Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
food sections.

I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not judge.

I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.

What say you?

Dimitri

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
> food sections.
>
> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
> judge.
>
> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>
> What say you?
>
> Dimitri


I don't have a whole lot of choices of places to shop so some times it's WM.
If you pay attention to prices you'll notice that when the rollback is over
the price will go up higher than it was before it was rolled back. It's
just a hook to get people in the store and to make them think they're saving
money.

Ms P

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:47:53 -0500, Ms P wrote:

> I don't have a whole lot of choices of places to shop so some times it's WM.
> If you pay attention to prices you'll notice that when the rollback is over
> the price will go up higher than it was before it was rolled back. It's
> just a hook to get people in the store and to make them think they're saving
> money.

HEB sis the same thing, but I a haven't noticed any of the prices
springing back. I believe HEB started the war. I thought it was
directed at putting the final nail in the coffin of Randall's (who
adopted the same technique a few weeks later. HEB has more to gain
than Walmart by putting Randall's out of business.

Texas, Austin in particular, is probably the only market where
Walmart still hasn't won the grocery share over HEB after 10-12
years of trying. Walmart announced plans to start catering to
Mexicans by opening up a new brand of "Walmart Mercados" to get that
share, but that plan fizzled far as I can tell.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Texas, Austin in particular, is probably the only market where
> Walmart still hasn't won the grocery share over HEB after 10-12
> years of trying.

My kudos to all the Texans out there who are making this possible. LOL

In news:rec.food.cooking, Samantha Hill > posted
on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:34:55 -0700 the following:

> Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> > Texas, Austin in particular, is probably the only market where
> > Walmart still hasn't won the grocery share over HEB after 10-12
> > years of trying.
>
> My kudos to all the Texans out there who are making this possible. LOL

I prefer shopping anywhere besides Wal-Mart. I used to buy groceries at
Albertson's, Kroger and Brookshire's, even though I was aware the food was
costing me a lot more. Those three grocery stores just have a much better
selection than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has cut their
brands and selections down so they can buy more of those for less money. I
suppose some shoppers just accept that Wal-Mart doesn't carry their
favorite brand of tomatoes, so rather than make a special trip to a real
grocery store, they just get whatever Wal-Mart has. It's sad. And the
interesting part is that this is just the kind of selection cutting my
10th grade history teacher warned us would happen under communism. But
here it is happening under capitalism instead.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Sqwertz > posted on Mon,
12 Apr 2010 20:53:57 -0500 the following:

> Texas, Austin in particular, is probably the only market where Walmart
> still hasn't won the grocery share over HEB after 10-12 years of trying.
> Walmart announced plans to start catering to Mexicans by opening up a
> new brand of "Walmart Mercados" to get that share, but that plan fizzled
> far as I can tell.

Yes, if the cost analysis showed that Wal-Mart would have had to spend
three cents more than they wanted to, they'd scrap the whole plan.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

Dimitri wrote:
>
> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
> food sections.
>
> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not judge.
>
> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>
> What say you?
>
> Dimitri

I've got two Super Mal-Warts nearby, roughly 5 miles in each direction
up/down the highway. I rarely do any food shopping or any other shopping
at either one, but the few times I have wandered through their prices
seemed pretty average. I find the prices at Sam's or Costco are pretty
good for most things, but being single I don't pay a huge amount of
attention to food prices since I don't have a big family to feed.

On 2010-04-12 14:03:16 -0700, Pete C. said:

>> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
>> food sections.
>>
>> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not judge.
>>
>> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>> What say you?
>
> I've got two Super Mal-Warts nearby, roughly 5 miles in each direction
> up/down the highway. I rarely do any food shopping or any other shopping
> at either one, but the few times I have wandered through their prices
> seemed pretty average. I find the prices at Sam's or Costco are pretty
> good for most things, but being single I don't pay a huge amount of
> attention to food prices since I don't have a big family to feed.

Can you tell me your zip code? I visited a small town in Oklahoma last
year, Chickasha. There we found two Walmart Supercenters separated by
1.8 miles. Those 1.8 miles had two downtown areas comprised of
shuttered stores of every kind.

I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
anything in the five pound bucket size.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

gtr wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-12 14:03:16 -0700, Pete C. said:
>
> >> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
> >> food sections.
> >>
> >> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not judge.
> >>
> >> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
> >>
> >> What say you?
> >
> > I've got two Super Mal-Warts nearby, roughly 5 miles in each direction
> > up/down the highway. I rarely do any food shopping or any other shopping
> > at either one, but the few times I have wandered through their prices
> > seemed pretty average. I find the prices at Sam's or Costco are pretty
> > good for most things, but being single I don't pay a huge amount of
> > attention to food prices since I don't have a big family to feed.
>
> Can you tell me your zip code? I visited a small town in Oklahoma last
> year, Chickasha. There we found two Walmart Supercenters separated by
> 1.8 miles. Those 1.8 miles had two downtown areas comprised of
> shuttered stores of every kind.

