OT: Wal-Mart Watch.com

[luchabee]

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.

[luchabee]

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.

[an]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]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.
[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off? [/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off? [/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off? [/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off? [/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]So many supply-side economists…

If prices go down 10%, but your wages go down 20%, are you better off? [/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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?[/quote]

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.

[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
For one, those are not the only two option. But seeing how people respond with their wallet, they rather have the 2nd option.

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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?

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]
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.

[michael]

A democrat that recognizes the real issue behind Wal-Mart’s actions…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

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.

[michael]

A democrat that recognizes the real issue behind Wal-Mart’s actions…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

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.

[michael]

A democrat that recognizes the real issue behind Wal-Mart’s actions…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

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.

[Author]

Posts