Wow, just wow (my bold)

http://nypost.com/2014/06/04/city-council-members-rip-walmarts-charity-of-dangerous-dollars/

City Council members rip Walmart’s charity of ‘dangerous dollars’
By James Covert
More than half the members of the City Council have fired off a letter to Walmart demanding that it stop making millions in charitable contributions to local groups here.

Twenty-six of the 51 members of the Council charged in the letter that the world’s biggest retailer’s support of local causes is a cynical ploy to enter the market here.

“We know how desperate you are to find a foothold in New York City to buy influence and support here,” says the letter, obtained by The Post and addressed to Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation.

“Stop spending your dangerous dollars in our city,” the testy letter demands. “That’s right: this is a cease-and-desist letter.”

Last week, Walmart announced that it distributed $3 million last year to charities here, including $1 million to the New York Women’s Foundation, which offers job training, and $30,000 to Bailey House, which distributes groceries to low-income residents.Walmart, which has been thwarted by union-backed opposition for more than a decade, said the handouts “can make a difference on big issues like hunger relief and career development.”

The retail giant said its business agenda “aligns with supporting the local organizations that are important to our customers and associates.”

But Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito called the donations “toxic money,” and accused Walmart of waging a “cynical public-relations campaign that disguises Walmart’s backwards anti-job agenda.”

Sources said activists will stage a demonstration Wednesday outside City Hall, tearing up giant, mocked-up, Ed McMahon-style checks from Walmart to prove their point.

A key bone of contention is the Waltons’ support of New York City charter schools. Since 2004, the Walton Family Foundation has funneled $16 million into the cause, including the DREAM Charter School, Village Academies and the Success Academy founded by Eva Moskowitz.

“We’re proud of the work they’re doing to transform the public-education landscape and proud to have played a small part in their success,” Walton Family Foundation spokeswoman Daphne Davis Moore said.

Walmart has raised eyebrows with its New York political contributions before.

As reported by The Post, former Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz appeared to soften his attitude toward the company in 2011 after the retailer donated $150,000 to his summer Martin Luther King Jr. concert series.

In March, Walmart officials signaled a temporary retreat from efforts to open a New York City store after setbacks at a site in Brooklyn off the Belt Parkway.

More than half the members of the City Council have fired off a letter to Walmart demanding that it stop making millions in charitable contributions to local groups here.

Dear City Council Members,

feth you and the horse you road in on.

Love to the family,
Zombie Sam Walton.

Only in New York.

Yeah, feth you New York city council. That's the only way to put it. Seriously?

So is NYC like the US' funny sort of crazy town?

So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

n0t_u
NYC politicians (barring a few exceptions) tend to be nutjobs, it's the one thing that's not split across party lines. I live in upstate NY, and the funny part is that more tax dollars go to NCY (the richest city on earth) that come back up.

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

The Greys? I dunno. I'm not good at guessing!

I think Walmart treats its employees like crap but yeah. NYC still smoking the stuff apparently...

While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

No offense meant, put have you actually seen NY politics?

 Nevelon wrote:
While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

Care to back any of that up with an example?

 curran12 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

Care to back any of that up with an example?

You often see stuff like "Proud sponsor of ____" or " Random Charity is supported by donations by ____"

And how is that evidence of malice? Charity is good PR and Wal-mart is hardly the only one who does it.

 curran12 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

Care to back any of that up with an example?

Only anecdotal and I heard from a friend stuff, so nope, no solid examples. I’ve seen similar things with bookstores, where big chains moved in, set up shop, and little (quite nice) local places could not compete and closed their doors.

I pay extra buying from local stores. It’s something I try to support. Not a big fan of walmart and their ilk.

 Frazzled wrote:


NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

So is there a specific law in NY that businesses that don't allow union labor cannot set up in NY?

 curran12 wrote:
And how is that evidence of malice? Charity is good PR and Wal-mart is hardly the only one who does it.

Malice? When did anyone say anything about malice? These are just examples of using charity to gain an advertising foothold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LuciusAR wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

So is there a specific law in NY that businesses that don't allow union labor cannot set up in NY?

No.

 curran12 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

Care to back any of that up with an example?

3 million$ dollars given to charity for selfish means is still 3 million$ given to charity

Let me guess. The money should not have been donated directly, but instead should have been donated to the local government. Then the paid civil servants could have decided which projects to allocate money to based on their voter base need.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Let me guess. The money should not have been donated directly, but instead should have been donated to the local government. Then the paid civil servants could have decided which projects to allocate money to based on their voter base need.