We don't seem to have that issue here, both of these Mal-Warts have been
here for a number of years and the areas surrounding both continue to
grow, with new stores opening even now in the supposed recession. The
only store that has closed in the immediate area was the Circuit City.

>
> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
> anything in the five pound bucket size.

Well, if you have a house vs. a small apartment, the big packages of
stuff like paper goods, soap, and the like aren't any problem to store.
Most of the other stuff really isn't in such big packages that a single
person can't use them before they expire. Fresh stuff is more of a
problem for a single person, but with two or more people it shouldn't be
an issue either.

"Pete C." wrote:
>gtr wrote:
>>
>> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
>> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
>> anything in the five pound bucket size.
>
>Well, if you have a house vs. a small apartment, the big packages of
>stuff like paper goods, soap, and the like aren't any problem to store.
>Most of the other stuff really isn't in such big packages that a single
>person can't use them before they expire. Fresh stuff is more of a
>problem for a single person, but with two or more people it shouldn't be
>an issue either.

And no rule dictates one must buy everything at one store... I can't
use Cheerios by the 3 kilo bale so I don't buy those. But I buy cat
food and litter in the largest sizes possible... I'd say
conservatively I save better than 30% buying those at Walmart, which
translates to a savings of better than $50/week... that's $2,600 a
year saved, minimally. No other store is as caring about animal
lovers, the savings from buying pet products from Walmart pays my vet
bills. If obominationcare covered vet bills I'd embrace him (of
course then he'd be of a much better caliber in all areas), but as it
stands he's just another trash tawkin' pushy nigga.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:06:22 -0400, brooklyn1
> wrote:

>"Pete C." wrote:
>>gtr wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
>>> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
>>> anything in the five pound bucket size.
>>
>>Well, if you have a house vs. a small apartment, the big packages of
>>stuff like paper goods, soap, and the like aren't any problem to store.
>>Most of the other stuff really isn't in such big packages that a single
>>person can't use them before they expire. Fresh stuff is more of a
>>problem for a single person, but with two or more people it shouldn't be
>>an issue either.
>
>And no rule dictates one must buy everything at one store... I can't
>use Cheerios by the 3 kilo bale so I don't buy those. But I buy cat
>food and litter in the largest sizes possible... I'd say
>conservatively I save better than 30% buying those at Walmart, which
>translates to a savings of better than $50/week... that's $2,600 a
>year saved, minimally. No other store is as caring about animal
>lovers, the savings from buying pet products from Walmart pays my vet
>bills.

LOL. You'll need the money to cover the sickness from tainted cat
food. You're a moron shemp. walmart doesn't care about animal
lovers. They don't even care about their employees.

Lou

gtr wrote:

>
> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
> anything in the five pound bucket size.


The secret is to go when you are hungry and the Demo Dollies are working.

Seriously, I don't think I've ever walked out without buying
something.

gloria p

"gloria.p" > wrote in message
...
> gtr wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
>> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
>> anything in the five pound bucket size.
>
>
> The secret is to go when you are hungry and the Demo Dollies are working.
>
The Demo Dollies are usually offering something I'd never buy, which is why
they need them, I suppose. Doesn't matter which store it is.

> Seriously, I don't think I've ever walked out without buying
> something.
>
I admit I ordered my patio furniture from WalMart online. I did a lot of
comparison shopping and they had the best deal and I love the set. But I
wouldn't buy groceries there.

Jill

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> "gloria.p" > wrote in message
> ...
> > gtr wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I have a membership at Costco, and occasionally the two of us walk
> >> through there trying to find something to buy. Sadly, we don't need
> >> anything in the five pound bucket size.
> >
> >
> > The secret is to go when you are hungry and the Demo Dollies are working.
> >
> The Demo Dollies are usually offering something I'd never buy, which is why
> they need them, I suppose. Doesn't matter which store it is.

One of the reasons they offer those samples is to see whether you like
something new. The other reason is that people are reluctant to buy a
five pound bucket of something, only to find that they don't like it.

