Welcome to Wal-Mart

[cre8tiff]

This is demonstratably false, and has been proven with scientific study.  I think the reason your fisrt hand experience is different is becuase you are a crackwh0re fiend who lives in the ghetto, hence there is no business there.  Thanks for playing though, it is nice to know you at least have the memory to recite michael moores anti-walmart talking points.

 

About 10 years ago, a Walmart Supercenter went in on the side of town all by itself in a deserted area.  Now, the whole area is covered is stores, banks, resturants, etc.  Golf shops, hallmarks, you name it, they are there.

 

I step foot in a walmart twice per year, once to refill my 3 propane tanks for outdoor grills, and once to renew my fishing license.  I get it there cause I can also stock up on ammo and fishing supplies.

 

I don't hate walmart, I just hate going to walmart.

 

And cre8tiff, you are a moran.

 

1316499[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Nice to know you. Send your research, then let's party.

Edited February 9, 2006 by cre8tiff

[wiegie]

Nice to know you. Send your research, then let's party.

1316520[/snapback]

I'm ready to party!

 

<-- click me

[cre8tiff]

Have to agree with Az here.

 

I know #4 is pure BS.  On construction sites the general contractor or construction manager is responsible for the storm water polution prevention plan and for maintaining the SWPPP.  While 17 fo the sites might have been sited, it wouldn't be Wal-Mart that got sited, it would be the general contractor or construction manager.

1316462[/snapback]

 

<---Straight from the EPA website. Wal-Mart is a responsible party along with the subcontractor because they ordered the work.

[cre8tiff]

I'm ready to party!

 

  <-- click me

1316534[/snapback]

 

en guarde Click --->

 

Your authors should have referenced that paper before saying things like

Thus, while we do not estimate the costs to workers who may receive lower

wages and benefits, we find the effects of supercenter entry and expansion to be

sufficiently large so that overall we find it to be extremely unlikely that the expansion of

supercenters does not confer a significant overall benefit to consumers.

 

That's quite an assumption for a paper of that impact.

Edited February 9, 2006 by cre8tiff

[wiegie]

en guarde Click --->

 

Your authors should have referenced that paper before saying things like

That's quite an assumption for a paper of that impact.

 

1316571[/snapback]

 

 

 

See the first full sentence on page 8 of your paper. It clearly indicates that the point which made your first call for links to research on (that Walmart drives out competition and then raises prices) was not considered in the study you cite.

 

Edit to add: I just saw your edit: so I will throw your comment right back at you with the following which is taken from your paper:

Of course, one key factor that our study does not capture is that Wal-Mart lowers prices paid by consumers in the community, at least in the short- to medium-run.

Edited February 9, 2006 by wiegie

[Perchoutofwater]

<---Straight from the EPA website. Wal-Mart is a responsible party along with the subcontractor because they ordered the work.

 

1316554[/snapback]

 

 

 

The law has changed quite a bit in this regard in the last five years. Then and now it is the contractors responsiblity to file and maintain the SWPPP. It's just like a building permit, the owner doesn't go into get it, the contractors do, though the owners have to sign it. Also, around 2000 when they were sited was when the law went from them having to file an SWPPP on any disturbance over 25 acres to any disturbance over 5. So they might have got caught in that, thinking that the old law of 25 acres still applied, and that they didn't need to file a SWPPP. All they sited them for was not filing which supports my assumption that they were not aware of the change (it's not like the EPA send fliers out to everyone), and some silt runoff on the adjacent property, and not maintaining the silt fences, which if they were under the assumption that they didn't have to file wasn't a big deal. This is really ticky tack, and worse than the D-Jax pass interference call. It's not like they were dumping paint or chemicals in the creek behind the building.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Perchoutofwater

[Big F'n Dave]

About 10 years ago, a Walmart Supercenter went in on the side of town all by itself in a deserted area.  Now, the whole area is covered is stores, banks, resturants, etc.  Golf shops, hallmarks, you name it, they are there.

 

1316499[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Odd. About 15 years ago, a WalMart Supercenter opened here in my town. Now there are empty buidlings where Kmart and Price-Lo Foods and PayLess Shoes and Market Basket and several smaller independent shops used to be. Stick the studies you refer to and never produce in your ass, Barbara. I know what I see.

[H8tank]

WalMart Supercenter opened here in my town. Now there are empty buidlings where Kmart and Price-Lo Foods and PayLess Shoes

 

It's because you lived in a repressed schithole.

