Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!