It works on me. I've bought lots of stuff at Costco that I hadn't
planned on buying, because the sample tasted good. On the other hand,
there's been stuff that looked attractive, but after trying a sample, I
realized that it just wasn't for us.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:03:16 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in their
>> food sections.
>>
>> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not judge.
>>
>> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>> What say you?
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> I've got two Super Mal-Warts nearby, roughly 5 miles in each direction
> up/down the highway. I rarely do any food shopping or any other shopping
> at either one, but the few times I have wandered through their prices
> seemed pretty average. I find the prices at Sam's or Costco are pretty
> good for most things, but being single I don't pay a huge amount of
> attention to food prices since I don't have a big family to feed.

well, i'm single and i find food prices appalling even though i have only
puny old me to feed.

your pal,
blake

On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
> their food sections.
>
> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
> judge.
>
> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>
> What say you?
>
> Dimitri

I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.

On Apr 12, 4:08*pm, George Shirley > wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>
> > Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
> > their food sections.
>
> > I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
> > judge.
>
> > I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware..
>
> > What say you?
>
> > Dimitri
>
> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.

WalMart beef should be avoided. The beef at Sam's is fine. I don't
avoid shopping at WalMart, but I do know what is, and is not a good
deal there. They are no more evil than most other corporations.
They're just better than some at marketing their evil. It's the
system itself that needs to be modified. If WalMart and everyone else
had to pay living wages and provide health benefits, then the race to
the bottom could be reversed.

--Bryan

On 4/12/2010 9:03 PM, Food Snob® wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:08 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>>
>>> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
>>> their food sections.
>>
>>> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
>>> judge.
>>
>>> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>>> What say you?
>>
>>> Dimitri
>>
>> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
>> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
>> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.
>
> WalMart beef should be avoided. The beef at Sam's is fine. I don't
> avoid shopping at WalMart, but I do know what is, and is not a good
> deal there. They are no more evil than most other corporations.
> They're just better than some at marketing their evil. It's the
> system itself that needs to be modified. If WalMart and everyone else
> had to pay living wages and provide health benefits, then the race to
> the bottom could be reversed.
>
> --Bryan

That is way too big of a brush you are using. There are lots of
businesses that are honest and pay decent wages and benefits. There is
nothing inherently evil about corporations.

Meanwhile you choose to support one of the most rotten examples. There
certainly are stores that pay considerably more than walmart and have
benefits. Why not support them?

George wrote:
>
> That is way too big of a brush you are using. There are lots of
> businesses that are honest and pay decent wages and benefits. There is
> nothing inherently evil about corporations.

Go to Hulu and watch, "The Age of Walmart" and "The New Age of Walmart,"
and you will get a better picture of what they are talking about.
Things like paying employees as little as possible and forcing suppliers
to slash their profits to the bone for the sake of lower prices so that
Walmart can make more profits. IMO, it's not the lower prices that are
the problem; it's the robber baron mentality.

Samantha Hill wrote:

> Go to Hulu and watch, "The Age of Walmart" and "The New Age of Walmart,"
> and you will get a better picture of what they are talking about. Things
> like paying employees as little as possible and forcing suppliers to
> slash their profits to the bone for the sake of lower prices so that
> Walmart can make more profits. IMO, it's not the lower prices that are
> the problem; it's the robber baron mentality.

How much should unskilled labor get paid exactly? I work with a nurse
who used to be a Walmart store manager and he informed me that benefits
kick in after 24 hours a week, if I recall correctly? When I was a
younger working unskilled jobs I didn't get ANY benefits years ago. I
never expected much from those jobs and just considered them stepping
stones up to something better. They certainly were motivational for
wanting better and I worked to obtain that.

I truly dislike Walmart, more because of the way they alter local
businesses (those mom and pops) as well as the demands they make on
their suppliers, but as far as their employees go, I see little
different with them than a majority of other unskilled type jobs.

"Samantha Hill" > wrote
> Go to Hulu and watch, "The Age of Walmart" and "The New Age of Walmart,"
> and you will get a better picture of what they are talking about. Things
> like paying employees as little as possible and forcing suppliers to slash
> their profits to the bone for the sake of lower prices so that Walmart can
> make more profits. IMO, it's not the lower prices that are the problem;
> it's the robber baron mentality.

Wal-Mart has never forced a supplier to slash their profits. They do it
willingly, mostly due to greed and the big volume they can get selling to
Wal-Mart.

About five years ago our largest customer (major appliance manufacturer)
tried to get similar concessions from us on pricing. We told them no, where
do you want us to ship your tooling? They moved the $1 million worth of
business to one of our competitors that happily grabbed the business at the
low price offered. A year later or, they closed there plant and filed
Chapter 11.

Google the articles on Wal-Mart and Vlasic pickles and Wal-Mart and Snapper
mower. One said yes, the other said no.