 

If your community is so bad and poor, that the populace can only buy shoes from a walmart... then what does that say about you?

 

I drive by community's like yours and laugh.

[Big F'n Dave]

Good one, H8.

[The Holy Roller]

Wow. Wal Mart is more devisive than abortion.

 

What would happen if Wal Mart took over the health care of America? Wowzers!

[I Like Soup]

Hey Grunge...have you been to the new Supercenter Walmart about a mile and a half from us? It is nice...lets saddle up and take a field trip and I'll show you how good it is.

 

I'll even drive...

 

I don't begrudge Wal-Mart for being better than the mom and pop stores that they displace...that is good business. Since when did it become bad to beat your competition in the marketplace? Sure, it sucks for the local business, but that is capitalism at its finest. A business grows, takes advantage of being able to leverage suppliers for lower costs, greater economies of scales, etc...and one day they are winning the business battle. It is the American way. But...

 

I will say, unfair labor practices, utilizing a work force that is taking advantage of the health care system, etc. should give people pause. But...in the end...people prove their true colors if they shop there. And I'm sure there is some tradeoff with giving people an opportunity to get an entry level job, etc.

[WaterMan]

Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Exxon should merge.

[cre8tiff]

See the first full sentence on page 8 of your paper.  It clearly indicates that the point which made your first call for links to research on (that Walmart drives out competition and then raises prices) was not considered in the study you cite.

 

Edit to add:  I just saw your edit: so I will throw your comment right back at you with the following which is taken from your paper:

 

1316634[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I hear what you are saying, but the logic that people below the poverty line are somehow better off because they can shop at Wal-Mart doesn't hold water.

 

I will say that is a well thought out point, though, weigie. This is gonna be fun!

 

The paper you linked to does an admirable job of proving that the presence of megastores like Wal-Mart do indeed result in lower prices. I will grant you that point. (As a side note, I didn't make the raising prices argument ) My argument here is at what human cost does this pricing come? I believe the debate here is how does Wal-Mart affect the communities in which they place stores? To that end, I presented the paper in the link. I still want you to point out where in the paper you gave me does it specifically say, AND PROVE with the same kind of statistics given in the Goetz and Swaminathan paper, the presence of a Wal-Mart store is improving the conditions in the communities and NOT degrading some portion of the population.

 

The closest they come is by saying, things like:

For household

income below $10,000 we estimate compensation variation in the range of 29% of

household food expenditure. Thus, these less well-off households benefit greatly by

shopping at supercenters. Indeed, they benefit by approximately 50% more than the

average effect we estimate in Table 6.1. As income increases we estimate decreased

proportions of compensating variation as a percentage of food expenditure. Thus, we

conclude that less well-off households benefit the most by the spread of supercenters.33

 

and

The spread of supercenters has the greatest impact on poorer households and

minority households.

 

Good thing, too, since the arrival of these mega-stores is sending so many of the locals into just that demographic.

Edited February 10, 2006 by cre8tiff

[H8tank]

Good thing, too, since the arrival of these mega-stores is sending so many of the locals into just that demographic.

 

How much do you think payless shoes pays employees?

 

You kommunists need to move to china with this hatred of business.

[Azazello1313]

I hear what you are saying, but the logic that people below the poverty line are somehow better off because they can shop at Wal-Mart doesn't hold water.

1317099[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

it doesn't?

 

mind explaining why?

Edited February 10, 2006 by Azazello1313

[cre8tiff]

it doesn't?

 

mind explaining why?

 

1317124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you read the paper I link to, it draws a parallel between the emergence of a Wal-Mart in a community and a rising poverty rate. I doubt very sincerely those people who are displaced or who lose thier full-time job to be hired part-time by Wal-Mart without Healthcare are comforted by the fact they now pay $.50 less for a can of tuna. Wal-Mart likes to advertise that is gets it's low prices from "volume pricing" and that is true to a certain extent. However thier biggest cost savings in in employee and insurance costs:

 

In 2001, the last year for which Wal-Mart has released figures for most occupations, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03 and US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

 

A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]"

 

Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees.

 

Again, people like me and you who are not dependent upon Wal-Mart for employment think it's GREAT, but those low prices come at the expense of these families.

Edited February 10, 2006 by cre8tiff

[Perchoutofwater]

If you read the paper I link to, it draws a parallel between the emergence of a Wal-Mart in a community and a rising poverty rate.

1317149[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Ever stop to think that Walmart knows it does better in areas where poverty is high, and that they look at trends in an area before then build a store there? I know me personally I try not to ever go to Walmart. I hate the crowds, the poor customer service, the lines, etc... Now if I was struggling to make ends meet you bet your ass I'd be shopping at Walmart.

[major-tom]

I hate shopping at Wal Mart but really can't afford not to. If you can avoid their peak hours you're obviously much better off.

 

Here in Albuquerque in a Wal Mart parking lot a man was attacking his girlfriend with a knife. Luckily a vigilante with a gun saw it happening and shot him dead before he killed her.

[cre8tiff]

Ever stop to think that Walmart knows it does better in areas where poverty is high, and that they look at trends in an area before then build a store there?  I know me personally I try not to ever go to Walmart.  I hate the crowds, the poor customer service, the lines, etc...  Now if I was struggling to make ends meet you bet your ass I'd be shopping at Walmart.

 

1317154[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

A totally realistic point. They may very well be capitalizing on a trend. But the Mega-corp realizes an HUGE profit, and does little to help it's own employees.

 

In fact, in 2005, Wal-Mart was searching for ways to cut thier employee benefits cost even more <---Click him for link

Edited February 10, 2006 by cre8tiff

[Ursa Majoris]

But...in the end...people prove their true colors if they shop there. 

 

1316902[/snapback]

 

 

 

The only time I ever go to a Walmart is to set fire to it.

[I Like Soup]

The only time I ever go to a Walmart is to set fire to it.

1317190[/snapback]

Note to self: take Ursa to Target.

[Perchoutofwater]

A totally realistic point. They may very well be capitalizing on a trend. But the Mega-corp realizes an HUGE profit, and does little to help it's own employees.

 

In fact, in 2005, Wal-Mart was searching for ways to cut thier employee benefits cost even more <---Click him for link

1317177[/snapback]

 

And if it's employees don't feel like they are being paid fairly they don't have to work there. No one is holding a gun to their head and saying that they have to work there. I'm paying laborers quite a bit more than walmart pays it's stockers and checkers, but I have yet to see a bunch of people coming from Walmart looking for a job. Maybe they are being paid what they are worth based upon how hard they want to work. They could be paid more working for me as a laborer, but it is too dirty and to hot, so they decided to work in the nice airconditioned walmart that I believe offers stock to it's employees at a discounted rate, or at least it did a few years ago when one the the guys my wife works with was working there in the summers.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Hey Grunge...have you been to the new Supercenter Walmart about a mile and a half from us?  It is nice...lets saddle up and take a field trip and I'll show you how good it is. 

 

I'll even drive...

 

I don't begrudge Wal-Mart for being better than the mom and pop stores that they displace...that is good business.  Since when did it become bad to beat your competition in the marketplace?  Sure, it sucks for the local business, but that is capitalism at its finest.  A business grows, takes advantage of being able to leverage suppliers for lower costs, greater economies of scales, etc...and one day they are winning the business battle.  It is the American way.  But...

 

I will say, unfair labor practices, utilizing a work force that is taking advantage of the health care system, etc. should give people pause.  But...in the end...people prove their true colors if they shop there.  And I'm sure there is some tradeoff with giving people an opportunity to get an entry level job, etc.

1316902[/snapback]

 

Yeah, been there many times. I don't have a problem with giving my business to Wal-mart. Pretty much agree with what you said. Sucks for the small businesses in small town America when Wal-mart comes in and wipes everyone out, but what are you going to do? That's capitalism.

[Chavez]

I shop at Target.  You could put a Wal Mart across the street and I'd waste the gas to drive to Target.  I'd be worth whatever extra environment I'd destroy.

1314782[/snapback]

If we're talking corporate policies, Target is hardly an improvement over WalMart, merely not as monolithic.

 

If we're talking a higher-rent brand of consumer goods in both price and stylishness, Target kicks WalMart's ass. Though Kohl's has nice stuff as well - bit more staid image than Target and I don't think they're completely national yet either.

[Chavez]

Ah, you don't know much about business do you?  Stick to filling those little heads with mush.  Every business wants to gain and hold as much of a market share as they can.  I want to have the largest market share that my workforce can handle in my area, and so does every other construction company in my area.  That is just business.  Why do liberals hate capitalism?

 

1315560[/snapback]

 

 

 

So you're in favor of monopolies?