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

[Jmman]

These Walmart threads always amaze me. What you guys are talking about is a welfare state. There is no possible way that you can "ensure" that everyone is successful in their given occupation. Many countries have tried it, but it just doesn't work. The market decides salary and wages, and any government attempts to trump the market are fruitless. Hell, let's just make the minimum wage 50,000 a year. That would be great huh? Have fun paying $15 for your big mac or $500 for your Nikes. Walmart is not forcing anyone to work for $7. If they could not get someone to work for those rates, well guess what, they would have to pay more. Simple as that......

 

[rjain]

And, if someone was being OFFERED work for better rates, nothing is forcing people to work for Walmart. All you weenies want is that if walmart offers better rates that some other company, those people should be forbidden from working at walmart. Instead, they should starve and die. Such "compassion".

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

Don't take this the wrong way..but please don't try and help me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

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.

The American Dream.. to me is embodied in these words: ". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . ."

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

Don't forget it's your right to alter or, gasp, abolish it and institute new government like the Supreme Coup did in 2000.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

Don't take this the wrong way..but please don't try and help me.

OMG, I almost fell off my chair on that one!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

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.

The American Dream.. to me is embodied in these words: ". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . ."

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

Don't forget it's your right to alter or, gasp, abolish it and institute new government like the Supreme Coup did in 2000.

Only moonie could find a way to yap about the election of 2000 in a Walmart thread.

*******

miguel - I did too

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

linkage

Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6%

Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a perc ent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 5.9%

Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 6.5%

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers 9.4%



It does appear we do count everyone and it does appear if you have a job you are counted as employed.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

linkage

Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6%

Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a perc ent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 5.9%

Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 6.5%

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers 9.4%



It does appear we do count everyone and it does appear if you have a job you are counted as employed.

we may count everyone, but only the 5.6% figure is commonly reported, and that is the one being compared to the German figure of around 10% as compared to our total figures of 9.4%

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

linkage

Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6%

Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a perc ent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 5.9%

Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 6.5%

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers 9.4%



It does appear we do count everyone and it does appear if you have a job you are counted as employed.

we may count everyone, but only the 5.6% figure is commonly reported, and that is the one being compared to the German figure of around 10% as compared to our total figures of 9.4%

Actually it is the 5.9 number that is reported. All these stats are reported every month and they publicaly available. Counting underemployed(almost 4%) does not make for realistic unemployment numbers.

Does germany count underemployed?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6%

Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a perc ent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 5.9%

Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 6.5%

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers 9.4%



It does appear we do count everyone and it does appear if you have a job you are counted as employed.

we may count everyone, but only the 5.6% figure is commonly reported, and that is the one being compared to the German figure of around 10% as compared to our total figures of 9.4%

Doesn't "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force " mean that it measure all eligible workers, just like in Germany?

The 9.4%, as I read it, is the 5.6% PLUS people who work sometimes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

You mean in Germany they (Politicians) are actually looking out for the "overall" good of the Country Economy and the people and NOT looking out for Wal-Mart? Shocking, apparently Wal-mart didn't pay the Politicians off enough.

They sure are...10% of Germans unemployed and probably would love to work at Wal-Mart for some Euros. Ask some of these Germans what they think about these so-called politicians "looking out for the overall."

10% unemployment in Germany is measured differently than 10% would in the US. They measure all eligible workers/we don't.

You tell em Tnitsuj. I bet the "REAL" U.S. number is well over 10%.

linkage

Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6%

Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a perc ent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 5.9%

Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 6.5%

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers 9.4%



It does appear we do count everyone and it does appear if you have a job you are counted as employed.

These are nov 2002 numbers. It appears the last 3 stats are no longer computed.

 

[Jhhnn]

"These are nov 2002 numbers. It appears the last 3 stats are no longer computed."

Any particular reason for the last three stats being dropped? We've seen this kind of stuff before- if the numbers aren't flattering, quit compiling them or change the whole process.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"These are nov 2002 numbers. It appears the last 3 stats are no longer computed."

Any particular reason for the last three stats being dropped? We've seen this kind of stuff before- if the numbers aren't flattering, quit compiling them or change the whole process.

Really? Got an example to share?

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure. When the Bushies wanted to change sex ed to abstinence-only teaching, they forced the CDC to drop all references from their website concerning "programs that work"- comprehensive sex ed with scientific follow up of the participants. When the Admin brought in abstinence only programs, they measured success with an attendance roll and exit poll of the participants...

Here

Check out the links on that page, too, for a broader perspective on the whole methodology...