Shed no tears for their suppliers. They have options.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Samantha Hill > posted
on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:52:09 -0700 the following:

> Go to Hulu and watch, "The Age of Walmart" and "The New Age of Walmart,"
> and you will get a better picture of what they are talking about.
> Things like paying employees as little as possible and forcing suppliers
> to slash their profits to the bone for the sake of lower prices so that
> Walmart can make more profits. IMO, it's not the lower prices that are
> the problem; it's the robber baron mentality.

It's the result of capitalism and competition. Competition is what sets
up the conditions that pit companies against each other to see who can
draw more customers with lower prices.

I worked for Target for a short time, and their business model was one of
service instead of low prices. Target said they didn't want to, and
probably couldn't compete with Wal-Mart on prices, so they don't even try.
Instead, they just make sure you don't have to wait in long lines, and
they make sure they actually have the store staffed with people. Most of
the time, when I go into a Wal-Mart, lines are long, and there's hardly
anybody on the sales floor to ask questions of. That's all the result of
competition.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In article >,
George > wrote:


> That is way too big of a brush you are using. There are lots of
> businesses that are honest and pay decent wages and benefits. There is
> nothing inherently evil about corporations.

Not evil, but the sole reason to form a corporation in the US is to
evade personal responsibility. My daughter formed a corporation, and
for that reason. When the previous owner of the company went broke, he
had to declare personal bankruptcy. He lost everything. Fortunately,
he had nothing to lose. My daughter took over the company (same
employees and customers, but of course, legally not related to the
previous company) by forming a corporation.

> Meanwhile you choose to support one of the most rotten examples. There
> certainly are stores that pay considerably more than walmart and have
> benefits. Why not support them?

Then again, why should someone's health and retirement be tied to their
job? I have a number of relatives in Germany, and they can get a job,
or switch jobs, with no consideration to those. My cousin's wife went
from being a social worker to opening a day care in her home. In the
US, most people would have to think long and hard about losing their
health and retirement benefits. Not her.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2010-04-13 04:33:13 -0700, George said:

>> WalMart beef should be avoided. The beef at Sam's is fine. I don't
>> avoid shopping at WalMart, but I do know what is, and is not a good
>> deal there. They are no more evil than most other corporations.
>> They're just better than some at marketing their evil. It's the
>> system itself that needs to be modified. If WalMart and everyone else
>> had to pay living wages and provide health benefits, then the race to
>> the bottom could be reversed.
>
> That is way too big of a brush you are using. There are lots of
> businesses that are honest and pay decent wages and benefits. There is
> nothing inherently evil about corporations.

And there are some that are dishonest, pay subsistence wages, no
benefits, and are, in essence evil. They have a greater capacity, and
rationale for being evil since their reason for existance is to make
money. Make as much money as possible.

In Walmart's approach, as with many corporate strategies, part of it is
to choke all competitors to death. Like Home Depot, Staples,
Blockbuster, Starbucks: Part of their approach to *eliminate
competition*. Well that's not evil, just good business.

People losing jobs, homes, funds for food and clothing--these are all
just byproducts of a predators approach. (With the exception of health
insurance corporations.) By one view they're not evil. Evil is only the
stuff that lays in their wake.

> Meanwhile you choose to support one of the most rotten examples. There
> certainly are stores that pay considerably more than walmart and have
> benefits. Why not support them?

Whenever possible I attempt to avoid all such corporations. Their
attempts to maximize profit is reflected in the products they stock,
the wage/benefits of the people who work there, safety conditions, and
all the rest. It rapidly travels outwards from them.

Thus safety and health are something that begins to suffer at, say,
peanut processing plants, and others who find themselves competing
against particularly Chinese concerns, where they still haven't quite
found the bottom of cost-cutting.

And so forth.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

On Apr 13, 1:14*pm, gtr > wrote:

> In Walmart's approach, as with many corporate strategies, part of it is
> to choke all competitors to death. Like Home Depot, Staples,
> Blockbuster, Starbucks:

.... and the locally owned pharmacy, the locally owned butcher, the
locally owned optical store &c.
Walmart is happy to hire those folks at minimum wage once their
businesses go TU.

>Part of their approach to *eliminate
> competition*. *Well that's not evil, just good business.
>

In news:rec.food.cooking, George > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 07:33:13 -0400 the following:

> There are lots of businesses that are honest and pay decent wages and
> benefits. There is nothing inherently evil about corporations.

I think all companies have people they pay crappy wages to, but it costs
just as much for those people to live as anyone else. No business in the
world cares how low your wages are. You pay the same price as those who
make a lot of money, or you don't get the product at all. (And then those
companies wonder why their sales are crappy.)

