On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:46:15 -0700, sf > wrote:



>
>Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.

WM is going to blockade the stores? Amazing they can get away with
that. WM has never put a store out of business.


>>
>> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.
>
>Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.

People like to pick on the biggest.

On 7/12/2013 6:08 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.
>

Sad, but also true.

Home Depot hires mainly part timers.

On 7/12/2013 6:46 PM, sf wrote:
> 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.
>

Oh observant one, yes.

The media focus is on one of a gang of many.

+1

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:15 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:


>
>One person wrote to the editor of the local newspaper. I'm
>paraphrasing: "The day *every* checkout stand at the existing WalMart is
>manned and people are *still* waiting in line, then you can build
>another Walmart."
>
>It *is* possible to fight them. I don't know about forcing them to pay
>a living wage... there's more than just Walmart involved with how low
>the minimum wage is. But you don't have to put up with having a Walmart
>on every corner.
>
>Jill

And if people did not take those minimum wage jobs, the stores would
be forced to pay more in order to get help. I agree that they should
be paying more, but I don't think it is up to the government to force
them to do so.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:52:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> 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.

I'm one of the few who refuse to step inside a Walmart and you can't
shame me by mentioning Target or Sears because I don't shop there
either.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:04:14 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:



>
>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.
>
>

Do they blast hem with Howitzers? Crush them with tanks? Please, let
me know. Links to a video would be great.

Oh, you mean most of your neighbors decided to shop at WM or Target
instead of being loyal to the local stores. That is the real reason.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:12:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:46:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.
>
> WM is going to blockade the stores? Amazing they can get away with
> that. WM has never put a store out of business.
>
Sure they have. They set up shop in rural areas that are in need of
more jobs, get all sorts of tax concessions from the county to be
there (which the smaller stores don't get) and then undercut the other
businesses prices. Rural people, who apparently swim in the shallow
end of the gene pool, flock to Walmart and the smaller stores (who
don't have deep pockets) cease to exist.
>
> >>
> >> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.
> >
> >Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.
>
> People like to pick on the biggest.

They also don't employ the same business tactics as Walmart.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 9:52 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> 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.
>
Is this the same mechanism that causes internet commerce?

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:53:45 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

> As Warren Buffet said - "This is class warfare. My class is winning."
>
>
They most certainly are. I'd like to see them sell to themselves and
take do the manual labor in their own businesses after they starve
everyone else out.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 9:53 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "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."
>
>
>
Says the so-called philanthropist.

Ok, he has donated wads of money.

But really, if capitalism is the real enemy, when do the lower echelon
winners get their comeupance?

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:19:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:15 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >One person wrote to the editor of the local newspaper. I'm
> >paraphrasing: "The day *every* checkout stand at the existing WalMart is
> >manned and people are *still* waiting in line, then you can build
> >another Walmart."
> >
> >It *is* possible to fight them. I don't know about forcing them to pay
> >a living wage... there's more than just Walmart involved with how low
> >the minimum wage is. But you don't have to put up with having a Walmart
> >on every corner.
> >
> >Jill
>
> And if people did not take those minimum wage jobs, the stores would
> be forced to pay more in order to get help. I agree that they should
> be paying more, but I don't think it is up to the government to force
> them to do so.

The market isn't going to inspire them to do it. Trickle down hasn't
started yet, so the government has to step in.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/12/2013 10:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:15 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> One person wrote to the editor of the local newspaper. I'm
>> paraphrasing: "The day *every* checkout stand at the existing WalMart is
>> manned and people are *still* waiting in line, then you can build
>> another Walmart."
>>
>> It *is* possible to fight them. I don't know about forcing them to pay
>> a living wage... there's more than just Walmart involved with how low
>> the minimum wage is. But you don't have to put up with having a Walmart
>> on every corner.
>>
>> Jill
>
> And if people did not take those minimum wage jobs, the stores would
> be forced to pay more in order to get help. I agree that they should
> be paying more, but I don't think it is up to the government to force
> them to do so.
>
But can government create scenarios in which they might want to do so?

That's where the 30 hr. per quarter metric might come in.

On 7/12/2013 10:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:52:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm one of the few who refuse to step inside a Walmart and you can't
> shame me by mentioning Target or Sears because I don't shop there
> either.
>
Consistency is valued.

On 7/12/2013 10:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:12:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:46:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.
>>
>> WM is going to blockade the stores? Amazing they can get away with
>> that. WM has never put a store out of business.
>>
> Sure they have. They set up shop in rural areas that are in need of
> more jobs, get all sorts of tax concessions from the county to be
> there (which the smaller stores don't get) and then undercut the other
> businesses prices. Rural people, who apparently swim in the shallow
> end of the gene pool, flock to Walmart and the smaller stores (who
> don't have deep pockets) cease to exist.

