Wal-Mart's everyday high costs

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: rufruf44
Walmart simply cater to the cheapness of Americans. Most Americans want stuff at the cheapest possible price and Walmart provides them with that as well as maximizing its profit just like any business. I can't fault them for doing that.

Wal-Mart caters to the stupidity of Americans. Most Americans are too short sighted to see Wal-Mart is slowly eliminating good American jobs. Soon the only jobs left will be working at places like Wal-Mart. This is good for Wal-Mart since cheap imported junk is all we will be able to afford.

America used to stand for something proud. Now it is money-money-money, me-me-me, screw everyone else. This time will be remembered as the start of America's fall from greatness.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: rufruf44
Walmart simply cater to the cheapness of Americans. Most Americans want stuff at the cheapest possible price and Walmart provides them with that as well as maximizing its profit just like any business. I can't fault them for doing that.

Wal-Mart caters to the stupidity of Americans. Most Americans are too short sighted to see Wal-Mart is slowly eliminating good American jobs. Soon the only jobs left will be working at places like Wal-Mart. This is good for Wal-Mart since cheap imported junk is all we will be able to afford.

America used to stand for something proud. Now it is money-money-money, me-me-me, screw everyone else. This time will be remembered as the start of America's fall from greatness.

Its all the byproduct of the society. American's society has been in a steady downhill in the last few decades. and it kept getting worse.

I just dont like the hypocrites that critizes Walmart for all the negative impact, yet they still shop there because its the best deal in town or have Walmart's stock in their portfolio.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Your post makes no sense. Why would I reimburse WalMart (or Home Depot as was my example) when I did not steal anything? Everything in their stores has a security tag on it. If you try to leave without paying the sensors at the exit will alert them.

People can remove the tags.

The practice of treating everyone as a criminal is offensive and in response I refuse to shop at Home Depot unless I have no other alternative. I refuse to shop at WalMart at all as there are many other better alternatives.

So is going through a metal detector when going onto an airplane treating you as a criminal?

And then I refuse to allow security guards to check my bags or reciept. We have a presumption of innocence in America as well as a right to privacy. Once I pay for my merchandise it is mine.

They are just checking whether you actually paid for the merchandise. Again, if you don't want to have them care if anyone steals from them, you can reimburse them for the theft that results from your desires.

If Home Depot or WalMart or whatever retailer I choose to spend my hard earned income in thinks I am stealing from them they are within their rights to call the police and charge me with shoplifting. If they are wrong in their assumption it is within my rights to take whatever legal action necessary to protect my good name.

That's like saying that people getting on airplanes should have the cops called on them because the guard thinks you might have something "contraband" on you. Please, be sensible. If you're that much against discount retail, go somewhere fancy.

If people would stand up for their rights this offensive practice would end. Instead they line up like sheep to be insulted after finding the products they need without help, checking themselves out and bagging their own order. Ridiculous.

So pay more and get more service. No one is making you go to a discount store. Shop at Tiffany's like you rich, spoiled people usually do.

Also your welfare analogy is tired and out of place. The welfare system has been reformed. It is no longer the pariah it once was. Please stop referring to it as though it hasn't changed.

What does that have to do with anything I've mentioned? The guy is an able and willing worker, but would be put out of a job by the "reforms" you seek.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Wal-Mart caters to the stupidity of Americans. Most Americans are too short sighted to see Wal-Mart is slowly eliminating good American jobs. Soon the only jobs left will be working at places like Wal-Mart. This is good for Wal-Mart since cheap imported junk is all we will be able to afford.

Would you rather have expensive, domestic junk like 70s american cars? Get over your apocalyptic obsessions, people. The world isn't going to end because there's more equality.

America used to stand for something proud. Now it is money-money-money, me-me-me, screw everyone else. This time will be remembered as the start of America's fall from greatness.

Just like the freedom of the colonies was the start of England's fall from greatness.
If you can't handle a capitalist economy where you have to work in order to get rewarded, feel free to go to Communist Russia and China. Oh wait, they also realized communism doesn't work. Just because you feel "entitled" doesn't mean you should get the same reward as someone who can actually provide others with something they value.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Ldir

Wal-Mart caters to the stupidity of Americans. Most Americans are too short sighted to see Wal-Mart is slowly eliminating good American jobs. Soon the only jobs left will be working at places like Wal-Mart. This is good for Wal-Mart since cheap imported junk is all we will be able to afford.