> Meanwhile you choose to support one of the most rotten examples. There
> certainly are stores that pay considerably more than walmart and have
> benefits. Why not support them?

Because if you're one of the ones being paid crappy wages, you must go
where the prices are the lowest, especially if the place with lower prices
sells the same items as the higher-priced places.

I don't know what wages are like for checkers nowadays, but even when I
worked for Safeway in 1986, ours was a nonunion store; checkers at union
stores were making $15.00 and more per hour. Albertson's grocery stores
are often union stores, they have the highest prices of all the stores I
have checked, and they sell the same stuff. So the point is, the only
reason I'd really care about going to a more expensive place to buy
groceries is so I won't have to shop along side dirty, trashy people who
come to the store wearing flip flops, oversized shorts riding up into
their crotches, and a jelly-stained t-shirt they've been wearing for the
last two weeks.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

Food Slob wrote:

>On Apr 12, 4:08*pm, George Shirley > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> > Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
>> > their food sections.
>>
>> > I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
>> > judge.
>>
>> > I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>> > What say you?
>>
>> > Dimitri
>>
>> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
>> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
>> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.
>
>WalMart beef should be avoided. The beef at Sam's is fine. I don't
>avoid shopping at WalMart, but I do know what is, and is not a good
>deal there. They are no more evil than most other corporations.
>They're just better than some at marketing their evil. It's the
>system itself that needs to be modified. If WalMart and everyone else
>had to pay living wages and provide health benefits, then the race to
>the bottom could be reversed.

They actually pay excellent wages for what their employees need to
know to work in a grocery... they only need relatively few with
college degrees to work in their offices. Walmart is no different
from any other similar retail establishment and better than most....
you really think other stupidmarket/department stores treat employees
better, you're from another planet.

Most positions at Walmart and other similar stores are no-skill/no
future jobs, they are not intended to be career positions... those are
the jobs meant to give students a little pocket change for the
weekends... and to give Seniors something to occupy themselves a
couple days a week and earn them a little golfing money... and they
also hire a lot of learning disabled, makes those poor souls feel
needed... Walmart pays them the same measly wage as normal people but
mostly it's us tax payers who support those poor souls... Walmart (and
many other big businesses) does a good deed by hiring those who by no
deed of their own made them needy. Walmart does a tremendous amount
of community service of all sorts, they just don't boast about it.

I'd much rather my grand kids toil at Walmart while earning an MBA
than they make those big bucks and bennies laboring in a coal mine or
some other dangerous filthy factory for the rest of their existance.
To me it's patently obvious that you work at a loser job (if you work
at all, I'm sure you don't) and you're proud that your kids (if any)
are loser acorns as well... only the envious losers slam Walmart. Only
the infantile insecure pinheads tell others not to shop someplace,
same as telling folks who to killfile... it'a an assault on their
intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
what to do as though they can't think for themselves. When you tell
folks what to do/what to believe, especially in a public forum, you
are attempting to discover which moronic loony birds are of your
feather.

On 2010-04-13, brooklyn1 > wrote:

> intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
> what to do as though they can't think for themselves.

Whew! It's a good thing you never do that.

nb

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:05:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
>> what to do as though they can't think for themselves.
>
>Whew! It's a good thing you never do that.

Stop lying... I never told anyone where not to shop or who to
killfile. Actually with your editing you're the worst kind of liar, a
criminal purjurer.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> Food Slob wrote:
>
>>On Apr 12, 4:08 pm, George Shirley > wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> > Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
>>> > their food sections.
>>>
>>> > I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
>>> > judge.
>>>
>>> > I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else
>>> > ware.
>>>
>>> > What say you?
>>>
>>> > Dimitri
>>>
>>> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
>>> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
>>> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.
>>
>>WalMart beef should be avoided. The beef at Sam's is fine. I don't
>>avoid shopping at WalMart, but I do know what is, and is not a good
>>deal there. They are no more evil than most other corporations.
>>They're just better than some at marketing their evil. It's the
>>system itself that needs to be modified. If WalMart and everyone else
>>had to pay living wages and provide health benefits, then the race to
>>the bottom could be reversed.
>
> They actually pay excellent wages for what their employees need to
> know to work in a grocery... they only need relatively few with
> college degrees to work in their offices. Walmart is no different
> from any other similar retail establishment and better than most....
> you really think other stupidmarket/department stores treat employees
> better, you're from another planet.
>
> Most positions at Walmart and other similar stores are no-skill/no
> future jobs, they are not intended to be career positions... those are
> the jobs meant to give students a little pocket change for the
> weekends... and to give Seniors something to occupy themselves a
> couple days a week and earn them a little golfing money... and they
> also hire a lot of learning disabled, makes those poor souls feel
> needed... Walmart pays them the same measly wage as normal people but
> mostly it's us tax payers who support those poor souls... Walmart (and
> many other big businesses) does a good deed by hiring those who by no
> deed of their own made them needy. Walmart does a tremendous amount
> of community service of all sorts, they just don't boast about it.
>
> I'd much rather my grand kids toil at Walmart while earning an MBA
> than they make those big bucks and bennies laboring in a coal mine or
> some other dangerous filthy factory for the rest of their existance.
> To me it's patently obvious that you work at a loser job (if you work
> at all, I'm sure you don't) and you're proud that your kids (if any)
> are loser acorns as well... only the envious losers slam Walmart. Only
> the infantile insecure pinheads tell others not to shop someplace,
> same as telling folks who to killfile... it'a an assault on their
> intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
> what to do as though they can't think for themselves. When you tell
> folks what to do/what to believe, especially in a public forum, you
> are attempting to discover which moronic loony birds are of your
> feather.



