your day and weekend. I'm not taking the bait anymore.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not taking the bait anymore.
Actually, you started the BS, I just called it out for you. You never had a real point, and now you claim you're not taking the bait. It's sad really, CP is becoming less and less interesting with stupid crap like this. And, if you get all upset and cry over being called stubborn, then you're also a sissy boy too. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
-
Microsoft pays it's employees a livable wage, and gives decent benefits. This may be different elsewhere, but not in the US. So no, they shouldn't be in the same basket. As for me, I've been to Walmart probably twice in the past 3 years, and I absolutely hate going there, for all the reasons you mentioned in your original post. X| X| X|
Chris Richardson
Chris Richardson wrote:
Microsoft pays it's employees a livable wage, and gives decent benefits.
Utter crap. How well do you think MS pays their janitors, etc.? They pay their developers well - just like Wal-Mart pays their higher-ups well. Stop comparing apples to orangle. You're prejudiced without cause or even knowledge about it.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies. We'll see how it goes as MS continues to outsource work as it forays into India and China. I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed. Microsoft indirectly also creates local job opportunities--certain technologies in general do--as if it weren't for these technologies that Microsoft has played a part in, I wouldn't be able to work out here with farmers as my neighbors. Do I sound defensive of MS? I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you? Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies.
You should, beucase if you don't you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed.
Why don't you research what Wal-Mart gives away rather than making snap judgements as usual.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Do I sound defensive of MS?
Duh.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you?
There's absolutely nothing different between the two. If you think about it, it's easy to see. If you keep on just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, you'll never see it.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not taking the bait anymore.
Actually, you started the BS, I just called it out for you. You never had a real point, and now you claim you're not taking the bait. It's sad really, CP is becoming less and less interesting with stupid crap like this. And, if you get all upset and cry over being called stubborn, then you're also a sissy boy too. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
Get over it. Move on. Whatever.
This statement is false.
-
Chris Richardson wrote:
Microsoft pays it's employees a livable wage, and gives decent benefits.
Utter crap. How well do you think MS pays their janitors, etc.? They pay their developers well - just like Wal-Mart pays their higher-ups well. Stop comparing apples to orangle. You're prejudiced without cause or even knowledge about it.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop comparing apples to orangle.
But the orangle is just so tasty. :laugh:
This statement is false.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies.
You should, beucase if you don't you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed.
Why don't you research what Wal-Mart gives away rather than making snap judgements as usual.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Do I sound defensive of MS?
Duh.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you?
There's absolutely nothing different between the two. If you think about it, it's easy to see. If you keep on just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, you'll never see it.
Jeremy Falcon
So what? Do you have this crap in a bullet list that you just cut and paste from? Is everyone who has different data than you full of it and just arguing for arguments sake? It sounds like you are arguing for arguments sake. Why don't you produce some data to back up your claims. Now its your turn to prove it.
This statement is false.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies.
You should, beucase if you don't you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed.
Why don't you research what Wal-Mart gives away rather than making snap judgements as usual.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Do I sound defensive of MS?
Duh.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you?
There's absolutely nothing different between the two. If you think about it, it's easy to see. If you keep on just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, you'll never see it.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
There's absolutely nothing different between the two. If you think about it, it's easy to see. If you keep on just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, you'll never see it.
OK. I looked up Microsoft / Bill Gates charity and found a lot of links on a lot of different areas. I took a few minutes and looked up Walmart / Waltons charity and found a criticism that Walmart's charity is self serving (I fail to see that B.G's $250 million to AIDS is self serving) and I also found this: They have donated at least $701 million to education charities since 1998. (Flash graphic: Wal-Mart execs' philanthropy) That pales beside the $1.05 billion given to education by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So anyways, rather than argue, can you take a few minutes yourself and elaborate on:
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You should, beucase if you don't you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
and
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Why don't you research what Wal-Mart gives away rather than making snap judgements as usual.
As you think I'm obviously missing the right picture here. The only things I found justify my views. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
So what? Do you have this crap in a bullet list that you just cut and paste from? Is everyone who has different data than you full of it and just arguing for arguments sake? It sounds like you are arguing for arguments sake. Why don't you produce some data to back up your claims. Now its your turn to prove it.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Why don't you produce some data to back up your claims. Now its your turn to prove it.
Google it, it's all there.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
There's absolutely nothing different between the two. If you think about it, it's easy to see. If you keep on just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, you'll never see it.
OK. I looked up Microsoft / Bill Gates charity and found a lot of links on a lot of different areas. I took a few minutes and looked up Walmart / Waltons charity and found a criticism that Walmart's charity is self serving (I fail to see that B.G's $250 million to AIDS is self serving) and I also found this: They have donated at least $701 million to education charities since 1998. (Flash graphic: Wal-Mart execs' philanthropy) That pales beside the $1.05 billion given to education by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So anyways, rather than argue, can you take a few minutes yourself and elaborate on:
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You should, beucase if you don't you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
and
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Why don't you research what Wal-Mart gives away rather than making snap judgements as usual.
As you think I'm obviously missing the right picture here. The only things I found justify my views. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
OK. I looked up Microsoft / Bill Gates charity and found a lot of links on a lot of different areas.
I never claimed the Waltons/Wal-Mart donated as much as Bill Gates. Neither does Larry Elison, but I don't see you bad mouthing Oracle as much as Wal-Mart. My point was, Wal-Mart has done their fair share you act like they don't.
Marc Clifton wrote:
So anyways, rather than argue, can you take a few minutes yourself and elaborate on:
Simple, Wal-Mart acts no different than other companies, but you pin it purely out of bias. None of you have given one good reason why Wal-Mart is so worse than other businesses.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The only things I found justify my views.
You didn't look hard enough so you could a small search to justify your views.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop comparing apples to orangle.
But the orangle is just so tasty. :laugh:
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
But the orangle is just so tasty.
:laugh:
Jeremy Falcon