Would you rather have expensive, domestic junk like 70s american cars? Get over your apocalyptic obsessions, people. The world isn't going to end because there's more equality.

America used to stand for something proud. Now it is money-money-money, me-me-me, screw everyone else. This time will be remembered as the start of America's fall from greatness.

Just like the freedom of the colonies was the start of England's fall from greatness.
If you can't handle a capitalist economy where you have to work in order to get rewarded, feel free to go to Communist Russia and China. Oh wait, they also realized communism doesn't work. Just because you feel "entitled" doesn't mean you should get the same reward as someone who can actually provide others with something they value.

Just like in the 70's under the Carter Administration, we need to lower our expectations. While it's always been true that you need to work for your rewards, these days the rewards aren't as great as they were in the 90's.

 

[rjain]

The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain
The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

Prove it

 

[djNickb]

Originally posted by: rjain
The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

Or is it that when the initial tech boom began there may not have been as many skilled workers in those areas which could justify higher salaries. Once it was seen that tech jobs we're paying so well people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly saturated the market. Of course the fact that 99% of these companies were operating without a viable business model and overuse of debt capital funded by shareholders played a significant role.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: djNickb

Originally posted by: rjain
The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

Or is it that when the initial tech boom began there may not have been as many skilled workers in those areas which could justify higher salaries. Once it was seen that tech jobs we're paying so well people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly saturated the market. Of course the fact that 99% of these companies were operating without a viable business model and overuse of debt capital funded by shareholders played a significant role.

That's what I said...

 

[shiner]

I'm glad to see that anti-capitalism is alive and well in this thread.

 

[djNickb]

I didn't really see anywhere in this thread where you said anything along those lines --
-

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: djNickb

Originally posted by: rjain
The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

Or is it that when the initial tech boom began there may not have been as many skilled workers in those areas which could justify higher salaries. Once it was seen that tech jobs we're paying so well people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly saturated the market. Of course the fact that 99% of these companies were operating without a viable business model and overuse of debt capital funded by shareholders played a significant role.

That's what I said...

Yeah right

djNickb, your assertion seems to be accurate for a small segment of of the work force but what about all the manufacturing jobs being sent abroad? Those Americans who were part of that industry are now faced with a dismal employment future. And those with jobs are losing benefits hand over fist.

I guess if you are like rjain you can just turn your nose at them because he has his due to a wise career choice but the rest can only hope that when the economy brightens that they too will be able to reap the rewards of the American Way, what ever that will be in the future.

 

[LordJezo]

You guys are pretty dumb.

Go back a decade or two and everyone was scared to hell the chain "2 Guys" was going to take over the world as well.

They eventually collapsed, just like Wal Mart one day will.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

full time is a legal definition that doesn't change because the company you work for only lets you work 25 hours a week for them

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordJezo
You guys are pretty dumb.

Go back a decade or two and everyone was scared to hell the chain "2 Guys" was going to take over the world as well.

They eventually collapsed, just like Wal Mart one day will.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

full time is a legal definition that doesn't change because the company you work for only lets you work 25 hours a week for them

well i'd like to know it then. FT at my current company is 37.5. It DOES change from company to company, whether there is a min. or not I dont know.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: djNickb

Originally posted by: rjain
The rewards in the 90s were fueled by people being duped into speculating that web-surfing was a $100,000/year job.

Or is it that when the initial tech boom began there may not have been as many skilled workers in those areas which could justify higher salaries. Once it was seen that tech jobs we're paying so well people jumped on the bandwagon and quickly saturated the market. Of course the fact that 99% of these companies were operating without a viable business model and overuse of debt capital funded by shareholders played a significant role.

That's what I said...

(my emphasis in djNickb's quoted post)
Yes, I said the same thing as you did. I just didn't give the whole history of something we all are already familiar with. Is that a problem? Hint: overuse = salaries

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo
You guys are pretty dumb.

Go back a decade or two and everyone was scared to hell the chain "2 Guys" was going to take over the world as well.

They eventually collapsed, just like Wal Mart one day will.

WTF are you talking about?

