|
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 12:00 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote: >> "Kalmia" > wrote in message >> ... >> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:58:12 PM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote: >>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>> >>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this >>> >>> here recently. >>> >>> >>> >>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just >>> >>> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to >>> >>> live on. >>> >>> >>> >>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in >>> >>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more >>> >>> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The >>> >>> news story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to >>> >>> spend more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall? >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html >>> >>> tiny: >>> >>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj >>> >>> >>> >>> �The question here is a living wage; it�s not whether Wal-Mart comes >>> or >>> >>> stays,� said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead >>> >>> backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to >>> >>> kowtow to threats. �We�re at a point where we don�t need >>> retailers. >>> >>> Retailers need us.� >>> >>> >>> >>> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is >>> >>> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow >>> >>> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of >>> >>> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm... >>> >>> -- >>> >>> CAPSLOCK�Preventing Login Since 1980. >> >> Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow >> forever. >> One planned in my area got nixed - good. >> >> >> We have no Super Wal-Marts within a 20 mile radius of me. And I like >> that. >> > No one forces you to shop there, do they? > > why should it make any difference to you? Everywhere a Wal-Mart pops up scores of small businesses close. And that DIECTLY affects me. Wal-Mart destroys businesses and treats their labor like crap. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote: >> "sf" > wrote in message >> ... >>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this >>>> here recently. >>> >>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum >>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that >>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>> they can afford to pay it. >>> >>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>> >>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>> >>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>> life in rfc. >> >> >> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the >> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >> >> Big deal. >> >> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >> the >> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >> >> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. > > So because they are rich they should pay more? They are rich BECAUE they pay so little. It's just pure greed and YOU get to subsidize it. > > What about non-family owned corporations? Same. We pay Exxon 5 billion a year just cuz theey are so nice. > Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more? He could follow the Costco model. Which works. As it is he's just another example of what is wrong witth the low wage model. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote: >> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>> "sf" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this >>>>> here recently. >>>> >>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum >>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that >>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>> >>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>>> >>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>> >>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>>> life in rfc. >>> >>> >>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the >>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>> >>> Big deal. >>> >>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >>> the >>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>> >>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >>> >> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there >> is >> a crime." >> Graham >> >> > So being wealthy is a crime? It often is, yes. That is the truth about how a great many wealthy people got rich. Take all those CEO crooks who made 9 figures in illegal loot when they crashed the banking system. Angelo Mozilo made 350 million alone. And he never saw a minute in jail, either. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 12:52 PM, graham wrote: >> "casa bona" > wrote in message >> ... >>> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote: >>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> "sf" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> here recently. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" >>>>>> minimum >>>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think >>>>>> that >>>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>>>>> life in rfc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost >>>>> the >>>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>>>> >>>>> Big deal. >>>>> >>>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >>>>> the >>>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>>>> >>>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >>>>> >>>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, >>>> there >>>> is >>>> a crime." >>>> Graham >>>> >>>> >>> So being wealthy is a crime? >>> >> Comprehension not your forte? >> >> > The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? Greed. Face it dude, trickle down is a myth. And every day more and more former members of the middle class are getting trickled on. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >> >>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? >> >> I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public >> assistance to survive. >> > > It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage. They don't pay it. They have very few FTEs so the net amount is less than MW. There are a myriad of ways to avoid paying an *effective* minimum wage. And we do subsidize their employees. A p-erson working 35 hours a week (non FTE) should not have to get food stamps to eat. > > But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has real > merit. That is they key right there. > How do you feel about that solution? I am giong to guess probably badly. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:03:07 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > > > >> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? > > > > I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public > > assistance to survive. > > > > It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage. So, taxpayers should subsidize Walmart and remain silent? > > But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has > real merit. > > How do you feel about that solution? They'll just hire more people and expand the time between work dates. -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"sf" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:03:07 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote: >> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >> > >> >> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their >> >> "crime"? >> > >> > I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public >> > assistance to survive. >> > >> >> It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage. > > So, taxpayers should subsidize Walmart and remain silent? >> >> But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has >> real merit. >> >> How do you feel about that solution? > > They'll just hire more people and expand the time between work dates. Right. No law says an employee is entitled even to the same schedule every week. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:09 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message > ... >> On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote: >>> "sf" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this >>>>> here recently. >>>> >>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum >>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that >>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>> >>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>>> >>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>> >>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>>> life in rfc. >>> >>> >>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the >>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>> >>> Big deal. >>> >>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >>> the >>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>> >>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >> >> So because they are rich they should pay more? > > > They are rich BECAUE they pay so little. It's just pure greed and YOU get > to subsidize it. No, they were rich because they built up and scaled out a major retailer and took K-mart's market from them. Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? Or for that matter Sears? >> >> What about non-family owned corporations? > > Same. We pay Exxon 5 billion a year just cuz theey are so nice. Which family owns Exxon? >> Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more? > > > He could follow the Costco model. Which works. But he hasn't, has he? In fact K-mart is a real estate play to him, isn't it? > As it is he's just another > example of what is wrong witth the low wage model. I'll give you some high wage models: Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy. You really want some of their action here? |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:11 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message > ... >> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote: >>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> >>>> "sf" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this >>>>>> here recently. >>>>> >>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum >>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that >>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>>> >>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>>> >>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>>>> life in rfc. >>>> >>>> >>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the >>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>>> >>>> Big deal. >>>> >>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >>>> the >>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>>> >>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >>>> >>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there >>> is >>> a crime." >>> Graham >>> >>> >> So being wealthy is a crime? > > It often is, yes. Oh I see! > That is the truth about how a great many wealthy people > got rich. Take all those CEO crooks who made 9 figures in illegal loot when > they crashed the banking system. Angelo Mozilo made 350 million alone. > And he never saw a minute in jail, either. So the existence of isolated white collar crime makes the rich guilty by net worth in your mind? Do tell... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../nibrs_wcc.pdf In 1997 through 1999, white-collar crime accounted for approximately 3.8 percent of the incidents reported to the FBI. The majority of those offenses are frauds and counterfeiting/forgery. Additionally, the Group B offense of bad checks accounted for approximately 4 percent of the arrests during 1997-1999. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message > ... >> On 7/12/2013 12:52 PM, graham wrote: >>> "casa bona" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote: >>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> here recently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" >>>>>>> minimum >>>>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what >>>>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>>>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill... >>>>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see >>>>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is >>>>>>> life in rfc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost >>>>>> the >>>>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Big deal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And >>>>>> the >>>>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >>>>>> >>>>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, >>>>> there >>>>> is >>>>> a crime." >>>>> Graham >>>>> >>>>> >>>> So being wealthy is a crime? >>>> >>> Comprehension not your forte? >>> >>> >> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? > > Greed. Can you read me from the US code what specific statute covers "greed"? > Face it dude, trickle down is a myth. And every day more and more > former members of the middle class are getting trickled on. That's all rhetoric, not crime. I might have guessed this was just a class warfare rant. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:15 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message > ... >> On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >>> >>>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? >>> >>> I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public >>> assistance to survive. >>> >> >> It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage. > > They don't pay it. They have very few FTEs so the net amount is less than > MW. There are a myriad of ways to avoid paying an *effective* minimum wage. > And we do subsidize their employees. A p-erson working 35 hours a week (non > FTE) should not have to get food stamps to eat. I'd like to see your proof they are below the actual minimum wage. >> >> But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has real >> merit. > > That is they key right there. I agree. > >> How do you feel about that solution? > > I am giong to guess probably badly. > > Why? |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:16 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:03:07 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >>> >>>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? >>> >>> I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public >>> assistance to survive. >>> >> >> It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage. > > So, taxpayers should subsidize Walmart and remain silent? That's a separate issue. I mentioned a possible solution. >> >> But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has >> real merit. >> >> How do you feel about that solution? > > They'll just hire more people and expand the time between work dates. That's a possibility, but at some model it would be come disadvantageous to try that. We need to find that number and stick to it. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 12/07/2013 3:02 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? > > I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public > assistance to survive. > Just think, with the billions of dollars they have, they could afford to pay their employees thousands of dollars per year more and they would still be incredibly wealthy. They are not alone in their sense of entitlement. There are a lot of people who are very wealthy and expect others to work for next to nothing. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 1:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 3:02 PM, sf wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >> >>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? >> >> I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public >> assistance to survive. >> > > Just think, with the billions of dollars they have, they could afford to > pay their employees thousands of dollars per year more and they would > still be incredibly wealthy. Really? Have you ever looked at what the average profit margin is for the big discounters? http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/732.html Industry Center - Discount, Variety Stores Net Profit Margin (mrq): 3.1% > They are not alone in their sense of > entitlement. No they're in there with Big Lots and Costco. > There are a lot of people who are very wealthy and expect > others to work for next to nothing. While they work for a 3.1% profit margin. You're as detached from reality as ever. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? > > Or for that matter Sears? Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" employees all year long? Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:12:52 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote: > Face it dude, trickle down is a myth. And every day more and more > former members of the middle class are getting trickled on. +1 -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 2:50 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? >> >> Or for that matter Sears? > > Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" > employees all year long? K-mart is almost dead, but it would not surprise me. Sears used to offer sales commissions in exchange for lower salary. > Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work > so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? I can't say at this point what they do. I have a hard time finding either one to shop at anymore, how about you? |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/13 10:57 AM, casa bona wrote:
> Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the > city.... Wrong. 8;) -- Larry |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
> >"Cheryl" > wrote in message eb.com... >> On 7/11/2013 9:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote: >>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message >>> b.com... >>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>> hourly >>>> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here >>>> recently. >>>> >>>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just >>>> because >>>> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on. >>>> >>>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in >>>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more >>>> for >>>> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news >>>> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend >>>> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall? >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html >>>> tiny: >>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj >>>> >>>> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or >>>> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead >>>> backer >>>> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to >>>> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need >>>> us.” >>> . >>> >>> >>> I find this very telling: >>> >>> "D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some >>> large >>> retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s >>> minimum wage," >>> >>> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive >>> disadvantage >>> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for >>> the >>> gander. >>> >>> >> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said >> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just >> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question, >> though. >> >Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart? >Graham That's like asking why should Graham be compensated for having a small weewee... your analogy sure sounds like penis envy. Times change, small mom n' pop retailers can no longer exist for the same reason there are no more rotary dial telephones and manual typewriters... much better technology evolved. Graham, you have the IQ of a rock... a small pebble. "Economies of scale" have always existed... doesn't pay to operate the family farm anymore either... do you have any idea what a pound of potatoes would cost if the small farmer had to make payments on a $200,000 John Deere to farm his stinkin' 40 acres... would cost over a buck a pound just to cover the cost of diesel. To eliminate the big box retailers would be exactly like eliminationg the major automakers... are you willing to pay Rolls Royce prices for an automobile, Graham, you pinhead! And if not for cheap oriental labor you couldn't be on usenet, because you couldn't afford a computer. Yoose wanna double the price of unskilled US labor, yoose wouldn't have a cell phone. I'm absolutely positive (no doubt whatsoever) that Graham is UNskilled labor, if he's even employed. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 2:50 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? >> >> Or for that matter Sears? > > Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" > employees all year long? > > Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work > so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? > Just ran across these: http://jobs.answers.com/careers/is-k...ny-to-work-for The Bad News While there are many benefits associated with working at Kmart, there are negatives to consider as well. Former and current employees have reported some of these issues. Others are simply because of the type of work required to do a Kmart job well. One of the most difficult things about Kmart positions is that there is a high turnover rate for their entry-level positions. Thinking about those positions, a lot of them are temporary jobs. For example, not many people want to be a cashier or cart pusher for the rest of their lives. Because of this turnover rate, the beginning of a career with Kmart isn't very stable. Your job and coworkers will change constantly. In addition, even if you plan to stay long-term with the company, some people aren't able to adapt to this kind of change very well, giving them a shaky start. Another common issue with Kmart is made clear when you do any research on how employees rate the employer. It really is a mixed bag of reactions across all positions. This is partially because in-store employees who worked entry-level jobs made reviews. Each store is managed by a different manager and therefore, is managed differently. There really is no way to predict how your manager will treat you in your region. While Kmart does hold some standards, there is still room for personality, management choices and styles to influence the work environment in individual stores. For example, one cashier claims that she had an enjoyable job with an easy-going boss who trained her well for two whole weeks. Meanwhile, another cashier complains that his boss often forces him to work through breaks and won't allow him to cross-train in other departments. It all really depends on the manager at your store and because of that, Kmart careers can be very unpredictable. Probably the biggest complaint about Kmart careers is the uneven pay. Salaries are low, especially for in-store jobs. Being that these are usually entry-level and temporary jobs, that does make sense. However, even as you break into management roles, workers have complained the pay is too low. This does vary by store and it gets better the higher up the corporation you go. Sales associates and cashiers usually make close to minimum wage. Managers may make about $24,000 annually. However, in some locations a store manager can make upwards to $59,000 annually. DID YOU KNOW? A Kmart Career is a great choice if you're looking for a temporary job or are interested in retail as a long-term career goal. The company has been around for a long time, and there are several departments in-store and in the corporation to entice your professional interests and goals. However, the popular in-store jobs are very unpredictable both in management and in pay. If you are looking to begin your career within a store, you might want to compare your local store with others and their competitors before taking that career move. http://www.indeed.com/forum/cmp/Sears/Sears-Sucks/t5628 http://www.proletar.com/By-Employees/SEARS.html Average employee rating from: 69 employee(s) Overall rating 1.6 Work Environment 1.9 Job Security 1.9 Recognition 1.5 Work-Life Balance 1.8 Career Development 1.4 Salary & Benefits 1.5 So, to factually address your questions, I think they are both as bad as Wal Mart too. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 3:12 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 7/12/13 10:57 AM, casa bona wrote: > >> Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the >> city.... > > Wrong. 8;) > > -- Larry > > Ok, not most, but plenty? http://www.dcfpi.org/who-is-low-income-in-dc The District of Columbia’s poverty rate is far above the national average and has remained high even in periods of strong economic growth. Some 133,000 residents — nearly one-quarter of the population — are low income, which in 2006-2007 corresponded to an income at or below $24,475 a year for a family of three.[i] DC’s low-income population is so large that it would overflow RFK Stadium and the Nationals’ Ballpark combined. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ome/51944034/1 WASHINGTON (AP) – Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans, almost 1 in 2, have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income. |
OT- Another Walmart story
From today's Wapo. Note the reference to Wegman's, and the fact that
Wal-Mart's average salary nationwide is $12.67 per hour: "Wednesday’s vote on the District’s new “living wage” law had about a decade of history behind it. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), a longtime friend of labor, has tried several times to pass a bill mandating a higher minimum wages for big box stores. In the past, they’ve been almost symbolic efforts, a duty to the unions who knew they didn’t really have a chance. As Wal-Mart announced plans for store after store last year, with little resistance from the D.C. Council and and no binding community benefits agreement, it appeared that the company’s triumph was complete. And yet, when the final vote came on a bill that would require retailers with more than a billion dollars in sales and operating in spaces larger than 75,000 square feet to pay a minimum wage 50 percent higher than the District currently mandates, eight council members voted yes. Several of the votes were predictable: Council member Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), for example, has two Wal-Marts coming to her ward, and is conscious that Wegman’s — the New York-based grocery emporium highly coveted by local leaders — wouldn’t come to an open development site at Walter Reed if it were required to pay a starting wage of $12.50 an hour. On the other side, colleagues Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) are reliable union allies. Council member Vincent Orange (D-At Large) surprised many Wilson Building watchers when he pushed for the bill since during his first stint on the council representing Ward 5, he was more pro-big box than anyone. But big business abandoned him in his last election, spooked by his link to a campaign controversy, leaving him to find a new constituency to maintain his