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure. When the Bushies wanted to change sex ed to abstinence-only teaching, they forced the CDC to drop all references from their website concerning "programs that work"- comprehensive sex ed with scientific follow up of the participants. When the Admin brought in abstinence only programs, they measured success with an attendance roll and exit poll of the participants...

Here

Check out the links on that page, too, for a broader perspective on the whole methodology...

That's nice, Jhhnn, but you can't really be saying that that's the same thing as you are alleging: that the numbers were removed or data collection was altered because the numbers were going wrong. A change in policy is different. For this to be equivalent to your example, Bush would have had to change policy to say something ridiculous like: breathing is now considered a job.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not at all, miguel. Dropping the tracking for certain kinds of unemployment and underemployment IS a change in policy. If you had a full-time job and are now relegated to part-time, it counts just the same as if your new job were full-time...

Also if you gave up looking or are considered marginally attached, then you don't count anywhere...

The whole thing may be erroneous in that the original assertion that they've quit compiling those stats is erroneous. It may take a while longer for those to be completed, dunno.

And the example I gave pretty well covers the territory, substituting an opinion poll for scientific follow up denies any comparisons between the two kinds of educational programs. They really don't give a damn if it works or not, just so long as it looks good...

 

[yellowperil]

Walmart...all that money and yet not enough to open up another register.

 

[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

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: miguel
It's now 12-8 that Walmart is bad. Can someone present a clear-headed case why it is?

Because Wal-Mart censors its magazines and music. Because Wal-Mart pushes pan&scan movies. Because Wal-Mart contributes to the homogenization of America, reinforcing a trend started by companies like McDonalds. Because Wal-Mart displaces local business, removing money from the community.

But most of all, because Wal-Mart exerts too much influence on the purchase of wholesale consumer goods. Among other things, this ultimately leads to the loss of American jobs and higher-quality American products in favor of cheap imported crap from China and elsewhere.

BTW, Miguel, I answered your question.

 

[DealMonkey]

A couple of points I don't recall being brought up:

A) What about the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't operate on a level playing field with other businesses? For example, when a new Wal-Mart goes into a community, quite often, the city council will give Wal-Mart special incentives to locate in their towns. Reduced taxation, tax credits, etc. Sometimes Wal-Mart gets an outright cash incentive to move in. How is that fair to other businesses that have to compete with Wal-Mart, but who do not receive the same incentives?

B) Do the underemployed that labor at Wal-Mart, often without health care (or decent health care if they actually opt-in) and at the low-end of the wage spectrum, end up costing the taxpayer every time they have to visit the hospital and can't pay their bill? Or their family member has to go to the doctor and they can't pay that bill either. Raising medical rates and health care rates for the rest of us. Or what if the Wal-Mart employee is on other entitlement programs like foodstamps, HUD, etc.? Doesn't this indirectly affect all taxpayers? Is that fair?

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's an interesting piece on WalMart's welfare dependency-

Chronicle

By and large, WalMart employees also qualify for earned income credits- direct cash transfers from higher bracket taxpayers to supplement their incomes, and indirectly the profits of the owners...

Edit- that doesn't link right, click the link to the San Francisco Chronicle in the text...

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: 308nato
Beef Jerky, Valvoline, Pampers, Dremel Wheels, Propane Bottles and Ammo in one stop. Its good for me.

LMAO that sounded mega trailor trash I sense sarcasm atleast

Originally posted by: yellowperil
Walmart...all that money and yet not enough to open up another register.

So true, and I only go to Super target myself, their self check system is awesome too.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

No No No, you heard the experts here, they are paying so much Taxes on that 103 Billion that they are "hurting". Also all the money they are "Trickling" down into the Economy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

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.

The American Dream.. to me is embodied in these words: ". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . ."

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

Don't forget it's your right to alter or, gasp, abolish it and institute new government like the Supreme Coup did in 2000.

Well... maybe not any longer.. Unless we invoke the 14th Amendment under which maybe the Coupettes would conclude 'equal' pay for 'equal' function is a constitutional mandate.. Gee.. I might argue that before the Warren Court.. well.. this ain't the 50's ... maybe the 9th Circuit.. yeah..

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No No No, you heard the experts here, they are paying so much Taxes on that 103 Billion that they are "hurting". Also all the money they are "Trickling" down into the Economy.

Who said people pay taxes on their net worth? Please provide a link.

Don't worry Dave, assests and taxation of assets have been added to the list of things you don't understand.