It was some HUGE store chain that make even the biggest of the biggest Wal Mart stores look like a small 7-11. They would buy up entire plazas and put in 2 guys clothes store, 2 guys furniture stores, 2 guys applicance stores.. everything you could think of in one location at super low prices. Eventually got a skyscraper in Manhattan and everyone figured they would eventually run everyone out of buisness and become the only people you could buy anything from.

Didn't quite happen did it?

 

[rjain]

retail is one of the most volatile industries out there. 20 years as a national chain without going bankrupt is quite a feat.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo
You guys are pretty dumb.

Go back a decade or two and everyone was scared to hell the chain "2 Guys" was going to take over the world as well.

They eventually collapsed, just like Wal Mart one day will.

WTF are you talking about?

It was some HUGE store chain that make even the biggest of the biggest Wal Mart stores look like a small 7-11. They would buy up entire plazas and put in 2 guys clothes store, 2 guys furniture stores, 2 guys applicance stores.. everything you could think of in one location at super low prices. Eventually got a skyscraper in Manhattan and everyone figured they would eventually run everyone out of buisness and become the only people you could buy anything from.

Didn't quite happen did it?

Must have been an East Coast Entity, never heard of them in California or Oregon

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo
You guys are pretty dumb.

Go back a decade or two and everyone was scared to hell the chain "2 Guys" was going to take over the world as well.

They eventually collapsed, just like Wal Mart one day will.

WTF are you talking about?

It was some HUGE store chain that make even the biggest of the biggest Wal Mart stores look like a small 7-11. They would buy up entire plazas and put in 2 guys clothes store, 2 guys furniture stores, 2 guys applicance stores.. everything you could think of in one location at super low prices. Eventually got a skyscraper in Manhattan and everyone figured they would eventually run everyone out of buisness and become the only people you could buy anything from.

Didn't quite happen did it?

They only got big in that region, never were a Nationwide chain like Wal-Mart.

 

[rjain]

Maybe we should shut down all McDonalds. They're putting fine dining restaurants out of business.

Edit: They're also using evil imported beef! And they don't pay professional wages! The horror! Since when was a supermarket cashier deserving of a much higher salary and benefits than a McDonalds or Taco Bell or Burger King cashier, really?

 

[LordJezo]

Well, maybe if local supermarkets would offer the same quality of goods as a Wal Mart supermarket I might consider them, but, anywho who pays higher prices for lesser quality stuff is an idiot.

Wal Mart produce is consistantly better and fresher then what the supermarkets are providing me with.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain
Maybe we should shut down all McDonalds. They're putting fine dining restaurants out of business.

Maybe what you might consider fine dining Actually they are helping support the Medical Community and the Diet Book Industry!

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

full time is a legal definition that doesn't change because the company you work for only lets you work 25 hours a week for them

Really? As you seem to live in Texas, I would assume you mean that here in the United States (though certainly, one should note that other countries likely have their own standards), "full time is a legal definition that doesn't change because the company you work for only lets you work 25 hours a week for them [rolling eyes smiley omitted]..." in which case, I think you need to correct the US Department of Labor on their mistake:

At http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/014.htm, they have written:

How many hours is full-time employment? How many hours is part-time employment?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA.

Now if we go to http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/full-time.htm, which includes a link to the above, you'll find the following:

Full-Time Employment

[*]DOL Web Pages on This Topic
[*]Laws and Regulations on This Topic

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA, nor does it affect application of the Service Contract Act wage and fringe benefit requirements.

A standard workweek is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as one in which usual work hours are between 35 and 44 hours. Extended workweeks are those in which the usual work hours are between 45 and 99 hours.

But while it says that a standard workweek is one "in which the usual work hours are between 35 and 44 hours," this is based on a statistic, not a "legal definition." The difference between this, of course, is that individual employers need not necessarily comply with this as any sort of minimum for one to be considered "full-time" (nor does it establish 44 hours as a legal minimum to collect overtime pay). Different occupations, different geographical areas, etc., as you'll find if you then procee to the BLS web site, vary to some degree, with some standard workweeks falling shy of the 35-hour mark. You can find more on this by going to http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm and looking at some of their tables.

In any case, I'm sure the folks at the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics will appreciate being corrected, so as to avoid embarrassing themselves by continuing to leave this mistake right up there on their public web site, for anyone to go and see.

cumhail