citywide perch. With such recent proposals as a moratorium on speed cameras and the living-wage bill, he has a populist drum to beat on the stump. Mayoral candidate Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who frequently berates the council for being anti-business, justified his vote in favor of the living wage bill by saying that he’d traded it for a lower sales tax in the budget. It’s a calculated step: While telling labor he’s got their backs, he’s also telling business he doesn’t much care for the legislation. And now he has more leverage as finance chairman to offer tax breaks to businesses who find the higher minimum wage burdensome. “I think that he’s thinking the real reason businesses come to the city is that there are other incentives in place,” said Mike Wilson, the legislative campaigner for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Wal-Mart is adamant that it can’t pay a minimum wage of $12.50 but also says that it pays an average retail employee wage of $12.67 nationwide. Also, under the bill, it’s actually a wage rate, which means benefits would be included, and the wage would likely be lower. It seems Wal-Mart didn’t want to set a precedent for jurisdictions nationwide that might consider doing something similar. After all, if this thing metastasized, it could end up costing the company billions in profit. Labor leaders, which drafted the bill originally, met with Wal-Mart representatives to say they would pull the bill if Wal-Mart agreed to collective bargaining. Predictably, the mega-retailer said no. “They pulled out all the stops and said this is our number one priority,” said a council staffer who requested anonymity to speak freely. “And when all labor pulls in one direction, that is a powerful thing in this council.” If the measure stands, whether or not Wal-Mart follows through on its threat to leave D.C., unions will have avoided their nightmare scenario: Having a low-wage, non-union competitor figuring into future bargaining sessions with the area’s unionized grocers. “Giant and Safeway will then be saying we’re losing money, we need givebacks from the workers,” said Joslyn N. Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO. All of this, of course, depends on what Gray decides to do. He came to power with labor’s help, and then turned around and made Wal-Mart a cornerstone of his economic development strategy — he cares deeply about the success of Skyland Town Center, which won’t happen if Wal-Mart pulls out. Like nearly everyone else in this debate, he’s also likely running for mayor. Which still may not mean this never-ending game is over." -- Larry |
OT- Another Walmart story
"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote: > >>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart? >>Graham > > That's like asking why should Graham be compensated for having a small > weewee... your analogy sure sounds like penis envy. Times change, > small mom n' pop retailers can no longer exist for the same reason > there are no more rotary dial telephones and manual typewriters... > much better technology evolved. Graham, you have the IQ of a rock... > a small pebble. "Economies of scale" have always existed... doesn't > pay to operate the family farm anymore either... do you have any idea > what a pound of potatoes would cost if the small farmer had to make > payments on a $200,000 John Deere to farm his stinkin' 40 acres... > would cost over a buck a pound just to cover the cost of diesel. To > eliminate the big box retailers would be exactly like eliminationg the > major automakers... are you willing to pay Rolls Royce prices for an > automobile, Graham, you pinhead! And if not for cheap oriental labor > you couldn't be on usenet, because you couldn't afford a computer. > Yoose wanna double the price of unskilled US labor, yoose wouldn't > have a cell phone. I'm absolutely positive (no doubt whatsoever) that > Graham is UNskilled labor, if he's even employed. Wassamatter? The air conditioner failed in your trailer? |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:01:10 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> On 7/12/2013 2:50 PM, sf wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > > > >> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? > >> > >> Or for that matter Sears? > > > > Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" > > employees all year long? > > K-mart is almost dead, but it would not surprise me. > > Sears used to offer sales commissions in exchange for lower salary. > > > Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work > > so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? > > I can't say at this point what they do. > > I have a hard time finding either one to shop at anymore, how about you? > Kmart doesn't exist here. That location is a Kohl's now, another useless store AFAIC. Sears is in the same mall where we go to the movies and we cut through the store to get to the theater. I think Sears is staying relevant with their demographic. -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 3:22 PM, graham wrote:
> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message > ... >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote: >> >>> Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart? >>> Graham >> >> That's like asking why should Graham be compensated for having a small >> weewee... your analogy sure sounds like penis envy. Times change, >> small mom n' pop retailers can no longer exist for the same reason >> there are no more rotary dial telephones and manual typewriters... >> much better technology evolved. Graham, you have the IQ of a rock... >> a small pebble. "Economies of scale" have always existed... doesn't >> pay to operate the family farm anymore either... do you have any idea >> what a pound of potatoes would cost if the small farmer had to make >> payments on a $200,000 John Deere to farm his stinkin' 40 acres... >> would cost over a buck a pound just to cover the cost of diesel. To >> eliminate the big box retailers would be exactly like eliminationg the >> major automakers... are you willing to pay Rolls Royce prices for an >> automobile, Graham, you pinhead! And if not for cheap oriental labor >> you couldn't be on usenet, because you couldn't afford a computer. >> Yoose wanna double the price of unskilled US labor, yoose wouldn't >> have a cell phone. I'm absolutely positive (no doubt whatsoever) that >> Graham is UNskilled labor, if he's even employed. > > Wassamatter? The air conditioner failed in your trailer? > > The funny thing is, acerbic as he may be, he simply seems to understand you fairly well. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 3:32 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:01:10 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> On 7/12/2013 2:50 PM, sf wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >>> >>>> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? >>>> >>>> Or for that matter Sears? >>> >>> Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" >>> employees all year long? >> >> K-mart is almost dead, but it would not surprise me. >> >> Sears used to offer sales commissions in exchange for lower salary. >> >>> Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work >>> so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? >> >> I can't say at this point what they do. >> >> I have a hard time finding either one to shop at anymore, how about you? >> > Kmart doesn't exist here. That location is a Kohl's now, another > useless store AFAIC. Sears is in the same mall where we go to the > movies and we cut through the store to get to the theater. I think > Sears is staying relevant with their demographic. > That may or may not true, but their employees despise them. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 12/07/2013 5:32 PM, sf wrote:
> Kmart doesn't exist here. That location is a Kohl's now, another > useless store AFAIC. Sears is in the same mall where we go to the > movies and we cut through the store to get to the theater. I think > Sears is staying relevant with their demographic. > There are no Kmarts around here anymore. The closed Sears started off as a Simpons, which is not defunct, switched to Simpsons Sears, then to Sears, and seems to be hanging on by a thread. The local Kmart is re-opening next week as a Target. As far as department stores go, the only one I shop at is The Bay, formerly Hudson Bay Company,which started off as a fur trading business. It sells good quality products, has good prices and always seems to have good sales going on. It seems that almost every time I go to The Bay to shop for something it is on sale. A few years ago I went into a Bay store to get some boxer shorts. I was within sight of the mens underwear section when there was an announcement that Stanfield's boxer shorts were on sale for the next 15 minutes for 50% off. Hell..... that's my brand... perfect timing. One day last summer I went in for something and my Bay card was NFG because I had not used it for a long time. I had to re-apply. I got a bonus for applying for a new card and got discount on my purchase and still got a cash card for $50. Bonus. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/13 5:16 PM, casa bona wrote:
> Ok, not most, but plenty? More than we should have, for sure. But in general, DC and its surrounding counties are the second richest area in the country, trailing only Silicon Valley. Four of the eight highest earning counties in the country are here. And while that doesn't affect the district directly, it pulls up a lot of bootstraps indirectly. -- Larry |
Quote:
|
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 5:06 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 7/12/13 5:16 PM, casa bona wrote: > >> Ok, not most, but plenty? > > More than we should have, for sure. > > But in general, DC and its surrounding counties are the second richest > area in the country, trailing only Silicon Valley. Four of the eight > highest earning counties in the country are here. And while that doesn't > affect the district directly, it pulls up a lot of bootstraps indirectly. > > -- Larry > > It's been ages since I visited, but the impression was of cloistered wealth in the NW sector and poverty elsewhere, hopefully that has improved. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 8:25 AM, notbob wrote:
> OTOH, I'm sure > getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they > are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW. I love online shopping. I started doing it when my back got so bad I couldn't shop like a regular person because I just couldn't stand or walk for very long. The drawback (!) is the number of shipping boxes I accumulate. I have a big pile of them right now waiting for me to break down and put out for recycling. Sometimes I feel like a cardboard box hoarder. LOL -- CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 7/12/2013 7:06 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> More than we should have, for sure. > > But in general, DC and its surrounding counties are the second richest > area in the country, trailing only Silicon Valley. Four of the eight > highest earning counties in the country are here. And while that doesn't > affect the district directly, it pulls up a lot of bootstraps indirectly. > > -- Larry > > Agree. I'm in MD, Prince Georges county specifically, and while this county gets a bad rap, my city has become one of the most populous and well-to-do in most of MD. -- CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:05:40 -0700, sf > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and >> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be >> an interesting experiment. > >Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you >been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton >died? .. But they are not paying a 50% premium over minimum wage. What is the mom & pop store going to do when WM stats paying that much more for help/ Where will they find workers and what will it do to their prices. It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:50:19 -0700, sf > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: > >> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? >> >> Or for that matter Sears? > >Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" >employees all year long? > >Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work >so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? Sure, most retailers do. We want those low, low prices no matter how much they cost. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 12/07/2013 8:08 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:50:19 -0700, sf > wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:18 -0600, casa bona > wrote: >> >>> Do you honestly think K-Mart was some saint of retail wages? >>> >>> Or for that matter Sears? >> >> Do they make a practice of hiring people as permanent "temporary" >> employees all year long? >> >> Do they make a practice of giving their workers under 30 hours of work >> so they don't have to pay for medical insurance? > > Sure, most retailers do. We want those low, low prices no matter how > much they cost. > Back in the 60s and 70s when I worked in a department store that sort of staffing filled a need. They had some full time staff, but most of the rest of the staff were students trying to earn a few bucks or housewives looking to supplement the family income while still able to look after kids. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 12 Jul 2013 12:25:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2013-07-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > >> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some >> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it. > >The problem with low wages is, it forces workers to turn to the state >to get basic need services they cannot get with their wages. If a >family of four must go on food stamps cuz it cannot earn enough at a >paid job, the govt is in effect subsidizing that employer. This has >been at the heart of the good/evil debate about Walmart for years. >Too many of Walmart's employees must rely on the public dole to make >ends meet. This is one way Walmart maintains it's lower prices. > >The other is not paying sales taxes to local govt. Almost all new >Walmart stores come with a reduced tax payout for the first five yrs. >This is typically obtained by (cough) convincing (cough) the local >govt to do it. IOW, the city coucil is paid off, the city loses >taxes, the county must pay subsistence level services to underpaid >Walmart employees. It's such a loss-loss situation for so many >places, they decline Walmart's offer to build. > >Kicking all that aside, what does WW give the consumer? Lower prices, >right? But, at what cost? I never shopped at WW till I moved here. >Initially I saw bennies to shopping WW. Some goods were still USA >made and cheap. Now, 5 yrs later, almost all products I once saw as a >good buy have cheapened to the point I will no longer waste my money. >I still have a pair of winter gloves I bought at WW, but they're >pretty raggedy. I went to buy a new pair. No way! Cheapened way >beyond usability. Same with some waterproof mattress covers I've been >buying for Mom. Originally, they had a soft fabric layer over the >vinyl covering. Those are suddenly "out of stock", only to be >replaced by unacceptable plain vinyl covers at a lower price. Now I >must go looking for a higher priced equivelent. WW's relentless price >lowering policies look good to the consumer on some levels, but when >the mechandise becomes so shoddy it's unusable, of what benefit is >that? > >Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of >business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop >there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure >getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they >are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW. ;) > >nb Sound and fury saying NOTHING! WTF do you think grubbermint gelt comes from, the PRODUCTIVE people of course. I for one don't want to pay to feed your useless ass... starve to death yoose lazy *******s. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:05:43 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:05:40 -0700, sf > wrote: > > >On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote: > > > >> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and > >> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be > >> an interesting experiment. > > > >Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you > >been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton > >died? > . > But they are not paying a 50% premium over minimum wage. What is the > mom & pop store going to do when WM stats paying that much more for > help/ Where will they find workers and what will it do to their > prices. Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story. > > It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others. Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart. -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
OT- Another Walmart story
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:23:49 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business >anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about >Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that >you get what you pay for. People blame the big stores for putting the little guy out of business. It is the consumer that wants the lowest possible price that puts the small service oriented shop out of business. I've seen people spend $5 in gas to drive to a different store to buy an item because it is $1 cheaper. They are not interested in the personal touch of the salesperson. |
OT- Another Walmart story
"casa bona" > wrote in message ... > On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote: >> "casa bona" > wrote in message >> ... >>> On 7/12/2013 12:52 PM, graham wrote: >>>> "casa bona" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote: >>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for >>>>>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> here recently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" >>>>>>>> minimum >>>>>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum >>>>>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because >>>>>>>> they can afford to pay it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over >>>>>>>> kill... >>>>>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't >>>>>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> life in rfc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Big deal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. >>>>>>> And >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, >>>>>> there >>>>>> is >>>>>> a crime." >>>>>> Graham >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> So being wealthy is a crime? >>>>> >>>> Comprehension not your forte? >>>> >>>> >>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"? >> >> Greed. > > Can you read me from the US code what specific statute covers "greed"? > >> Face it dude, trickle down is a myth. And every day more and more >> former members of the middle class are getting trickled on. > > That's all rhetoric, not crime. > > I might have guessed this was just a class warfare rant. As Warren Buffet said - "This is class warfare. My class is winning." |
OT- Another Walmart story
On 12 Jul 2013 12:25:46 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of >business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop >there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure >getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they >are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW. ;) > >nb How did they put the small stores out of business? Did they blockade them? Kidnap the owners? Picket lines? The lack of customer is what put them under. People want to save a buck, no matter the cost. They voted with their pocketbooks to go tot he big stores. Remember in the 1970's when downtown was in a slow death as the malls sprung up on the outskirts of town? Between the big stores and the internet, small stores are going to have a rough time unless they truly have a superior product and service. Even the malls are hurting now between the big chain stores like WM, Kohls, et.al. and on line shopping. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter