Submitted by mydogsarelazy on August 5, 2008 - 8:16pm
Hi All,
After reading in the Wall Street Journal about how Wal-Mart managers are being pushed to vote Republican I am incensed. How do you feel about Wal-Mart? I recommend a visit to this site:
I hate the company, can't stand the people that work there, and worse can't stand some (not all, some) of the shoppers that fit the stereotypes about walmart shoppers there. Glut glut glut of purchases of useless crap.
That said, I rarely step foot in a Walmart in principle. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of people are willing to put up with Walmart for the low prices. So I doubt this will affect anything.
If it really bothers people, they wouldn't shop there. In practice, faced with prices/cheap stuff, some people don't put there money where their mouth is.
Submitted by Raybyrnes on August 5, 2008 - 10:15pm.
I don't shop ar Wall Mart because it is out of my way but I think that Wal mart benefits me jsut the same because it forces price competition and forces companies to be creative aas a way of attracting my dollar. this is usually in the form of better service or selection. Without Wal Mart many of these companies might be the very ones we are complaining about.
I love Walmart just as much as I love Costco. When I used to live in Oceanside, I'd go to Walmart all the time for stuff that I do not need to buy in bulk at Costco, because there were 4 Walmart w/in 5-10 minutes drive. Maybe it's the cheapskate trait in my Asian blood, but Walmart really make my $ go much further. I don't see it as putting up with anything but rather, supporting the companies that embody capitalism at its best.
Walmart does bring a lot of jobs to the area. They also employ some people who wouldn't be able to get a job other wise. Such as those old people who work as greeters. Not to mention, they allow people with limited means to stretch their $ much further. Especially with the current economic environment with high inflation, job losses, wage stagnation in real term, etc. I see Walmart as a way for many families to stretch there $ further.
One would think that you'd be more rightly incensed at the prospect of democrats forcing Americans to join labor unions, which is the plight Walmart seeks to avoid.
Submitted by luchabee on August 6, 2008 - 12:33pm.
Me? No, I would never shop at Wal-Mart, Target, or Costco.
Using my annual income from my family's dynasty trust, I prefer to buy hand-tailored clothes and Italian shoes from small boutiques in Del Mar and Beverly Hills.
This is the only way to go. Don't you think?
Actually, sometimes, I think that liberals truly despise the poor and working class (deep down), in consistently trying to regulate and restrict any industry that provides goods and services to the poor at affordable rates.
Or, maybe they just hate American success stories?
Watching liberals like Obama and others, I believe that they would be content to have $7 dollar-a-gallon gasoline and abolish Wal-Mart's competitive advantage, increasing prices for food and everyday items for the working class. (Of course, they would be "saving the environment" or "preserving the character of the community.")
Why are they like this? I guess, it doesn't affect your average young liberal--as they live in the big city, probably have no children, likely don't run a business, and only drive on the weekends for trips to the mountains or the organic food festival.
Submitted by mydogsarelazy on August 6, 2008 - 3:45pm.
Hi luchabee,
Well, we certainly could bring back slavery. If we could force illegal immigrants into slavery and have them live in tent cities behind every Wal-Mart -- where they would live when they weren't working there -- it would drive down prices even further and the remaining poor and needy would benefit. It would be the ultimate "competitive advantage" don't you think?
Strikes me as a "green" solution too since all those folks living in the tent city wouldn't need cars.
Maybe they could grow medical marijuana there too?
JS
By the way, I am a middle-aged liberal raising kids in an exburb and I drive to work.
Wal-Mart is a great example of free market capitalism. As previously mentioned, they help foster an environment of dis-inflation, competition, and provide jobs for thousands that would otherwise be unemployed (or real estate agents and mortgage brokers). They also provide goods at prices that allow some of the most economically challenged families to live dignified lives(by global standards).
They are not asking employess to vote Republican. They are simply stating facts and educating employees. (Funny though, how when you understand, you end up voting Republican anyway).
To paraphrase an often referenced quote:
If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain.
Submitted by mydogsarelazy on August 6, 2008 - 7:11pm.
michael wrote:
Wal-Mart is a great example of free market capitalism.
For example?
* Giving Inaccurate Testimony to FDIC. In an effort to advance its bid to open in-store 'industrial' banks, Wal-Mart gave regulators misleading statements about whether the company could muscle out the traditional banks already based in its stores. Wal-Mart told the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation -- the nation's bank regulator -- that long-term leases with banks blocked Wal-Mart from moving into commercial banking, because the "leases signed by banks were renewed at the discretion of the banks alone." After a report by Reuters, however, forced Wal-Mart to admit that leases with at least some banks could be renewed only if both the banks and Wal-Mart approve. Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said: "We are beginning to see a pattern of misleading or false statements from Wal-Mart with regard to their interests in branch banking." [Reuters, 5/9/06; Cox News Service, 5/11/06]
* Sanctioned for Unethical Trial Practices. An October 1999 article in Corporate Counsel magazine cited "two dozen cases during the past 18 months" in which Wal-Mart had been sanctioned for discovery abuse, including one $18 million fine. In Texas, a judge who imposed sanctions for discovery abuse said: "Unfortunately, nefarious conduct is all too common in lawsuits in which Wal-Mart is a party." [Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 199 F.R.D. 207, 208 (S.D. Tex. 2001); ABA Journal, March 2002]
what? You pulled up some FDIC example and a nearly 10 year old Unethical Trial Practice example. Give me a break.