That's a human value judgment and a market call.

I have lived deep rural and met some of the smartest people in my life.

>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.
>>>
>>> Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.
>>
>> People like to pick on the biggest.
>
> They also don't employ the same business tactics as Walmart.
>
I've seen small town predatory business wars that would curl your hair.

It's capitalism on any end.

On 7/12/2013 10:27 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:53:45 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>> As Warren Buffet said - "This is class warfare. My class is winning."
>>
>>
> They most certainly are. I'd like to see them sell to themselves and
> take do the manual labor in their own businesses after they starve
> everyone else out.
>
Not going to happen.

On 7/12/2013 10:29 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:19:15 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:15 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> One person wrote to the editor of the local newspaper. I'm
>>> paraphrasing: "The day *every* checkout stand at the existing WalMart is
>>> manned and people are *still* waiting in line, then you can build
>>> another Walmart."
>>>
>>> It *is* possible to fight them. I don't know about forcing them to pay
>>> a living wage... there's more than just Walmart involved with how low
>>> the minimum wage is. But you don't have to put up with having a Walmart
>>> on every corner.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> And if people did not take those minimum wage jobs, the stores would
>> be forced to pay more in order to get help. I agree that they should
>> be paying more, but I don't think it is up to the government to force
>> them to do so.
>
> The market isn't going to inspire them to do it. Trickle down hasn't
> started yet, so the government has to step in.
>

It did.

Remember stimulus?

About 4% went to shovel ready projects, the rest got siphoned off into
nothing.

That's why the administration came back with a new $50 billion
roads/bridges bill.

2nd time's the charm!

In article om>,
says...
>
>On 7/13/2013 7:27 PM, Lamey wrote:
>
>> Good day, I still dont remember the froup we met in.
>
>LOL Ask Jeff and Laura.

OK I get with them on facebook now and again. I give it a shot.
buzzard!

--


GIT-R-DONE !

In article >,
says...

"you are the ones who are responsible for the way me and others are
assholes"

Lamey > wrote in
:

Is this still "rec.food.cooking"? Why don't you bitchy posters go somewhere
else?

> In article om>,
> says...
>>
>>On 7/13/2013 12:19 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:28:15 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:24:59 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2013 11:21 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:36:56 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It did.
>> >>
>> >> Remember stimulus?
>> >>
>> >> About 4% went to shovel ready projects, the rest got siphoned off into
>> >> nothing.
>> >>
>> >> That's why the administration came back with a new $50 billion
>> >> roads/bridges bill.
>> >>
>> >> 2nd time's the charm!
>> >
>> > The first stimulus was just a tickle.
>> >
>> Iirc, 787 BILLION$ worth?
>>
>> Some tickle.
>
> It's spread out until 2020, so it's only a tickle... not the boost a
> stimulus should be.

Yet even so it did have a measurable effect. Spending is not equal. Spend
1.6 trillion ****ing down a rathole called Iraq is not the same as spending
1.6 trillion building roads, bridges, schools, and airports here in this
country that generate economic activity year after year for decades to come.

"casa bona" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2013 6:08 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.
>>
>
> Sad, but also true.
>
> Home Depot hires mainly part timers.

Not according to the two Home Depot employees I know who get 35 hours a week
(at less than 9 bucks an hour) every week plus benefits, if limited. And
they are all recent hires of less than 3 years.

So the pay sucks but they have stable hours and some bennies.

I'd choose that in a heartbeat over Squalmart.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> > Home Depot hires mainly part timers.
>
> Not according to the two Home Depot employees I know who get 35 hours a week
> (at less than 9 bucks an hour) every week plus benefits, if limited. And
> they are all recent hires of less than 3 years.
>
> So the pay sucks but they have stable hours and some bennies.
>
> I'd choose that in a heartbeat over Squalmart.

I think people need to quit picking on Walmart and switch to their
congressmen that set the federal minimum wage so low...if you really care
about the low-end workers. In the real world, jobs that offer higher wages
and many benefits do so to attract and keep highly educated or highly
skilled workers. The non-educated and no-skilled workers take these "start
up" jobs and are probably happy to get them.

I feel they are mostly for teenagers/college students and maybe some spouse
working there to suppliment the main income of the family.

In many jobs that offer a future, you often have to start low, learn the
process and prove yourself to get raises/promotions. To switch careers, you
often have to start with a pay cut.

It seems to me that the "well off" people are generally the ones that are so
concerned about the poor. The poor are often happy to get *ANY* job and
they know the deal when they apply. If enough people boycott Walmart to send
them packing, their employees (exploited or not) will lose their jobs and
whatever income they received.