I had been doing business with Wal Mart for the past 20 years. Regardless of
their reputation there are several factors to consider.

1. The internal systems at Wal Mart are 2nd to none. Their inventory
control and sales recording systems are head and shoulders above almost
every other mass merchant I have ever dealt with.

2. The vendor access to sales records and inventory is spectacular - the
system is called RETAIL-LINK and is a proprietary system

3. Wal Mart along with IIRC Penny's were instrumental in the adoption of
the UCC128 shipping label format which has greatly increased the efficiency
of the movement of goods as well as their data entry into the inventory
systems. The next time you get a UPS shipment look at the label its
virtually universal in its adoption.

4. The buyers control is unbelievable - do you want to know which stored
sell the most Nintendo DS game cartages? In a heart beat he./she can tell
you.

5. There is a system called VMI (vendor managed Items) where the vendor
like Coca-Cola is in full control of their inventory - as example.

6. Finally - it is important to understand the MOST IMPORTANT PART OD A
BUYERS JOB is not buying or selecting merchandise - that's the easy part -
it is the control of the Dollars that determines their success.


I don't agree with many of the ways they do things but they are very good at
what they do. You don't get as big as they are and not be good at what you
do.

Dimitri

In news:rec.food.cooking, "Dimitri" > posted on Tue,
13 Apr 2010 14:43:14 -0700 the following:

> I had been doing business with Wal Mart for the past 20 years.
> Regardless of their reputation there are several factors to consider.
>
> 1. The internal systems at Wal Mart are 2nd to none. Their inventory
> control and sales recording systems are head and shoulders above almost
> every other mass merchant I have ever dealt with.

I'll have to ask my roomie about that. He has worked for Wal-Mart for
over twenty years. I worked for Wal-Mart for six years (1988-1994),
sometimes in the same store as he was in, and sometimes as one of his
underlings. I have also worked for Target (2002-2003), and know for a
fact that Target has a much better inventory control system than Wal-Mart.
Their backroom logistics is absolutely wonderful.

When I worked for Wal-Mart, the push was to get all the stock out, no
matter what. We were really chastised for having anything left over to
push to the back. If it mean that we had to pile risers five feet high
with merchandise, we had to do it. Peg hooks were stuffed so full that
just walking by one fast enough to cause a breeze would make things fall
off the hooks. If you did send something to the back, it just went on a
pallet and sat back there, and was dragged out to be reworked night after
night. It was a huge waste of time to drag that stuff back and forth to
the floor, and actually be expected to physically check each item to see
if any more of it could be stuffed onto the shelf.

Target, on the other hand, has a very nice system that allows you to take
excess freight to the back, and each item is scanned into a specific bin
location, and that's where it stays. We didn't drag it back and forth
each night, but the computers tracked the sales of everything in the
store. Each night, a printout was made of everything that sold which had
also been scanned into a bin location in the back. Someone working in
logistics would spend his night in the back pulling merchandise for each
department, but only if that same merchandise had not come in on the
truck. The point was to reduce the pointless movement of freight around
the store -- an activity that plagued Wal-Mart for all the years I worked
for them. Target's system is very efficient, and the nice part was that
if you got something pulled from logistics, most of the time, every last
piece of it went out. If you only needed one coffee cup out of logistics,
that's all you got -- not a whole case of it.