50 years ago a small store in Arkansas led by Sam Walton took on the big retailers of its time to become one of the largest companies in the world and you need an example of free market capitalism?
By the way, I am a middle-aged liberal raising kids in an exburb and I drive to work.
I did say average.
Having lived in the Bay Area for five years, including the City, I don't think I ever met any liberal who ran their own business. Maybe 1 out of a 100 liberals I met had a small kid, but also running a business? Never came across this combination . . . Nope, not once.
Now--in addition to having kids, driving to work, living in the exurbs--if you actually owned your own business (and I'm not talking selling things on e-bay), you would be as rare as the come.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen--save an IT startup in the Bay Area--but most (young) liberals have no idea what their "save-the-environment-and make-gas-7-bucks-a-gallon, big-box-stores-are evil" policies would have on the working class if implemented.
Submitted by stockstradr on August 6, 2008 - 11:31pm.
We do shop about once every two weeks at Wal-Mart, but we do NOT enjoy it. Obviously we go there for a limited basket of items on which Wal-Mart undercuts everyone on price.
I've noticed a significant decline in the cleanliness of their stores over the last five years. Also, five years ago Wal-Mart always kept its shelves stocked and organized. Now every Wal-Mart we go to the shelves are a MESS, and often items unstocked and missing.
I see someone wrote this which we AGREE with completely:
worse can't stand some (not all, some) of the shoppers that fit the stereotypes about walmart shoppers there. Glut glut glut of purchases of useless crap.
THAT above is the main reason going to Wal-Mart is like torture we put up with so we can save a few bucks. Screaming and yelling kids running through the aisles, unwatched by their single welfare mom's, who are filling their carts with junk food. Also, we cannot even push a shopping cart through Wal-Mart shopping aisles because so filled up with incredible OBESE illegal immigrants speaking whatever language but they don't understand "excuse me" so they block all the aisles.
Every time my wife and I LEAVE a Wal-Mart, we look at each other and say "THANK GOD we got out of that nasty place!"
So which is it? Are you a conservative or are you a Republican? It's a hard sell calling the Republican party fiscally conservative.
As for Wal Mart being a fine example of free market capitalism, yes, I agree. But free market capitalism doesn't preclude a lot of unethical behavior and unfortunate consequences. We are in the midst of a tiny bit of financial turmoil caused by everybody participating in our free market for housing. How do you think it's going? I know you're going to say it's criminal behavior that caused this mess, but actually crime isn't the largest part of it; the biggest problem is chasing a minuscule increase in yield and legal free market chicanery.
Submitted by Shadowfax on August 6, 2008 - 11:57pm.
So, as another middle-aged, child-rearing, suburb living, car driving liberal (I don't run my own business but my husband does--does that count?), I don't have any problem with Walmart making a profit. And I believe they fulfill a much needed role in providing goods to low income people that they would not be able to afford otherwise. But do they have to be so greedy with their profits? I mean, if your top level execs are making multi-millions, would it hurt to offer at least moderate health care coverage for your workers? Other benefits? How many mansions in the Alps does one CEO need, anyway?
I have only stepped foot--grugingly--into Walmart on a handful of occasions and I certainly agree that it's not a pleasant shopping environment. The stores are chaos and the parking lot even worse--people seem to lose their minds and manners driving to Walmart. There is no sense of "pride" in workers at a Walmart (that would encourage them to straighten up shelves, etc.) because they get the merest of compensation. If you pay at the bottom of the market and give no other incentives to workers (benefits), then they will do the bare minimum to get that paycheck. Ask for help? Are you kidding--they don't want to talk to another rude, demanding, self-interested customer. There's nothing in it for them...
Randomly enough, by contrast, I walked into a Best Buy the other day, which was doing decent business, and was greeted sincerely by a cashier as I walked in. The department that I found myself lost in had a person stocking shelves who stopped what she was doing and asked me if I needed help. She walked me across the store to find the item I was searching for. My kids were with me and she offered to cut a balloon down for each of them from a display nearby that sent them both into heaven.
I know someone that works for Best Buy so I know they have a nice benefits package, good pay scale, good sales training and they really reward hard work, dedication and a customer service mentality. They are also making a hefty profit. So why is rampant unchecked capitalism better than sizeable profit with a heart?
Submitted by CA renter on August 7, 2008 - 2:34am.
So many supply-side economists...
If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?
What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?
Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?
Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?
Which would you rather have:
- good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?
OR
- low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.
BTW, the corporate "benefits" burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and "free" meals at school for the kids, since their parents can't afford food. Poor people -- who are treated like commodities -- tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can't wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won't have to pick up any of Wal-Mart's slack there, no sireee.
I'd rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.
Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.
I don't think the issue is with discount shopping itself. Me personally, I'm always looking for bargains. The beef I have with Walmart is they are more than often in the news or spotlight over stupid sh!t concerning either employee benefits (or lack thereof), discrimination, questionable employment practices,etc. Things companies like Costco,Target,even BigLots are less in the spotlight of.
The fact that Walmart has overly large P.R. department who's so purpose is to improve image of Walmart to me is a sign.