The company I work for used to give me major benefits and pay. That's when
the Dad ran the business. Once he turned it over to his worthless son, the
business is slowly going down. I don't get near the benefits that I used to
get years ago with this company. (I left it for 20 years, then came back 5
years ago).

That said, I do get a couple of good perks. One is a really good one. And I
get paid a very decent amount per hour. Problem here lately is, we are
hurting for work and lately I've been getting less than 20 hours per week.
arrghhhh. I love working for this company but I can't keep doing that for
much longer. A good wage per hour is worthless if you don't get the hours
in.

G.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:35:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> > Home Depot hires mainly part timers.
>>
>> Not according to the two Home Depot employees I know who get 35 hours a week
>> (at less than 9 bucks an hour) every week plus benefits, if limited. And
>> they are all recent hires of less than 3 years.
>>
>> So the pay sucks but they have stable hours and some bennies.
>>
>> I'd choose that in a heartbeat over Squalmart.
>
>I think people need to quit picking on Walmart and switch to their
>congressmen that set the federal minimum wage so low...if you really care
>about the low-end workers. In the real world, jobs that offer higher wages
>and many benefits do so to attract and keep highly educated or highly
>skilled workers.

That should be highly educated AND/or highly skilled... one does not
preclude the other.

>The non-educated and no-skilled workers take these "start
>up" jobs and are probably happy to get them.
>
>I feel they are mostly for teenagers/college students and maybe some spouse
>working there to suppliment the main income of the family.
>
>In many jobs that offer a future, you often have to start low, learn the
>process and prove yourself to get raises/promotions. To switch careers, you
>often have to start with a pay cut.

There happens to be a huge demand for part time jobs, and many seniors
want part time jobs that also require highly educated AND highly
skilled... many substitute teachers are retired teachers.

In article >,
says...
>
> 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.

Oh we're retail heaven in RI. We've got K-Mart, Sears, Target, Walmart,
JCP in the malls etc.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:12:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:46:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.
> >
> > WM is going to blockade the stores? Amazing they can get away with
> > that. WM has never put a store out of business.
> >
> Sure they have. They set up shop in rural areas that are in need of
> more jobs, get all sorts of tax concessions from the county to be
> there (which the smaller stores don't get) and then undercut the other
> businesses prices. Rural people, who apparently swim in the shallow
> end of the gene pool, flock to Walmart and the smaller stores (who
> don't have deep pockets) cease to exist.
> >
> > >>
> > >> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.
> > >
> > >Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.
> >
> > People like to pick on the biggest.
>
> They also don't employ the same business tactics as Walmart.

What I find amusing about the whole WalMart story is that the idea for
it came from a former retail chain here in RI called Ann & Hope. Walton
toured those stores and decided he could do better.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:26:15 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >Not a problem, Walmart drives them out of existence. End of story.
> >>
> >> WM is going to blockade the stores? Amazing they can get away with
> >> that. WM has never put a store out of business.
> >>
> >Sure they have. They set up shop in rural areas that are in need of
> >more jobs, get all sorts of tax concessions from the county to be
> >there (which the smaller stores don't get) and then undercut the other
> >businesses prices. Rural people, who apparently swim in the shallow
> >end of the gene pool, flock to Walmart and the smaller stores (who
> >don't have deep pockets) cease to exist.
>
>
> Again, Wal Mart did not put them out of business, the lack of
> customers did. WM may have provided opportunity, but the consumer
> made the decision of where to go. In my town, the local stores
> downtown were pretty much gone when I moved here in 1981. The rest
> closed over the next five years or so. There was not a Wal Mart
> within 250 miles at that time, but there was a K Mart and a new mall
> about 20 miles away.
>
> We had a great camera store in town back then too. Technology did
> them in. Same with the TV repair shop.
>
> Consumers just don't want the small stores any more. Amazon and the
> like are doing very well. Even the big stores are hurting. Best Buy
> is getting by, but Circuit City, Crazy Eddie, and a bunch of others
> are gone.
>
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is not just WM, but add in Target, K Mart, many others.
> >> >
> >> >Yet, somehow - they don't have the same reputation as Walmart.
> >>
> >> People like to pick on the biggest.
> >
> >They also don't employ the same business tactics as Walmart.
>
> WM is the worst, but the other are not far behind.

TV repair is now just swapping out boards. Sure you can do by component
but when the cost when you factor labor is included, board swaps it is.

On 7/14/2013 12:39 AM, Tom wrote:
> Lamey > wrote in
> :
>
> Is this still "rec.food.cooking"? Why don't you bitchy posters go somewhere
> else?
>
It's the Lamey and Tom show! Known for posting... uh, what ?

Jill