Another good efficiency of Target is that every box arrives with a label
that tells you not only what aisle number it goes on, but what 4-foot
section of the aisle it goes on, what shelf, and where on the shelf it
goes. I can't remember the exact format, but I think each section has a
certain number of items, and they're numbered from left to right starting
at the top shelf. Wal-Mart does not have that, even now, as far as I
know.

If I was going to go back to work for a retail store, I'd pick Target over
Wal-Mart simply because their inventory system makes a hell of a lot more
sense than Wal-Mart's. Target's logistics is actually *fun* to work in.
My problem now is a bad shoulder. My left arm is mostly numb and doesn't
have all its strength. I'd be afraid I'd try to stick a box up on a high
shelf in logistics, lose my control of it and hurt someone.

> I don't agree with many of the ways they do things but they are very
> good at what they do. You don't get as big as they are and not be good
> at what you do.

Their distribution system gave them an advantage over K-Mart's antiquated
distribution system, which is why K-Mart had to merge with Sears to even
try to compete.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

On 2010-04-13 11:54:54 -0700, brooklyn1 said:

> I'd much rather my grand kids toil at Walmart while earning an MBA
> than they make those big bucks and bennies laboring in a coal mine or
> some other dangerous filthy factory for the rest of their existance.

And if instead they weren't working toward any degree at all, and could
not afford to go to school, pay their rent and car tab without working
full time at Walmart? You know, like the average Walmart worker?

> To me it's patently obvious that you work at a loser job (if you work
> at all, I'm sure you don't) and you're proud that your kids (if any)
> are loser acorns as well...

I notice since the recession began that millions and millions of
American workes suddenly became losers, and now it turns out they are
lazy losers, and so their unemployement must be yanked for punishing
them.

> Only the infantile insecure pinheads tell others not to shop someplace,
> same as telling folks who to killfile... it'a an assault on their
> intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
> what to do as though they can't think for themselves. When you tell
> folks what to do/what to believe, especially in a public forum, you
> are attempting to discover which moronic loony birds are of your
> feather.

Is that what they teach folks on Fox?
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

In news:rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:54:54 -0400 the following:

> Food Slob wrote:
>
> > If WalMart and everyone else had to pay living wages and provide
> > health benefits, then the race to the bottom could be reversed.
>
> They actually pay excellent wages for what their employees need to know
> to work in a grocery...

It doesn't matter what one needs to know to work at any job. The cost of
living is the same for everyone. Those who are paid millions of dollars
to run corporations are overpaid. Any goon can make those CEO-level
decisions, as corporate decisions are only about common sense and simply
being aware of what the markets are doing.

Furthermore, if people who suck up that much money for themselves were
really fair people, I don't think they'd need bodyguards and bulletproof
cars. They know their lowest-paid employees work their butts of for just
enough money to stay off the street (if their hours don't get cut too
much), and there are a few lunatics who might try to take them out just to
get even. I understand wanting a lavish lifestyle. It just sucks to see
a handful of people getting it when they really don't do anything
important enough to deserve the vastly superior lifestyle over the people
whose hard labor put them there.

> they only need relatively few with college degrees to work in their
> offices.

A college degree should not entitle one to a vastly improved lifestyle
over others when the cost of living for everyone is the same. The only
thing that a college degree should entitle someone to is removal from the
kind of work they didn't want to perform: sweeping floors, flipping
burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking groceries, etc.... These are all
jobs that some people are perfectly happy doing, and they don't /want/
college educations. But they don't want to live in the poorhouse all
their lives, either, nor should they have to just because their choice of
work doesn't require a college education.

That said, I think college educations are overpriced. If anything, a
college education should be just as free as a grade school and high school
education. Hell, the way the educational system is set up now, there's so
much repetition that people get bored with school before they ever
graduate. Compact it all, remove the repetition, and you could have
college graduates that are 10-12 years old. Kids aren't stupid. Their
education is just so spread out that they get too bored with the whole
affair and would rather drop out and sell drugs.

> Walmart is no different from any other similar retail establishment and
> better than most.... you really think other stupidmarket/department
> stores treat employees better, you're from another planet.

Some are better, some are worse. I worked in a union grocery store,
Haggen up in the Pacific Northwest. I didn't stay long enough to actually
get a Journeyman rank in the union, but if I could have held out at the
crappy wages for the three years it would take to hit Journeyman, it
probably wouldn't have been a bad choice for long-term employment. I
started at $5.50 per hour, and would have hit $9.90 per hour at my third
year, but the wages were so low starting out that I couldn't afford to
live up there on my own. I quit and moved back to Texas to get back with
my old roommate.