As far as low prices as walmart. Yes you find low prices, but you also find a lot of crap that arguably one doesn't need. Not specific to Walmart, but dozens time i see folks loading up on absolute crap they don't need, because it's "cheap", and these are things that usually end up at garage sales/Goodwill. The problem i see here is overconsumption. To this, I draw an analogy to one thing about American restaurants. Here in America, restaurants give utensils/napkins freely in the wide open. Since it doesn't cost you the consumer anything, more than often I see folks take a stack of napkins, utensils,etc and inevitability throw the out without ever using them during the meal. People do this because they can..It's free, it's cheap, why not? Likewise, I'm not surprised seeing folks that exit places like Walmart loaded up on crap that they really don't need. And these are the very people that really can't be affording to be wasting money.
Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for fewer things I really want rather than pay a lot for a lot of little crappy things i don't need.
Third, the allusion is that places like Walmart,Target,Costco are cheap..Not always the case, it depends. If you need to get something in a hurry, than generally Walmart/Costco are cheaper than other store's regular price. BUT, if you ever plan accordingly, you can find much better deals by shopping around. I buy a lot of toiletry and stuff from Vons for example. Because usually when it goes on sale + coupons + Vons doubling coupons, I usually end up paying much less than target,walmart,costco. It doesn't take a lot of effort to selectively shop, since most of the stores you have to go to regularly anyway.
4th, considering fuel prices. The nearest walmart for me is Clairemont. The nearest target is mira mesa, and the nearest costco are Carlesbad,CarmelMountain and Morena. With today's gas prices, going there specfically to pay a few cents cheaper on toothpaste isn't the most economic solution, while I could walk to Vons to get something a few cents more.
BTW: BigLots is awesome for little things here and there like christmas lights and baby bedsheets(Carter) and holiday cards.
I have never found Costco to be "cheap". In fact, I find the food to be pretty expensive. Costco use to be cheap(er), it aint cheap anymore. My barometer is the 2 gallon concentrate oj from costco. Use to be 2 gallon for $4, now it's closer to 2 gallon for $5.50, which is on par with Vons when vons has a sale, plus costco doesn't take manufacturer coupons.
"NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) on Thursday reported a 3 percent rise in July sales at U.S. stores open at least a year, below Wall Street estimates, and issued a cautious forecast for August sales as shoppers run out of extra cash from tax rebate checks."
Submitted by vagabondo on August 7, 2008 - 8:02am.
Shadowfax wrote:
There is no sense of "pride" in workers at a Walmart (that would encourage them to straighten up shelves, etc.) because they get the merest of compensation. If you pay at the bottom of the market and give no other incentives to workers (benefits), then they will do the bare minimum to get that paycheck. Ask for help? Are you kidding--they don't want to talk to another rude, demanding, self-interested customer. There's nothing in it for them...
You're describing an expectations disconnect. These are not "head-of-household jobs". Are you suggesting there is pay and benefit equality for a stock-boy when compared, for example, to a skilled machinist?
My 12 year old son can competently perform 80%+ of the tasks at any Wal-Mart retail location. With little training, I pay him $10 a week to do similar tasks in our household (taking out the trash, putting dishes on shelves, making his bed, etc.). By contrast, it would take him years to become accomplished running a lathe turning a high purity alloy.
This does not seem to be a question or issue of "pride", rather, unjustified expectations affecting attitude.
I can't respond to the many specific complaints about Wal-Mart--though, in my opinion, most are general complaints about "large stores" and the American consumer having too many purchasing options--as if that is a bad thing.
As to Wal-Mart being the source of ills in modern society, including not paying "living wages" (see comments by vagabondo) and causing small American manufacturing businesses to close, this would have happened with or without Wal-Mart.
Naturally, the US economy faces significant competition. We're not competitive and likely will never obtain the good jobs that were described above . . . making things much worse, businesses face tremendous regulations, high taxes, insane goverment spending, and an aging workforce.
Again, all of this is present with or without Wal-Mart. Targeting Wal-Mart and requiring them to substantially increase benefits will not create new, good jobs; it will only raise prices for the working American consumer and cause Wal-Mart to fire thousands of very low-skilled employees.
I don't think the issue is with discount shopping itself. Me personally, I'm always looking for bargains. The beef I have with Walmart is they are more than often in the news or spotlight over stupid sh!t concerning either employee benefits (or lack thereof), discrimination, questionable employment practices,etc. Things companies like Costco,Target,even BigLots are less in the spotlight of.
The fact that Walmart has overly large P.R. department who's so purpose is to improve image of Walmart to me is a sign.
When you employ 1.5 million people, even if only 1% are dissatisfied, you're talking about 15,000 people. When 15,000 people complain very loudly, it does give a company a pretty bad image. I also find that the one that's dissatisfied are the one that's loudest in voicing their opinion.
fat_lazy_union_worker wrote:
As far as low prices as walmart. Yes you find low prices, but you also find a lot of crap that arguably one doesn't need. Not specific to Walmart, but dozens time i see folks loading up on absolute crap they don't need, because it's "cheap", and these are things that usually end up at garage sales/Goodwill. The problem i see here is overconsumption. To this, I draw an analogy to one thing about American restaurants. Here in America, restaurants give utensils/napkins freely in the wide open. Since it doesn't cost you the consumer anything, more than often I see folks take a stack of napkins, utensils,etc and inevitability throw the out without ever using them during the meal. People do this because they can..It's free, it's cheap, why not? Likewise, I'm not surprised seeing folks that exit places like Walmart loaded up on crap that they really don't need. And these are the very people that really can't be affording to be wasting money.
Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for fewer things I really want rather than pay a lot for a lot of little crappy things i don't need.
You miss one scenario. I'd much rather pay less for few things I really want than the 2 scenario you presented. Your description struck at the core of the average American consumers. Why do you think so many people buy SUV, 3000+ sq-ft houses, etc. American love to consume, period. Be it from Walmart or GM. If it's the over consumption that disgust you, you shouldn't blame that on Walmart, but rather, blame that on those consumers. Walmart never put a gun to their head and force them to buy anything.
fat_lazy_union_worker wrote:
Third, the allusion is that places like Walmart,Target,Costco are cheap..Not always the case, it depends. If you need to get something in a hurry, than generally Walmart/Costco are cheaper than other store's regular price. BUT, if you ever plan accordingly, you can find much better deals by shopping around. I buy a lot of toiletry and stuff from Vons for example. Because usually when it goes on sale + coupons + Vons doubling coupons, I usually end up paying much less than target,walmart,costco. It doesn't take a lot of effort to selectively shop, since most of the stores you have to go to regularly anyway.
I agree that VONS + double coupon + sales does end up being cheaper than Walmart, Costco, etc. However, how often does everything you need end up being on sale and have coupon as well? I know people who are very frugal and clip coupons all the time. Yet, they still go to Costco to buy certain things. So, if you use a combination of both, you'll get your lowest cost.
fat_lazy_union_worker wrote:
4th, considering fuel prices. The nearest walmart for me is Clairemont. The nearest target is mira mesa, and the nearest costco are Carlesbad,CarmelMountain and Morena. With today's gas prices, going there specfically to pay a few cents cheaper on toothpaste isn't the most economic solution, while I could walk to Vons to get something a few cents more.
BTW: BigLots is awesome for little things here and there like christmas lights and baby bedsheets(Carter) and holiday cards.
I have never found Costco to be "cheap". In fact, I find the food to be pretty expensive. Costco use to be cheap(er), it aint cheap anymore. My barometer is the 2 gallon concentrate oj from costco. Use to be 2 gallon for $4, now it's closer to 2 gallon for $5.50, which is on par with Vons when vons has a sale, plus costco doesn't take manufacturer coupons.
Not everyone have a luxury of being able to walk to a supermarket. The drive to Costco is only 4-5 more than the drive to Vons for me. @ 20MPG and $4.5/gal, you're talking about $1-2 in fuel. So, if you can save more than $1, you're already better off. One example I find that Costco is cheaper in food is, eggs. At Vons, even when on sales, you're talking about $3-4 for 24 eggs. Costco will usually have 18 eggs for around $1.50. Also, the quality of meat at Costco is much better than Vons. Even a Ruth Chris's chef recommend to buy meat at Costco if you want better quality.
I do agree that distance does make a difference in where I go to buy things. I rarely go to Walmart now, because it is farther way. When I used to live in Oceanside, I had 4 Walmart options w/in 5-10 minutes drive from my house.
If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?
Where did you get the 10% and 20% number from? Did you just make that up? What if prices went down 10% but your wages stay the same? Are you better off?
CA renter wrote:
What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?
Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?
Same can be said about almost anything you buy these days, including, Macy's, Sears, Banana Republic, Gap, etc. They are all manufactured outside of America.
CA renter wrote:
Which would you rather have:
- good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?
OR
- low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.
CA renter wrote:
BTW, the corporate "benefits" burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and "free" meals at school for the kids, since their parents can't afford food. Poor people -- who are treated like commodities -- tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can't wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won't have to pick up any of Wal-Mart's slack there, no sireee.
Do you have any proof in this? Not all low paying jobs are at Walmart. What do those minimum wage worker at other places supposed to do with their low wage?
CA renter wrote:
I'd rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.
Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.
What is consider healthy demand? Low or high? The only way you can control demand is through price. So when you jack up the price to limit demand, who's reaping the benefit? I highly doubt it's the J6p with their minimum wage. I love it when people cheer for high price to limit demand. I guess you should cheer for high housing price as well, because it definitely limit demand.
My Party
Should Respect
Secret Union Ballots
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008; Page A13
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.
Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.
I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.
While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
Submitted by mydogsarelazy on August 8, 2008 - 2:27pm.
Hi Michael,
To take this conversation sideways a bit, the quote you provided seems to be a variation on a quote that has been mis-attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and others:
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
It is a biting quote that seems to have no real historical figure standing behind it. There was, however a 19th century French historian and statesman, François Guizot who said:
"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."
Submitted by stockstradr on August 8, 2008 - 8:39pm.
I'm sure you'll laugh at me but I am also a man who is a big coupon-clipper. I agree with fat_lazy_union_worker that you can SAVE BIG with coupons, albeit on a very limited set of items for which coupons regularly appear.
For a year I’ve been showing my wife about the fun of using coupons and she’s finally getting into the fun of it. Each weekend about five different newspapers land on our stoop, and I clip coupons after reading the financial news. We have a manila folder completely stuffed with coupons, which we pick through for deals while shopping.
My wife has finally seen the light of the cheapskate lifestyle by watching me weekly do the Double Slam (manufacturer coupons combined with a grocery story coupon) to get $3 or $4 priced items for less than a DIME each.
One typical example are the triple and quad-blade shavers for men and women. Some suppliers have had a hard time selling those expensive shavers, so they have resorted to coupons offering $3 or even $4 off a package of one or two quantity of those razors. Combined with the occasional store discounts (Wal-Mart or Target), my wife and I have been getting those 3-blade or 4-blade razors for about $0.10 each.
Plus you OFTEN have the added benefit that those moronic Wal-Mart checkout people won’t even check the coupon expiration dates or even notice when two coupons cannot be used together. And they often get confused by coupons and invariably make a mistake on our order that is very much in our favor.
We like to make being cheap a Way of Life!
We are also brutal on the grocery stores when it comes to attacking their "loss-leader" specials on select items. Von's or Safeway might once every three months have a coupon in their ad sheet for say five lbs of sugar for $0.50. We'll go use five of those coupons separately to buy twenty-five lbs of sugar for $2.50. We are such cheapskates.
You know how I learned to be a cheapskate shopper? Hanging around with Chinese people who came from mainland China! They are unbelievably skilled at saving money. The older ones lived through Mao's horrible famine from the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 when some 30 million Chinese starved to death. Honestly, these people will show you how to eat in America for about a dollar a day.
I hate the company, can't stand the people that work there, and worse can't stand some (not all, some) of the shoppers that fit the stereotypes about walmart shoppers there. Glut glut glut of purchases of useless crap.
That said, I rarely step foot in a Walmart in principle. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of people are willing to put up with Walmart for the low prices. So I doubt this will affect anything.
If it really bothers people, they wouldn't shop there. In practice, faced with prices/cheap stuff, some people don't put there money where their mouth is.
I don't shop ar Wall Mart because it is out of my way but I think that Wal mart benefits me jsut the same because it forces price competition and forces companies to be creative aas a way of attracting my dollar. this is usually in the form of better service or selection. Without Wal Mart many of these companies might be the very ones we are complaining about.
I love Walmart just as much as I love Costco. When I used to live in Oceanside, I'd go to Walmart all the time for stuff that I do not need to buy in bulk at Costco, because there were 4 Walmart w/in 5-10 minutes drive. Maybe it's the cheapskate trait in my Asian blood, but Walmart really make my $ go much further. I don't see it as putting up with anything but rather, supporting the companies that embody capitalism at its best.
Walmart does bring a lot of jobs to the area. They also employ some people who wouldn't be able to get a job other wise. Such as those old people who work as greeters. Not to mention, they allow people with limited means to stretch their $ much further. Especially with the current economic environment with high inflation, job losses, wage stagnation in real term, etc. I see Walmart as a way for many families to stretch there $ further.
They reduce inflation singlehandedly by up to 1%
Walmart is the largest employer in the nation.
One would think that you'd be more rightly incensed at the prospect of democrats forcing Americans to join labor unions, which is the plight Walmart seeks to avoid.
Me? No, I would never shop at Wal-Mart, Target, or Costco.
Using my annual income from my family's dynasty trust, I prefer to buy hand-tailored clothes and Italian shoes from small boutiques in Del Mar and Beverly Hills.
This is the only way to go. Don't you think?
Actually, sometimes, I think that liberals truly despise the poor and working class (deep down), in consistently trying to regulate and restrict any industry that provides goods and services to the poor at affordable rates.
Or, maybe they just hate American success stories?
Watching liberals like Obama and others, I believe that they would be content to have $7 dollar-a-gallon gasoline and abolish Wal-Mart's competitive advantage, increasing prices for food and everyday items for the working class. (Of course, they would be "saving the environment" or "preserving the character of the community.")
Why are they like this? I guess, it doesn't affect your average young liberal--as they live in the big city, probably have no children, likely don't run a business, and only drive on the weekends for trips to the mountains or the organic food festival.
Hi luchabee,
Well, we certainly could bring back slavery. If we could force illegal immigrants into slavery and have them live in tent cities behind every Wal-Mart -- where they would live when they weren't working there -- it would drive down prices even further and the remaining poor and needy would benefit. It would be the ultimate "competitive advantage" don't you think?
Strikes me as a "green" solution too since all those folks living in the tent city wouldn't need cars.
Maybe they could grow medical marijuana there too?
JS
By the way, I am a middle-aged liberal raising kids in an exburb and I drive to work.
Wal-Mart is a great example of free market capitalism. As previously mentioned, they help foster an environment of dis-inflation, competition, and provide jobs for thousands that would otherwise be unemployed (or real estate agents and mortgage brokers). They also provide goods at prices that allow some of the most economically challenged families to live dignified lives(by global standards).
They are not asking employess to vote Republican. They are simply stating facts and educating employees. (Funny though, how when you understand, you end up voting Republican anyway).
To paraphrase an often referenced quote:
If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain.
This is the only way to go. Don't you think?
Si, lol.
For example?
* Giving Inaccurate Testimony to FDIC. In an effort to advance its bid to open in-store 'industrial' banks, Wal-Mart gave regulators misleading statements about whether the company could muscle out the traditional banks already based in its stores. Wal-Mart told the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation -- the nation's bank regulator -- that long-term leases with banks blocked Wal-Mart from moving into commercial banking, because the "leases signed by banks were renewed at the discretion of the banks alone." After a report by Reuters, however, forced Wal-Mart to admit that leases with at least some banks could be renewed only if both the banks and Wal-Mart approve. Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said: "We are beginning to see a pattern of misleading or false statements from Wal-Mart with regard to their interests in branch banking." [Reuters, 5/9/06; Cox News Service, 5/11/06]
* Sanctioned for Unethical Trial Practices. An October 1999 article in Corporate Counsel magazine cited "two dozen cases during the past 18 months" in which Wal-Mart had been sanctioned for discovery abuse, including one $18 million fine. In Texas, a judge who imposed sanctions for discovery abuse said: "Unfortunately, nefarious conduct is all too common in lawsuits in which Wal-Mart is a party." [Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 199 F.R.D. 207, 208 (S.D. Tex. 2001); ABA Journal, March 2002]
what? You pulled up some FDIC example and a nearly 10 year old Unethical Trial Practice example. Give me a break.
50 years ago a small store in Arkansas led by Sam Walton took on the big retailers of its time to become one of the largest companies in the world and you need an example of free market capitalism?
-
By the way, I am a middle-aged liberal raising kids in an exburb and I drive to work.
I did say average.
Having lived in the Bay Area for five years, including the City, I don't think I ever met any liberal who ran their own business. Maybe 1 out of a 100 liberals I met had a small kid, but also running a business? Never came across this combination . . . Nope, not once.
Now--in addition to having kids, driving to work, living in the exurbs--if you actually owned your own business (and I'm not talking selling things on e-bay), you would be as rare as the come.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen--save an IT startup in the Bay Area--but most (young) liberals have no idea what their "save-the-environment-and make-gas-7-bucks-a-gallon, big-box-stores-are evil" policies would have on the working class if implemented.
But, of course, that's just my opinion.
We do shop about once every two weeks at Wal-Mart, but we do NOT enjoy it. Obviously we go there for a limited basket of items on which Wal-Mart undercuts everyone on price.
I've noticed a significant decline in the cleanliness of their stores over the last five years. Also, five years ago Wal-Mart always kept its shelves stocked and organized. Now every Wal-Mart we go to the shelves are a MESS, and often items unstocked and missing.
I see someone wrote this which we AGREE with completely:
worse can't stand some (not all, some) of the shoppers that fit the stereotypes about walmart shoppers there. Glut glut glut of purchases of useless crap.
THAT above is the main reason going to Wal-Mart is like torture we put up with so we can save a few bucks. Screaming and yelling kids running through the aisles, unwatched by their single welfare mom's, who are filling their carts with junk food. Also, we cannot even push a shopping cart through Wal-Mart shopping aisles because so filled up with incredible OBESE illegal immigrants speaking whatever language but they don't understand "excuse me" so they block all the aisles.
Every time my wife and I LEAVE a Wal-Mart, we look at each other and say "THANK GOD we got out of that nasty place!"
We buy ~80% of our groceries from COSTCO
So which is it? Are you a conservative or are you a Republican? It's a hard sell calling the Republican party fiscally conservative.
As for Wal Mart being a fine example of free market capitalism, yes, I agree. But free market capitalism doesn't preclude a lot of unethical behavior and unfortunate consequences. We are in the midst of a tiny bit of financial turmoil caused by everybody participating in our free market for housing. How do you think it's going? I know you're going to say it's criminal behavior that caused this mess, but actually crime isn't the largest part of it; the biggest problem is chasing a minuscule increase in yield and legal free market chicanery.
So, as another middle-aged, child-rearing, suburb living, car driving liberal (I don't run my own business but my husband does--does that count?), I don't have any problem with Walmart making a profit. And I believe they fulfill a much needed role in providing goods to low income people that they would not be able to afford otherwise. But do they have to be so greedy with their profits? I mean, if your top level execs are making multi-millions, would it hurt to offer at least moderate health care coverage for your workers? Other benefits? How many mansions in the Alps does one CEO need, anyway?
I have only stepped foot--grugingly--into Walmart on a handful of occasions and I certainly agree that it's not a pleasant shopping environment. The stores are chaos and the parking lot even worse--people seem to lose their minds and manners driving to Walmart. There is no sense of "pride" in workers at a Walmart (that would encourage them to straighten up shelves, etc.) because they get the merest of compensation. If you pay at the bottom of the market and give no other incentives to workers (benefits), then they will do the bare minimum to get that paycheck. Ask for help? Are you kidding--they don't want to talk to another rude, demanding, self-interested customer. There's nothing in it for them...
Randomly enough, by contrast, I walked into a Best Buy the other day, which was doing decent business, and was greeted sincerely by a cashier as I walked in. The department that I found myself lost in had a person stocking shelves who stopped what she was doing and asked me if I needed help. She walked me across the store to find the item I was searching for. My kids were with me and she offered to cut a balloon down for each of them from a display nearby that sent them both into heaven.
I know someone that works for Best Buy so I know they have a nice benefits package, good pay scale, good sales training and they really reward hard work, dedication and a customer service mentality. They are also making a hefty profit. So why is rampant unchecked capitalism better than sizeable profit with a heart?
So many supply-side economists...
If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?
What about all the manufacturing jobs Wal-Mart decimated when they started purchasing from overseas markets (slave labor)?
Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?
Did our unemployment rate take a dive as Wal-Mart grew?
Which would you rather have:
- good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?
OR
- low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.
BTW, the corporate "benefits" burden is shifted onto the taxpayers in emergency medicine, food stamps, and "free" meals at school for the kids, since their parents can't afford food. Poor people -- who are treated like commodities -- tend to commit more crimes, so we likely have higher law enforcement costs, too. Can't wait to see the plush retirement portfolios of all those wealthy W-M workers when they retire. For sure, taxpayers won't have to pick up any of Wal-Mart's slack there, no sireee.
I'd rather focus on the demand side than the supply side. If the demand (J6, the customer) is healthy, the rest will take care of itself.
Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.
luchabee,
I don't think the issue is with discount shopping itself. Me personally, I'm always looking for bargains. The beef I have with Walmart is they are more than often in the news or spotlight over stupid sh!t concerning either employee benefits (or lack thereof), discrimination, questionable employment practices,etc. Things companies like Costco,Target,even BigLots are less in the spotlight of.
The fact that Walmart has overly large P.R. department who's so purpose is to improve image of Walmart to me is a sign.
As far as low prices as walmart. Yes you find low prices, but you also find a lot of crap that arguably one doesn't need. Not specific to Walmart, but dozens time i see folks loading up on absolute crap they don't need, because it's "cheap", and these are things that usually end up at garage sales/Goodwill. The problem i see here is overconsumption. To this, I draw an analogy to one thing about American restaurants. Here in America, restaurants give utensils/napkins freely in the wide open. Since it doesn't cost you the consumer anything, more than often I see folks take a stack of napkins, utensils,etc and inevitability throw the out without ever using them during the meal. People do this because they can..It's free, it's cheap, why not? Likewise, I'm not surprised seeing folks that exit places like Walmart loaded up on crap that they really don't need. And these are the very people that really can't be affording to be wasting money.
Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for fewer things I really want rather than pay a lot for a lot of little crappy things i don't need.
Third, the allusion is that places like Walmart,Target,Costco are cheap..Not always the case, it depends. If you need to get something in a hurry, than generally Walmart/Costco are cheaper than other store's regular price. BUT, if you ever plan accordingly, you can find much better deals by shopping around. I buy a lot of toiletry and stuff from Vons for example. Because usually when it goes on sale + coupons + Vons doubling coupons, I usually end up paying much less than target,walmart,costco. It doesn't take a lot of effort to selectively shop, since most of the stores you have to go to regularly anyway.
4th, considering fuel prices. The nearest walmart for me is Clairemont. The nearest target is mira mesa, and the nearest costco are Carlesbad,CarmelMountain and Morena. With today's gas prices, going there specfically to pay a few cents cheaper on toothpaste isn't the most economic solution, while I could walk to Vons to get something a few cents more.
BTW: BigLots is awesome for little things here and there like christmas lights and baby bedsheets(Carter) and holiday cards.
I have never found Costco to be "cheap". In fact, I find the food to be pretty expensive. Costco use to be cheap(er), it aint cheap anymore. My barometer is the 2 gallon concentrate oj from costco. Use to be 2 gallon for $4, now it's closer to 2 gallon for $5.50, which is on par with Vons when vons has a sale, plus costco doesn't take manufacturer coupons.
And for walmart haters...
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNe...
Walmart misses. weep weep...
"NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) on Thursday reported a 3 percent rise in July sales at U.S. stores open at least a year, below Wall Street estimates, and issued a cautious forecast for August sales as shoppers run out of extra cash from tax rebate checks."
You're describing an expectations disconnect. These are not "head-of-household jobs". Are you suggesting there is pay and benefit equality for a stock-boy when compared, for example, to a skilled machinist?
My 12 year old son can competently perform 80%+ of the tasks at any Wal-Mart retail location. With little training, I pay him $10 a week to do similar tasks in our household (taking out the trash, putting dishes on shelves, making his bed, etc.). By contrast, it would take him years to become accomplished running a lathe turning a high purity alloy.
This does not seem to be a question or issue of "pride", rather, unjustified expectations affecting attitude.
I can't respond to the many specific complaints about Wal-Mart--though, in my opinion, most are general complaints about "large stores" and the American consumer having too many purchasing options--as if that is a bad thing.
As to Wal-Mart being the source of ills in modern society, including not paying "living wages" (see comments by vagabondo) and causing small American manufacturing businesses to close, this would have happened with or without Wal-Mart.
Naturally, the US economy faces significant competition. We're not competitive and likely will never obtain the good jobs that were described above . . . making things much worse, businesses face tremendous regulations, high taxes, insane goverment spending, and an aging workforce.
Again, all of this is present with or without Wal-Mart. Targeting Wal-Mart and requiring them to substantially increase benefits will not create new, good jobs; it will only raise prices for the working American consumer and cause Wal-Mart to fire thousands of very low-skilled employees.
I don't think the issue is with discount shopping itself. Me personally, I'm always looking for bargains. The beef I have with Walmart is they are more than often in the news or spotlight over stupid sh!t concerning either employee benefits (or lack thereof), discrimination, questionable employment practices,etc. Things companies like Costco,Target,even BigLots are less in the spotlight of.
The fact that Walmart has overly large P.R. department who's so purpose is to improve image of Walmart to me is a sign.
When you employ 1.5 million people, even if only 1% are dissatisfied, you're talking about 15,000 people. When 15,000 people complain very loudly, it does give a company a pretty bad image. I also find that the one that's dissatisfied are the one that's loudest in voicing their opinion.
Personally, I'd rather pay a little more for fewer things I really want rather than pay a lot for a lot of little crappy things i don't need.
You miss one scenario. I'd much rather pay less for few things I really want than the 2 scenario you presented. Your description struck at the core of the average American consumers. Why do you think so many people buy SUV, 3000+ sq-ft houses, etc. American love to consume, period. Be it from Walmart or GM. If it's the over consumption that disgust you, you shouldn't blame that on Walmart, but rather, blame that on those consumers. Walmart never put a gun to their head and force them to buy anything.
I agree that VONS + double coupon + sales does end up being cheaper than Walmart, Costco, etc. However, how often does everything you need end up being on sale and have coupon as well? I know people who are very frugal and clip coupons all the time. Yet, they still go to Costco to buy certain things. So, if you use a combination of both, you'll get your lowest cost.
BTW: BigLots is awesome for little things here and there like christmas lights and baby bedsheets(Carter) and holiday cards.
I have never found Costco to be "cheap". In fact, I find the food to be pretty expensive. Costco use to be cheap(er), it aint cheap anymore. My barometer is the 2 gallon concentrate oj from costco. Use to be 2 gallon for $4, now it's closer to 2 gallon for $5.50, which is on par with Vons when vons has a sale, plus costco doesn't take manufacturer coupons.
Not everyone have a luxury of being able to walk to a supermarket. The drive to Costco is only 4-5 more than the drive to Vons for me. @ 20MPG and $4.5/gal, you're talking about $1-2 in fuel. So, if you can save more than $1, you're already better off. One example I find that Costco is cheaper in food is, eggs. At Vons, even when on sales, you're talking about $3-4 for 24 eggs. Costco will usually have 18 eggs for around $1.50. Also, the quality of meat at Costco is much better than Vons. Even a Ruth Chris's chef recommend to buy meat at Costco if you want better quality.
I do agree that distance does make a difference in where I go to buy things. I rarely go to Walmart now, because it is farther way. When I used to live in Oceanside, I had 4 Walmart options w/in 5-10 minutes drive from my house.
If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off?
Where did you get the 10% and 20% number from? Did you just make that up? What if prices went down 10% but your wages stay the same? Are you better off?
Are the retail jobs they provide better than the manufacturing jobs they displaced? What about the small retail shops that were shut down after Wal-Mart moved in? Did the sole proprietors make less or more before Wal-Mart came to town?
Same can be said about almost anything you buy these days, including, Macy's, Sears, Banana Republic, Gap, etc. They are all manufactured outside of America.
- good-paying jobs with benefits, while paying slightly higher costs for higher-quality goods?
OR
- low-wage jobs with no benefits and slightly lower costs for lower-quality goods.
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.
Do you have any proof in this? Not all low paying jobs are at Walmart. What do those minimum wage worker at other places supposed to do with their low wage?
Wal-Mart has HUGE margins, because they beat-up their suppliers and still keep prices high on the retail side, relatively speaking. With the exception of offering convenience (and they do this well), they are NOT doing us any favors.
What is consider healthy demand? Low or high? The only way you can control demand is through price. So when you jack up the price to limit demand, who's reaping the benefit? I highly doubt it's the J6p with their minimum wage. I love it when people cheer for high price to limit demand. I guess you should cheer for high housing price as well, because it definitely limit demand.
A democrat that recognizes the real issue behind Wal-Mart's actions...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12181550...
My Party
Should Respect
Secret Union Ballots
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008; Page A13
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.
Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.
I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.
While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
Alas, George is an honest liberal. That's why he only carried Taxachusetts & DC.
Honest and articulate. Amazing.
Michael,
I thought you said that "If you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain."
Mr. McGovern seems to think quite clearly and independently.
Let's watch the generalizations.
JS
Precisely... the older Mr. McGovern gets, the wiser and more conservative he becomes. :)
Hi Michael,
To take this conversation sideways a bit, the quote you provided seems to be a variation on a quote that has been mis-attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and others:
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
It is a biting quote that seems to have no real historical figure standing behind it. There was, however a 19th century French historian and statesman, François Guizot who said:
"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."
JS
I'm sure you'll laugh at me but I am also a man who is a big coupon-clipper. I agree with fat_lazy_union_worker that you can SAVE BIG with coupons, albeit on a very limited set of items for which coupons regularly appear.
For a year I’ve been showing my wife about the fun of using coupons and she’s finally getting into the fun of it. Each weekend about five different newspapers land on our stoop, and I clip coupons after reading the financial news. We have a manila folder completely stuffed with coupons, which we pick through for deals while shopping.
My wife has finally seen the light of the cheapskate lifestyle by watching me weekly do the Double Slam (manufacturer coupons combined with a grocery story coupon) to get $3 or $4 priced items for less than a DIME each.
One typical example are the triple and quad-blade shavers for men and women. Some suppliers have had a hard time selling those expensive shavers, so they have resorted to coupons offering $3 or even $4 off a package of one or two quantity of those razors. Combined with the occasional store discounts (Wal-Mart or Target), my wife and I have been getting those 3-blade or 4-blade razors for about $0.10 each.
Plus you OFTEN have the added benefit that those moronic Wal-Mart checkout people won’t even check the coupon expiration dates or even notice when two coupons cannot be used together. And they often get confused by coupons and invariably make a mistake on our order that is very much in our favor.
We like to make being cheap a Way of Life!
We are also brutal on the grocery stores when it comes to attacking their "loss-leader" specials on select items. Von's or Safeway might once every three months have a coupon in their ad sheet for say five lbs of sugar for $0.50. We'll go use five of those coupons separately to buy twenty-five lbs of sugar for $2.50. We are such cheapskates.
You know how I learned to be a cheapskate shopper? Hanging around with Chinese people who came from mainland China! They are unbelievably skilled at saving money. The older ones lived through Mao's horrible famine from the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 when some 30 million Chinese starved to death. Honestly, these people will show you how to eat in America for about a dollar a day.