No, they just want WalMart to stay out for various and sundry reasons.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
[
3 million$ dollars given to charity for selfish means is still 3 million$ given to charity

I agree totally with this.

 Nevelon wrote:
While I can see how silly this seems, having a big box store like Walmart move in can strangle the life out of local businesses. And the jobs it brings tends to be minimum wage ones that people can’t live on.

Charitable donations given this way are part of advertising and bribes. They want to buy enough good will to get set up, and then can low ball all the locals until only they remain.

Do you think any small businesses displaced employed more people than Wal Mart would? At significantly higher wages?

I suspect small businesses pay the least they can get away with to their employees. That is how they stay in business. I know the ones I worked for while in high school and college started at minimum wage. I suspect in high rent areas of NYC they are not producing millionaire stock clerks at the local fruit market.

 kronk wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Let me guess. The money should not have been donated directly, but instead should have been donated to the local government. Then the paid civil servants could have decided which projects to allocate money to based on their voter base need.

No, they just want WalMart to stay out for various and sundry reasons.

Whic mostly involve hippie not wanting walmart to come in, despite the ample jb opportunities

Why anyone would want to live in NY is beyond me.

The pizza.

Raven911 wrote:
Why anyone would want to live in NY is beyond me.

Clearly if you have an unnatural fear of WalMart, NYC is the place to be. The odds of accidentally coming upon one are pretty slim.

If walmart moved in the mom and pop stores like Dunkin Donuts, Nike, Apple, Tiffanies, Mcdonalds and Best Buy would suffer.

Good on New York.

The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If walmart moved in the mom and pop stores like Dunkin Donuts, Nike, Apple, Tiffanies, Mcdonalds and Best Buy would suffer.

Good on New York.

That always confused me. Best Buy is walmart for teckkies. Dunkin Donuts is a franchise, Nike........They are all as big as walmart
And maybe if those small stores wanted to stay competitive they woul lower their prices.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

No offense meant, put have you actually seen NY politics?

Seen as the rest fo the country is forced to hear about it - you betcha.

 CptJake wrote:
The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

That's (sort of) the joke!

Raven911 wrote:
Why anyone would want to live in NY is beyond me.

NYC and the rest of NY are very different. if you take out NYC, than NY is more rural than Ohio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

No offense meant, put have you actually seen NY politics?

Seen as the rest fo the country is forced to hear about it - you betcha.

Then you should now that NY politics is decidedly not controlled by unions.

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

That's (sort of) the joke!

I know, I got it.

I have only ever been in WalMart once, and that was so my wife and I could witness the People of Walmart first hand

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

That's (sort of) the joke!

I know, I got it.

Oh...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I have only ever been in WalMart once, and that was so my wife and I could witness the People of Walmart first hand

I've been in WalMart many times in my youth, college days, and my adult life.

The store is fine. It just depends on what you're looking for.

3 million dollars is not much for a group like Walmart.

 purplefood wrote:
3 million dollars is not much for a group like Walmart.

I suspect it helped out the recipients though.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If walmart moved in the mom and pop stores like Dunkin Donuts, Nike, Apple, Tiffanies, Mcdonalds and Best Buy would suffer.

Good on New York.

That always confused me. Best Buy is walmart for teckkies. Dunkin Donuts is a franchise, Nike........They are all as big as walmart
And maybe if those small stores wanted to stay competitive they woul lower their prices.

They have a term for why you don't see that happen: Economies of Scale.

It's the same reason why Amazon can give you free 2-day shipping with a yearly subscription fee to a premium service with other benefits, while no other company on the planet can. They had enough money to throw around to create a logistics infrastructure around the US that was beforehand unheard of. A small guy can't really compete with that except on terms of doing things like having a unique product or providing noticeably superior customer service, or having the desired product in stock at that exact moment.

Just because they're also franchises doesn't make them ANYWHERE as big as Walmart. To cherry pick a single metric to determine the relative size of the companies:
Nike Market Cap: 66.74B
Dunkin Donuts Market Cap: 4.89B
Best Buy Market Cap: 9.94B
Walmart Market Cap: 250.01B

And just for fun:
GW Market Cap: 191.29M (roughly 321.20M USD)

Also, Best Buy is utterly worthless and only good for things you need immediately. You can get a better deal on better selection with less hassle and wage-slave interaction online or at better stores. For example, Microcenter (kind of like Fry's) is thriving in spite of the barren wasteland that are most of the Best Buys around here. It's because they have a better selection, good prices, and employees who will get the hell out of your face if you ask them to.

Who actually goes to best buy any more?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Who actually goes to best buy any more?

Zombies.

Ahh, kronk. I can always count on you for a laugh.
(I like the avatar BTW)

 kronk wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Who actually goes to best buy any more?

Zombies.

Camping out, illegal when protesting but legal when supporting capitalism!

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

The Mafia?

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Who actually goes to best buy any more?

Zombies.

Camping out, illegal when protesting but legal when supporting capitalism!

"We had to arrest them, they were resisting arrest!"

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Who actually goes to best buy any more?

Zombies.

Camping out, illegal when doing on private property without permission or on public property without the correct permits, but legal when supporting capitalism within the law!




If you want to say something, say it yourself - don't try to put words in another poster's mouth via quote-editing. --Janthkin

Isn't that like buying the oppositions, against the Council members, voters by charity donations?

 CptJake wrote:

Camping out, illegal when doing on private property without permission or on public property without the correct permits, but legal when supporting capitalism within the law!

The minute they arrest the first Black Friday shopper whose tent touches the sidewalk you can pat yourself on the back for being right.

What a great investment for Wal-mart. They give 3 Million to charities and meanwhile pay so little that 30% of their employees are on Government Subsidies.

The 3 Million covers them with social responsibility while their business model depends on milking the states social safety net programs. I guarantee that the 3 Million is a drop int he bucke tcompared to what they save on payroll and benefits costs.

Brilliant really.

Paying their employees so little is actually a great business decision for them because so a lot of the welfare money gets spent at wall-marts. It's a circle of money for them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Paying their employees so little is actually a great business decision for them because so a lot of the welfare money gets spent at wall-marts. It's a circle of money for them.

The modern version of getting paid with company tokens?

 d-usa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Paying their employees so little is actually a great business decision for them because so a lot of the welfare money gets spent at wall-marts. It's a circle of money for them.

The modern version of getting paid with company tokens?

Pretty much, yeah. It just happens to be legal.

 purplefood wrote:
3 million dollars is not much for a group like Walmart.

That's just for NYC. They don't even have stores there. They actually donated more than a billion last year nation wide.

Good publicity is always useful when you have the rap that wallmart does.

 purplefood wrote:
3 million dollars is not much for a group like Walmart.

"Thanks for the monies!... Gib more monies please"

 d-usa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Paying their employees so little is actually a great business decision for them because so a lot of the welfare money gets spent at wall-marts. It's a circle of money for them.

The modern version of getting paid with company tokens?

bitcoins, even!

 djones520 wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
3 million dollars is not much for a group like Walmart.

That's just for NYC. They don't even have stores there. They actually donated more than a billion last year nation wide.

Still a bargain when you operate on the scale they do witht he numbe rof employees they do.

The best part is, they aren;t the only ones doing it. All the big box retailers do this, and they still can't compete witht eh overhead reductions of Amazon.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Raven911 wrote:
Why anyone would want to live in NY is beyond me.

NYC and the rest of NY are very different. if you take out NYC, than NY is more rural than Ohio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So are there currently no Walmart's in New York? And if so is that because of some sort of campaign by the City Council to stop them?

NYC is a nanny state that has successfully made it illegal for Walmarts to be there, primarily because Walmart is nonunion and guess who controls NY?

No offense meant, put have you actually seen NY politics?

Seen as the rest fo the country is forced to hear about it - you betcha.

Then you should now that NY politics is decidedly not controlled by unions.

Not seen a lot of Republicans there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
What a great investment for Wal-mart. They give 3 Million to charities and meanwhile pay so little that 30% of their employees are on Government Subsidies.

The 3 Million covers them with social responsibility while their business model depends on milking the states social safety net programs. I guarantee that the 3 Million is a drop int he bucke tcompared to what they save on payroll and benefits costs.

Brilliant really.

And the pro-"SCREW THE CHARITIES!" contingent kicks in. If you don't like them don't shop there.

I'm glad I live in NY State and not NYC. Of course there is a whole dozen threads that could spawn from some of the NY State Bullgak

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I'm glad I live in NY State and not NYC. Of course there is a whole dozen threads that could spawn from some of the NY State Bullgak

There is plenty of crazy in Albany, but it’s much more convenient to get there then down to the city.

Of course, any gathering of politicians, from small town to major metropolis and state/federal is going to spew bullgak from time to time. You’d rather it not be your locals though.

But those NYC folks are extra crazy. Alway a trial when they come upstate to visit.

thats weird, we have several wall marts in my town, and all they did was run OTHER big box stores like k mart, zellers and the bay out of business due to haveing better products at better prices...

in the bays case, it forced them to up their quality to justify the extra $ they charge...

the only jobs a wal mart will replace, are other min wage jobs...

my union job still exists despite the evil wall marts as well.

I agree with frazz... new york is the quintessential nanny state where a few powerful people/groups get their way, and feth over anyone else who disagrees. You are either in the big boys club or you are no one in new york it seems.

heck...even canada doesnt set mag limits at 7 rounds for pistols...

I don't give a feth about WAL-MART, so I'm indifferent to this news.

I only check for ammo in Wal-Mart....

 Jihadin wrote:
I only check for ammo in Wal-Mart....

I don't. I only buy car batteries when batteries unexpectedly die, or go tot he eye doc there/center there because I've know the people for going on a decade.
Otherwise I can't stand Walmart (and yes I used to work at SAMs)

 Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]

 Easy E wrote:
What a great investment for Wal-mart. They give 3 Million to charities and meanwhile pay so little that 30% of their employees are on Government Subsidies.

The 3 Million covers them with social responsibility while their business model depends on milking the states social safety net programs. I guarantee that the 3 Million is a drop int he bucke tcompared to what they save on payroll and benefits costs.

Brilliant really.

And the pro-"SCREW THE CHARITIES!" contingent kicks in. If you don't like them don't shop there.

You miss understand Fraz. I am marvelling at the genius of it! I'm not saying "Screw Charity" at all.

To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

When I worked at SAMS I was paid appropriately, I just wish it had been in dollars and not spoiled loaves of bread and cans of beans.

 Frazzled wrote:
When I worked at SAMS I was paid appropriately, I just wish it had been in dollars and not spoiled loaves of bread and cans of beans.

I thought cans of beans was the currency in texas

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
When I worked at SAMS I was paid appropriately, I just wish it had been in dollars and not spoiled loaves of bread and cans of beans.

I thought cans of beans was the currency in texas

Shotgun shells and barrels of oil.

 CptJake wrote:
The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

Holy gak! They ate McDonalds!

 Jihadin wrote:
I only check for ammo in Wal-Mart....

This is where I am, and rarely at that - once in the last 2 years I remember. I do not shop there. Truthfully I sort of despite their whole setup - pay people gak wages and lousy to no benefits, get them on public benefits to offset their payroll costs, and pocket the profits. We're supposed to hate welfare when it's a single mother buying Tang and bread with food stamps, but the corporate kind Walmart propagates is somehow OK.

 curran12 wrote:
And how is that evidence of malice? Charity is good PR and Wal-mart is hardly the only one who does it.

... and where do you want PR? In places where you have businesses, or in places where you want to have businesses. So its pretty clear why Walmart is doing this.

As to whether the city is right (or even has the right) to deny Walmart stores in NYC, or whether that makes it reasonable to call Walmart out on charity (and not just, say, take the money and still fight Walmart) is a whole other question. But the idea that people can't clearly see what Walmart is trying to do with this program is ridiculous.

 curran12 wrote:
Care to back any of that up with an example?

There's been a hell of a lot of work in to studying the impact of megastores opening up areas, not necessarily Walmart but they're the most common. The conclusions outside of the junk studies paid for by those megastores pretty clearly show there's an overall negative impact on job numbers and retail pay.

Personally I don't think that means that you should, let alone can, stop those stores opening. I mean, the car industry had a massive negative impact on the horse and buggy industry, but that's how progress goes. The most efficient new model takes over, and massive stores with highly effective procurement and inventory management programs are simply more efficient models of retail.

And what's interesting is that there are business models like Aldi that are in turn more efficient than Walmart, because ultimately there are long term problems with Walmart's business model of open sourcing products, so that one day it'll likely be Walmart crying foul and trying to stop the competition moving in.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Let me guess. The money should not have been donated directly, but instead should have been donated to the local government. Then the paid civil servants could have decided which projects to allocate money to based on their voter base need.

That's a terrible guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
They have a term for why you don't see that happen: Economies of Scale.

It's the same reason why Amazon can give you free 2-day shipping with a yearly subscription fee to a premium service with other benefits, while no other company on the planet can. They had enough money to throw around to create a logistics infrastructure around the US that was beforehand unheard of. A small guy can't really compete with that except on terms of doing things like having a unique product or providing noticeably superior customer service, or having the desired product in stock at that exact moment.

Umm... when a company can't compete because some other company does something more efficiently, the answer is for that company to either reform so that it can compete, find a new advantage to differentiate itself from the competition, or go out of business.

This idea that a company leveraging economies of scale to do something cheaper and better is somehow unfair is really very odd.

Note that isn't to say that everything Walmart does is fine and fair, Walmart have a lot of practices that are not at all about efficiency and economies of scale, but purely on the issue of scale it just makes no sense to complain that that's unfair. Get big and get efficient is how it is supposed to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.

Because it used to be a basic social assumption, and we're not talking all that long ago but like within the last coupe of decades, that if a person was willing to work a 40 hour week, then they should able to earn a decent pay. Not a luxurious pay, but enough that they could afford rent and food, and have a little left over for some entertainment.

But at some point that's just been dropped. Now the scorn we used to dump entirely on people dependent on benefits is also dumped on people earning minimum wage.

It used to be that we'd see a poor person and say 'get a job'. Now apparently we say 'get a job, and then continue to be poor because ha ha we don't care because we are doing okay'.

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The closest WalMart to me has a McDonald's inside of it...

Holy gak! They ate McDonalds!

This is what I think of when the name Wall-mart pops up.

Probably sues being the floor had to much wax on it...

 sebster wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
They have a term for why you don't see that happen: Economies of Scale.

It's the same reason why Amazon can give you free 2-day shipping with a yearly subscription fee to a premium service with other benefits, while no other company on the planet can. They had enough money to throw around to create a logistics infrastructure around the US that was beforehand unheard of. A small guy can't really compete with that except on terms of doing things like having a unique product or providing noticeably superior customer service, or having the desired product in stock at that exact moment.

Umm... when a company can't compete because some other company does something more efficiently, the answer is for that company to either reform so that it can compete, find a new advantage to differentiate itself from the competition, or go out of business.

This idea that a company leveraging economies of scale to do something cheaper and better is somehow unfair is really very odd.

Note that isn't to say that everything Walmart does is fine and fair, Walmart have a lot of practices that are not at all about efficiency and economies of scale, but purely on the issue of scale it just makes no sense to complain that that's unfair. Get big and get efficient is how it is supposed to work.

I wasn't necessarily claiming it was unfair. I was trying to make the argument that the companies that Sauce was comparing were not even in the same league as each other.

 daedalus wrote:
I wasn't necessarily claiming it was unfair. I was trying to make the argument that the companies that Sauce was comparing were not even in the same league as each other.

I'm not sure I get the distinction. If the companies aren't in the same league, and this allows the large company to offer a cheaper product through efficiency, forcing out the other company, what's the problem?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

Weren't you one of the people arguing for an increase in minimum wage for fast food workers? So what is the difference between a fast food worker and a shelf stacker?

having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

Then you're somewhere in the middle.

A sacker/liquor store carry-out was a crap job. Especially on July 3rd and 4th when all the drunks came to the store to buy kegs. One lady pulled up in an old VW bug. "Lady, where are you going to put this thing?"

Yehaw!

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

What shelves would that be again?

Should be up to the charities who they receive money from.

I don't think you'll find any of them eager to tear up a $3m cheque.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

What shelves would that be again?

Does your fast food place keep all their gak on the floor?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

What shelves would that be again?

Does your fast food place keep all their gak on the floor?

Sure seems like it. Mind you my idea of stacking shelves is climbing up a three story stack shelf...

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
having been both, shelf stackers work harder.

What if you are the person stacking the shelves at a fast food place?

What shelves would that be again?

Does your fast food place keep all their gak on the floor?

Sure seems like it. Mind you my idea of stacking shelves is climbing up a three story stack shelf...

They had caves that tall back then?

We dug them out with our pointy sticks. The secret was to keep your main entrance and emergecny entrance mansized, that way the short faced bears couldn't force their way in.

Mmm, short faced bears. How could something so big run so fast? Fortunately I was faster than Nog. poor Nog.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

Weren't you one of the people arguing for an increase in minimum wage for fast food workers? So what is the difference between a fast food worker and a shelf stacker?

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

Weren't you one of the people arguing for an increase in minimum wage for fast food workers? So what is the difference between a fast food worker and a shelf stacker?

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

So it went from "I don't think it's fair that I don't get paid more for this job" to "I don't think it's fair that I have to work so hard and other people are allowed to make a living wage anyway"?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

Why is it wrong, exactly?

What if someone can't afford school, but wants a better life? I guess it is wrong for them to do what they can, huh?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

Weren't you one of the people arguing for an increase in minimum wage for fast food workers? So what is the difference between a fast food worker and a shelf stacker?

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

Elitist One Percenter!

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To those saying wal-mart should pay a fair wage.......Why. Why should someone come off the street with little experiance, stock shelves and get the moneyz? If they want a job that allows them to get the moneyz they should work for it.
Its even funnier, my friend in head of security at wal-mart and gets paid a decent wage

Weren't you one of the people arguing for an increase in minimum wage for fast food workers? So what is the difference between a fast food worker and a shelf stacker?

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

Elitist One Percenter!

1%-ers can spell and use proper grammar.

Thats why he's going to college. Then he'll be a fully educated "keep you foot on the back of the working man" one percenter.

Won't someone think of the children?

No, Im a functionalist sociologist. I believe every part of society serves a vital function, whether good or bad. Poverty serves as a function to make society successful. My own personal theory is that poverty serves as a fear mechanism to strive to be better

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, Im a functionalist sociologist. I believe every part of society serves a vital function, whether good or bad. Poverty serves as a function to make society successful. My own personal theory is that poverty serves as a fear mechanism to strive to be better

To that I'll say "those who say money is the root of all evil have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas." Only a wealthy person (or mindwashed - ah I see you're in college) could countenance such an insanely stupid idea. one day and that day will be soon, the real world is going to kick you in the face. Maybe you'll remember stupid statements like this.

 curran12 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I have changed my opinion.
I realized that the reason I am in school is because I want a decent life, as do the others. Many are working their butts off in chemistry, sociology, child care, artistry and so forth vso they can get a better life. The idea that someone can come off the street, get payed enough to support a family is just wrong. Especially when there are so many people who can do the same thing. We need programs to lift people out ofpoverty, not just give them more money. Poverty isnt a problem you can just throw money at and it gets fixed. There are so many issues.

Why is it wrong, exactly?

What if someone can't afford school, but wants a better life? I guess it is wrong for them to do what they can, huh?

Because is that really the best they can do? Many people at my local community college are working minimum wage while going to school with 2-3 kids. Its difficult, but possible


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, Im a functionalist sociologist. I believe every part of society serves a vital function, whether good or bad. Poverty serves as a function to make society successful. My own personal theory is that poverty serves as a fear mechanism to strive to be better

To that I'll say "those who say money is the root of all evil have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas." Only a wealthy person (or mindwashed - ah I see you're in college) could countenance such an insanely stupid idea. one day and that day will be soon, the real world is going to kick you in the face. Maybe you'll remember stupid statements like this.

It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because is that really the best they can do? Many people at my local community college are working minimum wage while going to school with 2-3 kids. Its difficult, but possible

Ah, so I assume you know what other minimum wage workers are doing then? And it's a good thing that your definition of better is the one shared by the world, too.

Why should life be suffering just because it can be? So what if theoretically it CAN be done- if we have the resources to make it unnecessary, why shouldn't we?

Is that all life really is, in the conservative ideal? Nonstop work and hardship until you get old enough to yell at kids to get off your lawn and then you can lament at all the lazy kids who try to have it better than you did?

I think we can aim for better than that. Wages and conditions didn't get to the point they are at now because people said "stop trying to get paid more, just work harder!" they got to this level because people fought for it. Because they knew that they deserved better than what they were getting.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

If I were you I would quit the booze as you are clearly not paying attention in your sociological studies if the kind of rubbish you are coming out with in this thread is any indication.

After all, you don't want to be saddled with debt all that debt for your education and then have to take a minimum wage job because the only "theories" you can come up with don't match reality

Blackhoof wrote:


I think we can aim for better than that. Wages and conditions didn't get to the point they are at now because people said "stop trying to get paid more, just work harder!" they got to this level because people fought for it. Because they knew that they deserved better than what they were getting.

If you want more pay, you must get a better job or be better at your job to earn a promotion/raise.

Abusive pay existed in the past, it doesn't really exist today. Its not your employers responsibility that your salary is enough for you to survive on, its his responsibility that the compensation is fair for the work you do for him. If it isn't, in your opinion, you can find work elsewhere. Thats why people striked in the past, the compensation did not match the work being done and the risks involved.

Getting paid minimum wage to stock shelves at Walmart does match the work being done.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

If I were you I would quit the booze as you are clearly not paying attention in your sociological studies if the kind of rubbish you are coming out with in this thread is any indication.

After all, you don't want to be saddled with debt all that debt for your education and then have to take a minimum wage job because the only "theories" you can come up with don't match reality

What is this thing calle "Dept" Doing the mat my education will cost me, out of pocket......5000$.
The Govt be aying for it

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

If I were you I would quit the booze as you are clearly not paying attention in your sociological studies if the kind of rubbish you are coming out with in this thread is any indication.

After all, you don't want to be saddled with debt all that debt for your education and then have to take a minimum wage job because the only "theories" you can come up with don't match reality

What is this thing calle "Dept" Doing the mat my education will cost me, out of pocket......5000$.
The Govt be aying for it

If I were you hotsauce, I would keep on keeping on... that you can at least change your mind and accept new and different mindsets is a great skill, that unfortunatly, many people lack.

Silvermk2 is a bit like the westboro baptist church of hyper entitled libralism that is plauging the more recent generations since the 1960's, if he vehemonitly disagrees with you, you know you are on the right track.

poverty is very much the result of losing the race, for whatever reason, which can include things like "bad luck". its not always fair, life isnt fair, OFC some people will cry about it and talk about how they can make everything fair... usually by robbing paul to pay more to peter.

some people think that everyone should win just for showing up and get a ribbon, but unfortunately, the real world doesnt work like that,

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

If I were you I would quit the booze as you are clearly not paying attention in your sociological studies if the kind of rubbish you are coming out with in this thread is any indication.

After all, you don't want to be saddled with debt all that debt for your education and then have to take a minimum wage job because the only "theories" you can come up with don't match reality

What is this thing calle "Dept" Doing the mat my education will cost me, out of pocket......5000$.
The Govt be aying for it

They might want their money back.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is just one theory I am thinking of. I have several others aswell. But they require more explanation then my hungver on tequila mind feels like typing

If I were you I would quit the booze as you are clearly not paying attention in your sociological studies if the kind of rubbish you are coming out with in this thread is any indication.

After all, you don't want to be saddled with debt all that debt for your education and then have to take a minimum wage job because the only "theories" you can come up with don't match reality

What is this thing calle "Dept" Doing the mat my education will cost me, out of pocket......5000$.
The Govt be aying for it

They might want their money back.

Don't worry, they'll be getting it back in the higher income tax he'll be paying. With interest.

 easysauce wrote:

If I were you hotsauce, I would keep on keeping on... that you can at least change your mind and accept new and different mindsets is a great skill, that unfortunatly, many people lack.

Silvermk2 is a bit like the westboro baptist church of hyper entitled libralism that is plauging the more recent generations since the 1960's, if he vehemonitly disagrees with you, you know you are on the right track.

poverty is very much the result of losing the race, for whatever reason, which can include things like "bad luck". its not always fair, life isnt fair, OFC some people will cry about it and talk about how they can make everything fair... usually by robbing paul to pay more to peter.

Now see, Right now im mostly thinking that classes and income breeds a certain culture, or it attracts a certain culture. I was reading an article about gangs, and ne memeber of a gang expressed pride in being, as he put it "A Poor N-word" and that puts him above everyone else, that by virtue of being poor, it makes him better. That is an idea many could not fathom, proud of being poor, poor people are better then rich people. Another one I read was "Work is good" that many poor mothers taught their daughters that just working is fine, it doesnt matter the work. This idea intriqued me. Could it be that after awhile, there is a culture made in each class the perpetuates each class?

Seems plausible.

If you are comfortable with your situation why would you make effort to change it?

 easysauce wrote:
Silvermk2 is a bit like the westboro baptist church of hyper entitled libralism that is plauging the more recent generations since the 1960's, if he vehemonitly disagrees with you, you know you are on the right track

... right...