The Ultimate Wal Mart Thread; Is Wal Mart good for America

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ultima
I would support full-time status at 32 hours with overtime still getting paid at 40 hours...
They would have to hire 25% more employees to compensate for the hour reduction, which as I explained more fully in my post above means either higher wages or full-time status granted to some employees. This way, too, the company is free to choose whether to hire more employees, pay them more, give them more hours or not. They are perfectly free to not do any of these things, however this way they can't take advantage of the 40 hours full-time status law.

You know, actually, since Walmart thinks 28 hours is fulltime, make it 28 hours, and make this apply to the retail sector only (a number that low might cause problems in manufacturing etc..). At 28 hours that's 43% more employees to hire. I wonder how they would like their so-called "full-time" employees actually having full-time status when Walmart can't find another 43% to keep everyone under that limit.

This will only lead to less people getting benefits, not more. 43% more people will be worked at less than full time.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Ultima
I would support full-time status at 32 hours with overtime still getting paid at 40 hours...
They would have to hire 25% more employees to compensate for the hour reduction, which as I explained more fully in my post above means either higher wages or full-time status granted to some employees. This way, too, the company is free to choose whether to hire more employees, pay them more, give them more hours or not. They are perfectly free to not do any of these things, however this way they can't take advantage of the 40 hours full-time status law.

You know, actually, since Walmart thinks 28 hours is fulltime, make it 28 hours, and make this apply to the retail sector only (a number that low might cause problems in manufacturing etc..). At 28 hours that's 43% more employees to hire. I wonder how they would like their so-called "full-time" employees actually having full-time status when Walmart can't find another 43% to keep everyone under that limit.

This will only lead to less people getting benefits, not more. 43% more people will be worked at less than full time.

IF they could find 43% more people willing to work for the wages and those hours! Of course, I may be underestimating the workforce's willingness to do just that..

 

[Gaard]

I like Walmart's popcorn.

Coke is watered down though.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain

For the sake of a simple example, let's assume the American Dream is to become a millionaire. According to Forbes, in 2002 the five heirs to the Walton fortune were worth $103 Billion. Let that sink in for a moment . . . that's 103 thousand million dollars. That is a tenth of a trillion dollars. That is up to 102,995 Americans who were denied the American Dream because Wal-Mart took it from them.



Edit: typo

I always wondered what the point of accumulating vast quantities of wealth was. Sure, I want to live a nice life like everyone else but past a certain point the money is useless if not used. That $103 billion dollars could do so many productive things.. but right now it is useless by just sitting there.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You like to PRETEND that you care in some way about the future, but the fact is that people like you, Bowfinger, care about one thing only: Legalizing theft so that you can give money that doesn't belong to you to causes you think are important. There's nothing moral or superior about you, you're little more than a thief who wants legal backing for your burglary.

Jason, do you believe that all taxation is "theft" so the government can give money that doesn't belong to them to causes the government (based roughly on the wishes of the U.S. taxpayer) thinks are important? Should we stop building roads and airports and bridges and stop investing in public education and get rid of all of our safety net programs and so on? Frankly, I don't see where you're coming from claiming that an interest in the public welfare -- and yes, that would include Wal-Mart workers who are below the poverty line and on public assistance programs -- is somehow selfish or somehow stealing from everyone else?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You like to PRETEND that you care in some way about the future, but the fact is that people like you, Bowfinger, care about one thing only: Legalizing theft so that you can give money that doesn't belong to you to causes you think are important. There's nothing moral or superior about you, you're little more than a thief who wants legal backing for your burglary.

Jason, do you believe that all taxation is "theft" so the government can give money that doesn't belong to them to causes the government (based roughly on the wishes of the U.S. taxpayer) thinks are important? Should we stop building roads and airports and bridges and stop investing in public education and get rid of all of our safety net programs and so on? Frankly, I don't see where you're coming from claiming that an interest in the public welfare -- and yes, that would include Wal-Mart workers who are below the poverty line and on public assistance programs -- is somehow selfish or somehow stealing from everyone else?

No, no, of course not. There are legitimate reasons for taxation, as you've mentioned, which include things like maintaining a standing military, police, fire departments, roads and whatnot. What I stand against is generally the notion of wealth-redistribution, mostly because it's based upon the false premise that wealth exists only in a static quantity to be gotten by whatever means, whether work, begging or looting. I would also like to see legislation enacted to STOP all the ridiculous "pork barrel" spending that goes on at all levels of government. Such projects are used as tools by corrupt politicians to buy votes by doling out favors to lobbyists (and by lobbyists I mean ALL of them, not just the obvious environmentalists and whatnot, we unfortunately get lobbyists at all levels, from individuals to giant corporations, all trying to buy favors, which just breeds corruption in our politicians...)

I suppose what truly needs to be done is to define the legitimate functions of government, which should be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson,

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned."

There are a lot of things the government does which are distinctly against this charge, and this includes welfare programs that blindly dole out cash to those who are perfectly capable of earning their own living. You've got at least one person on this forum who rather likes to twist and distort the meaning of Jefferson's words to suit his own ends, particularly the phrase "to promote the general welfare", which was not meant to say to start a welfare PROGRAM and dole out cash to lazy layabouts. As evidence of this fact, I'll ask you to observe that the founding fathers never even *discussed* in any of their writings, the idea of instituting a program like the one we know as welfare, and such programs did not come into existence in the United States until the 1930's under the Fascist Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Now as to Wal Mart and their workers, there are certainly laws that are appropriately enforced, such as those dealing with creating a safe work environment, not forcing workers to do work they are incapable of, etc. However, I do not think that you nor I nor the government has any right whatsoever to use any form of force or compulsion to manipulate the contracts that a free citizen enters into of his own free will with his employer. The contract is between two parties, and the only government function that is appropriate is the ensure that both parties live up to their end (which in the case of voluntary employment is very little on either party's side; the employee has only to show up and perform his duties, the employer has to pay him, which is pretty simple.)

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain
You know what's amazing? The fact that so many people claim to support the American Dream but hate its results.

Sorry, Wal-Mart is not an example of the American Dream. It is a perversion of the American Dream.

For the sake of a simple example, let's assume the American Dream is to become a millionaire. According to Forbes, in 2002 the five heirs to the Walton fortune were worth $103 Billion. Let that sink in for a moment . . . that's 103 thousand million dollars. That is a tenth of a trillion dollars. That is up to 102,995 Americans who were denied the American Dream because Wal-Mart took it from them.

Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but the principle holds. Wal-Mart's incomprehensible profits didn't just materialize out of thin air. One way or another, it came out of the pockets of Americans. It came from tens of thousands of potential business owners who could not compete with Wal-Mart. It came from countless factory workers who became unemployed because Wal-Mart forced their former employers to move their factories overseas.

Why? Because Wal-Mart wanted to lower the retail price of its goods, but it was NOT willing to make less money. That $5 you saved on those cheap shoes didn't come out of the 103,000 million dollars in the Waltons' pockets. It came out of the pocket of a former factory worker or factory owner.

When you shop at Wal-Mart, you're helping put Americans out of work. Sure, a fraction of those unemployed will get "lucky" and get crappy jobs at Wal-Mart. That's only a drop in the bucket compared to the total jobs lost.


Edit: typo

Bow, has it occurred to you that your entire argument here is based on a false idea? It's based on the idea that wealth exists in a *static* quantity. You seem to believe that it is *necessarily* unethical for some people to be better at acquiring wealth than others.

You also fail to point out that for every dollar Wal Mart brings in, some person, often some person who couldn't afford more expensive stores, has gone home with products they did not previously have, and with that, some small measure of extra comfort or happiness or satisfaction about their lives. You act as though Wal Mart walked over, beat the piss out of someone, reached into their pocket and stole $5 without giving anything back, and your position is inaccurate and dishonest *at best*.

Try representing the entire equation, which involves the exchange of one kind of value for another on a voluntary basis, with each side gaining something he or she wanted more than what they traded away.

Jason

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
No, no, of course not. There are legitimate reasons for taxation, as you've mentioned, which include things like maintaining a standing military, police, fire departments, roads and whatnot. What I stand against is generally the notion of wealth-redistribution, mostly because it's based upon the false premise that wealth exists only in a static quantity to be gotten by whatever means, whether work, begging or looting. I would also like to see legislation enacted to STOP all the ridiculous "pork barrel" spending that goes on at all levels of government. Such projects are used as tools by corrupt politicians to buy votes by doling out favors to lobbyists (and by lobbyists I mean ALL of them, not just the obvious environmentalists and whatnot, we unfortunately get lobbyists at all levels, from individuals to giant corporations, all trying to buy favors, which just breeds corruption in our politicians...)

I suppose what truly needs to be done is to define the legitimate functions of government, which should be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson,

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned."

There are a lot of things the government does which are distinctly against this charge, and this includes welfare programs that blindly dole out cash to those who are perfectly capable of earning their own living. You've got at least one person on this forum who rather likes to twist and distort the meaning of Jefferson's words to suit his own ends, particularly the phrase "to promote the general welfare", which was not meant to say to start a welfare PROGRAM and dole out cash to lazy layabouts. As evidence of this fact, I'll ask you to observe that the founding fathers never even *discussed* in any of their writings, the idea of instituting a program like the one we know as welfare, and such programs did not come into existence in the United States until the 1930's under the Fascist Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Now as to Wal Mart and their workers, there are certainly laws that are appropriately enforced, such as those dealing with creating a safe work environment, not forcing workers to do work they are incapable of, etc. However, I do not think that you nor I nor the government has any right whatsoever to use any form of force or compulsion to manipulate the contracts that a free citizen enters into of his own free will with his employer. The contract is between two parties, and the only government function that is appropriate is the ensure that both parties live up to their end (which in the case of voluntary employment is very little on either party's side; the employee has only to show up and perform his duties, the employer has to pay him, which is pretty simple.)

Jason

What about the minimum wage? I mean, that's essentially the government interfering in the matters between an employer and its employees -- telling them what threshold they cannot pay below. Should we banish the minimum wage too?

Also, do you really believe that we have such immense social safety nets in place that the rich are really being infringed upon? I mean, can you not make as much money as humanly possible in this country if you put your mind to it? Look at America's super rich like Bill Gates, Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch among others -- it doesn't seem like the government is putting any kind of damper on those folks making more money than they can even spend in a year.

I know you're against the government interfering with Wal-Mart's business and I more or less agree, but what I've been advocating is that Wal-Mart should allow employees to unionize if they so desire. I mean, why shouldn't we let the millions of Wal-Mart employees freely associate and collectively bargain for better pay or benefits if they so wish?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Bow, has it occurred to you that your entire argument here is based on a false idea? It's based on the idea that wealth exists in a *static* quantity. You seem to believe that it is *necessarily* unethical for some people to be better at acquiring wealth than others.

You also fail to point out that for every dollar Wal Mart brings in, some person, often some person who couldn't afford more expensive stores, has gone home with products they did not previously have, and with that, some small measure of extra comfort or happiness or satisfaction about their lives. You act as though Wal Mart walked over, beat the piss out of someone, reached into their pocket and stole $5 without giving anything back, and your position is inaccurate and dishonest *at best*.

Try representing the entire equation, which involves the exchange of one kind of value for another on a voluntary basis, with each side gaining something he or she wanted more than what they traded away.

Jason

With all due respect, I believe you need to try representing the entire equation. You're only considering the consumer side of the equation. You take a simplistic position that low prices are unconditionally good. You ignore the bigger picture, the societal costs that subsidize those low prices. These costs have been widely discussed in this thread: loss of high-paying maunfacturing jobs overseas, employee welfare costs, tax subsidies (direct and indirect), loss of locally-owned business, etc. We may disagree about the extent and relative impact of each cost, but we cannot blindly dismiss them. They are an integral part of the equation. They must be considered too.

 

[dmcowen674]

I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Let's see this great future for American workers, great benefits, pension plan and days off with pay with not only the largest Company in America but the World.


"not to preach but your vacation time is over take a job and work your way up to manager wal-mart has a great future benefits pension plan days off with pay largest company in AMERICA THEY HIRE OFTEN try it you will like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Let's see this great future for American workers, great benefits, pension plan and days off with pay with not only the largest Company in America but the World.


"not to preach but your vacation time is over take a job and work your way up to manager wal-mart has a great future benefits pension plan days off with pay largest company in AMERICA THEY HIRE OFTEN try it you will like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

< darthvoice > Come to the dark side Dave < /darthvoice>

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Let's see this great future for American workers, great benefits, pension plan and days off with pay with not only the largest Company in America but the World.


"not to preach but your vacation time is over take a job and work your way up to manager wal-mart has a great future benefits pension plan days off with pay largest company in AMERICA THEY HIRE OFTEN try it you will like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

< darthvoice > Come to the dark side Dave < /darthvoice>

Maybe Lucas will make a movie of it or at least Micheal Moore.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Just don't load SETI on any of their systems Dave.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Just don't load SETI on any of their systems Dave.

Good point:

World's largest Corporation should have the most Computers in the world. They claim to be helping the world everyday in their Commercials. Are they running a Distributed Computing Program that can help mankind? I would guess not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I have been getting quite a few E-mails like the one below. I am actually considering getting a job at one of the 3 surrounding Walmarts and chronicle the experience.

Let's see this great future for American workers, great benefits, pension plan and days off with pay with not only the largest Company in America but the World.


"not to preach but your vacation time is over take a job and work your way up to manager wal-mart has a great future benefits pension plan days off with pay largest company in AMERICA THEY HIRE OFTEN try it you will like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

OK put in my info & Resume on their online application area:

Walmart Stores Inc Create Resume Online: Personal Information

Why do you think Wal-Mart can attract more than one million people to choose us as their employer? Well, Wal-Mart takes pride in taking care of its people. Our People Make the Difference and we appreciate it in many ways.

Discounts
Wal-Mart Associates receive 10% off selected merchandise and SAM'S Associates receive a SAM'S Membership Card at no cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, a whopping 10% or if at Sam's don't have to pay to shop in my own store at full price, yipee, reasons alone that must work there.

 

[DealMonkey]

Have you guys noticed how much advertising Wal-Mart does to support their notion that they're good for the communities they move into? It's almost like they know they drain the life out of every small town they move into so they have to counter that perception in the community by advertising how it's really the "opposite," and how Wal-Mart is a good thing (tm) and how they bring jobs and vitality, etc., etc.

You know a company has a PR problem when they have to launch massive ad campaigns explaining how they're really not evil and are truly a good corporate citizen. R.J. Reynolds comes to mind for some reason . . .

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK put in my info & Resume on their online application area

When they offer you the $8/hr, you should be sure to factor in the value of food stamps and HUD/Section 8 housing assistance. That's gotta bring you up to the equivalent of $12.50/hr or more.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Have you guys noticed how much advertising Wal-Mart does to support their notion that they're good for the communities they move into? It's almost like they know they drain the life out of every small town they move into so they have to counter that perception in the community by advertising how it's really the "opposite," and how Wal-Mart is a good thing (tm) and how they bring jobs and vitality, etc., etc.

You know a company has a PR problem when they have to launch massive ad campaigns explaining how they're really not evil and are truly a good corporate citizen. R.J. Reynolds comes to mind for some reason . . .

I guess you have not been fortunate enough to live in a small town without a walmart. Before walmart if you wanted to do anything more than grocery shopping, that meant a 30 mile drive to the nearest real shopping center.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Have you guys noticed how much advertising Wal-Mart does to support their notion that they're good for the communities they move into? It's almost like they know they drain the life out of every small town they move into so they have to counter that perception in the community by advertising how it's really the "opposite," and how Wal-Mart is a good thing (tm) and how they bring jobs and vitality, etc., etc.

You know a company has a PR problem when they have to launch massive ad campaigns explaining how they're really not evil and are truly a good corporate citizen. R.J. Reynolds comes to mind for some reason . . .

I guess you have not been fortunate enough to live in a small town without a walmart. Before walmart if you wanted to do anything more than grocery shopping, that meant a 30 mile drive to the nearest real shopping center.

I live in a small town without a Wal Mart & love it. No traffic jams, no semi trailers, no gutted downtown area ... yet.

We go on small shopping trips to local retailers & do larger trips to larger retailers, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't like Wal Mart's practices & choose not to shop there if @ all possible.

My biggest bitches about Wal Mart are the poor staffing of the check out lines, the lack of help in finding anything, the constant reshuffling of products so I have to go through the whole freaking store to find a product I want, with the newer check out lines I have to bag my own groceries, and if I get run over by another fat, lazy POS in a motorized cart, I swear to god I'll shoot out their tires:|

 

[ReiAyanami]

i like the new walmart commercial that features a group of black ppl telling everybody how great walmart is and how it revitalized their ghetto at $8.50/hour. nice of the waltons to give back to the community. too bad it has to be in the shape of a big ugly box.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Have you guys noticed how much advertising Wal-Mart does to support their notion that they're good for the communities they move into? It's almost like they know they drain the life out of every small town they move into so they have to counter that perception in the community by advertising how it's really the "opposite," and how Wal-Mart is a good thing (tm) and how they bring jobs and vitality, etc., etc.

You know a company has a PR problem when they have to launch massive ad campaigns explaining how they're really not evil and are truly a good corporate citizen. R.J. Reynolds comes to mind for some reason . . .

I guess you have not been fortunate enough to live in a small town without a walmart. Before walmart if you wanted to do anything more than grocery shopping, that meant a 30 mile drive to the nearest real shopping center.

I live in a small town without a Wal Mart & love it. No traffic jams, no semi trailers, no gutted downtown area ... yet.

We go on small shopping trips to local retailers & do larger trips to larger retailers, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't like Wal Mart's practices & choose not to shop there if @ all possible.

My biggest bitches about Wal Mart are the poor staffing of the check out lines, the lack of help in finding anything, the constant reshuffling of products so I have to go through the whole freaking store to find a product I want, with the newer check out lines I have to bag my own groceries, and if I get run over by another fat, lazy POS in a motorized cart, I swear to god I'll shoot out their tires:|

Your small town much have been much larger than the small town I grew up in. I dont recall many shopping option before walmart moved to town.

 

[DealMonkey]

So I guess a big steaming turd is better than nothing, right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So I guess a big steaming turd is better than nothing, right?

If you did not mind a 1/2 hour to do anything more than grocery shopping.....

 

[dmcowen674]

12-29-2003 Technology Sector to be Driven by Walmart in 2004

Most of the end-of-year forecasts focusing more specifically on technology spending expect a 4 percent to 6 percent increase in 2004, notably healthier than in previous years when corporate stinginess weighed down the entire economy.

But that hardly amounts to another boom, and the momentum is uncertain, experts caution. In fact, there appears to have been some slowdown during the fall, perhaps because newly confident information technology managers realized they had overspent budgets set last year when times were tougher.

"I don't think it's going to return to the boom days of five years ago anytime soon," said Tom Pohlmann, who follows technology spending at Forrester Research.

And the growth that comes won't necessarily be across the board. In year-end interviews, experts offered their view of the shape of tech spending in 2004.

Many companies don't have a choice. Wal-Mart is forcing its suppliers to invest in radio frequency identification tags to help the retail giant track its inventory.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger<brWith all due respect, I believe you need to try representing the entire equation. You're only considering the consumer side of the equation. You take a simplistic position that low prices are unconditionally good. You ignore the bigger picture, the societal costs that subsidize those low prices. These costs have been widely discussed in this thread: loss of high-paying maunfacturing jobs overseas, employee welfare costs, tax subsidies (direct and indirect), loss of locally-owned business, etc. We may disagree about the extent and relative impact of each cost, but we cannot blindly dismiss them. They are an integral part of the equation. They must be considered too.

Following the theme of "with all due respect," it's certainly fair to say that there are various costs in terms of certain kinds of jobs being lost overseas, etc. However, I would argue that it's a mistake to think that you can solve all these issues by forbidding company's to do what they can to keep consumer costs low or by making it illegal for poor people to take certain jobs at certain rates (which is what Minimum Wage does: It says to the poor man, "It's better for you to have NO job than to have one that pays $5 an hour", because many companies simply won't hire as many workers when they have to pay a lot more for them.

When you talk about forcing higher wages for low skill jobs like Wal Mart cashiers, you're failing to see that the people you will harm the most are *precisely* the middle class. When the wages go up, so will the prices, effectively nullifying the improved wage for the people who work in those jobs. The middle class folks (and these are NOT wal mart clerks, these are most assuredly poor, not middle class, with the exception of supervisors and managers) have to pay higher prices and therefore cannot afford as many goods and services as they otherwise could. Goods and Services *are* wealth. The more that there are available for people and the better the prices are, the higher the standard of living goes for everyone.

By jacking up wages you won't hurt the rich much at all; they have a far better cushion against price jumps than you or I do. Whereas if the price of say, a package of cookies goes up by $1 it might really make the difference between whether you or I can afford them, a rich person will just accept the $1 increase and move along. Who's wounded? The rich guy paid more, sure, but now *I* don't have cookies because I couldn't afford them. Forget for a moment that I'm a cookie addict and will probably put back something more important so I can get the cookies (or consider that and ask if it's better that I should have to make that tradeoff or be able to enjoy cookies *and* have the something I need more...)

Globalization is here to stay. It's not going to go away, and it's so widespread at this point that cutting it off would be disastrous for every economy on earth, including ours. I'm all for "Buy American," but ONLY if the American product is better. Look at how the japanese cars in the 70's and 80's just ripped the American car market to shreds. Why? Because American cars were overpriced junk and japanese cars offered value and quality all in an affordable package. What makes the most sense in choosing how to spend your money is simply this: Where can I get the most VALUE for my money?

It is in this area that Wal Mart is a *good* thing for the people of America, indeed for the world: they are *extremely* proficient in brokering great deals on goods, which they then pass along to the people who shop there. It would be idiocy to claim that any organization can fix all the problems of the world; Wal Mart, like any other business, focuses on fulfilling a very specific need, which is low-priced goods for consumers. Wal Mart's success is a testament to the fact that consumers overall *want* low priced stuff, and I think most people realize that it isn't always the best quality. There are certain things I won't buy at Wal Mart (clothes, except sometimes for T shirt,s sweats, stuff that doesn't really need to be high quality because it's just casual nonsense for wearing while hanging out or lounging about...) but many others that I will. I also rarely buy video games there, because the deals are mediocre at best.

Anyway, so that's about as quiet as I can be about it, but I hope that explains my feeling and thought on the matter a little better, particularly for you, Bowfinger.

Jason