> Most positions at Walmart and other similar stores are no-skill/no
> future jobs, they are not intended to be career positions... those are
> the jobs meant to give students a little pocket change for the
> weekends... and to give Seniors something to occupy themselves a couple
> days a week and earn them a little golfing money... and they also hire a
> lot of learning disabled, makes those poor souls feel needed...

What a depressing picture you paint. And you could be right. No wonder
so many of the people at Wal-Mart act like they couldn't care less whether
you walk through their line or not. They're earning crappy wages and
really can't stand the place. Imagine if nobody working at Wal-Mart had
to be concerned about whether they were going to be able to pay the bills.
They'd probably be in a better mood and actually have a personality.

> Walmart pays them the same measly wage as normal people but mostly it's
> us tax payers who support those poor souls... Walmart (and many other
> big businesses) does a good deed by hiring those who by no deed of their
> own made them needy. Walmart does a tremendous amount of community
> service of all sorts, they just don't boast about it.

Wal-Mart wages is what makes people need food stamps and WIC cards, and
you call that being a service to the community? Honestly, someone who
works at Wal-Mart essentially has no business starting a family because
the wages they earn are barely enough to support one person living in a
rinky-dink apartment with a beaten-up old jalopy to drive back and forth
to work, or bus fare. Yet these people who work at Wal-Mart want
families, too. They want to have children to love and take care of, and
they still try to have kids. Those kids cost money, and they end up on
public assistance, just because the wages are too low at many places to
support a family.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

On 4/12/2010 5:08 PM, George Shirley wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
>> their food sections.
>>
>> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
>> judge.
>>
>> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>> What say you?
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.

You forgot the preservatives. The reason they pump it up with
preservatives and water is so it has a really, really long shelf life
and of course so they can sell water to you at the price of meat.

George wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 5:08 PM, George Shirley wrote:

>> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened
>> to read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I
>> don't want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.
>
> You forgot the preservatives. The reason they pump it up with
> preservatives and water is so it has a really, really long shelf life
> and of course so they can sell water to you at the price of meat.

Weren't they the driving force behind those meat packs filled with
carbon monoxide so meat stays fresh looking whether it is or not?

nancy

On 4/13/2010 7:47 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> George wrote:
>> On 4/12/2010 5:08 PM, George Shirley wrote:
>
>>> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened
>>> to read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I
>>> don't want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.
>>
>> You forgot the preservatives. The reason they pump it up with
>> preservatives and water is so it has a really, really long shelf life
>> and of course so they can sell water to you at the price of meat.
>
> Weren't they the driving force behind those meat packs filled with
> carbon monoxide so meat stays fresh looking whether it is or not?
>
> nancy

I think you are right. Then when it became common knowledge they backed
off and just pump the meat full of preservatives and water.

George wrote:
> On 4/13/2010 7:47 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Weren't they the driving force behind those meat packs filled with
>> carbon monoxide so meat stays fresh looking whether it is or not?
>>
>> nancy
>
> I think you are right. Then when it became common knowledge they backed
> off and just pump the meat full of preservatives and water.

The only "preservative" I think they use is salt. Salt water.

In news:rec.food.cooking, George > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 07:30:47 -0400 the following:

> You forgot the preservatives. The reason they pump it up with
> preservatives and water is so it has a really, really long shelf life
> and of course so they can sell water to you at the price of meat.

Yes. I have reservations about eating food that mold won't grow on for
two years, even in the fridge after it's been opened. What makes it so
inedible that even something as nasty as mold won't eat it?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/12/2010 3:33 PM, Dimitri wrote:
>> Supposedly Wally World has made some substantial price reductions in
>> their food sections.
>>
>> I do now have a WM super center or WM food store near by so I can not
>> judge.
>>
>> I know a few years ago I could consistently beat their prices else ware.
>>
>> What say you?
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.


Gads! I hate that with a passion! I agree with the water content or 'broth'.
It makes me ill. I often want to brine/marinate but the meat is already
saturated with water! Which is why I switched to a 'hispanic' grocer lately.
Huge chicken wings, and other chicken that doesn't look like it was in a
train wreck and fresh fruit that isn't rock hard and actually has flavor.

--
regards, piedmont (Mike)
The Practical BBQ'r - http://sites.google.com/site/thepracticalbbqr/
(mawil55)

In news:rec.food.cooking, George Shirley > posted on
Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:08:43 -0500 the following:

> I quit buying food at Wally World years ago. That's when I happened to
> read the "contents" on a meat label, it said, "beef and water." I don't
> want my beef plumped up to look purty, I want it to taste good.

Beef, blood, fat, a small sprinkling of feces.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst