no they don't. that is so far from their supposed job it's a joke. what a waste of my tax dollars. if you don't like what walmart does as a company, don't shop there. short of that, unless they're breaking laws, they are well within their rights.
as for "povs" not having enough money to shop anywhere but WalMart, i find that hard to believe. i have yet to see a house of supposedly poor people that doesn't have the following:
either liquor, beer or cigarettes (or some combination of them)
a large (30+ inch TV) with cable TV
the cost of those alone would make up for any difference you might get for shopping at WalMart vs. any other store.
WalMart treats their workers like crap, and has a history of requiring lower quality products to meet their cost structure. they blow.
as for "povs" not having enough money to shop anywhere but WalMart, i find that hard to believe.
Of course they can shop elsewhere...but their dollar isn't going to go quite as far. So what's the incentive? The pleasure in knowing somebody else will benefit from their expense?
Quote:
i have yet to see a house of supposedly poor people that doesn't have the following:
either liquor, beer or cigarettes (or some combination of them)
a large (30+ inch TV) with cable TV
All poor people are guilty of this, right? They should not only live a poorer life, but they are also obliged to "look" like they do? Goodness forbid if they should want a drink, a smoke, or watch some TV (on the one nice thing they actually own and makes life remotely worth living to them), after a hard day's work. There is so much fallacy in a statement that judges what they should or should not have, I don't even know where to start.
Quote:
the cost of those alone would make up for any difference you might get for shopping at WalMart vs. any other store.
So you concede that shopping at Walmart has then enabled them to afford a few meager pleasures in life? Well someone ought to stop them, because po people are certainly very well undeserving of some pleasure in their lives.
Quote:
WalMart treats their workers like crap,...
Just Walmart does??? It's not a justification for the treatment, but certainly it isn't just a feature of Walmart. Would a union help here for that? I can tell you from personal experience that a company can still treat you like crap, despite a union. So basically this comes down to if a company is prone to treat you like crap, not much is going to stop them. Getting paid an extra $4.00/hr isn't going to suddenly make things "even". How about an extra $8? Will that do it? An a$$ reaming is an a$$ reaming. You are better off negotiating the ceasing of the a$$ reaming, rather than the price that would compensate for that a$$ reaming.
Quote:
...and has a history of requiring lower quality products to meet their cost structure.
If they are really low quality products, they won't sell at any cost.
Quote:
they blow.
Perhaps, but others seem to have found a worthwhile purpose for their existence.
Actually many cities don't attract big box retailers for their employment (since many of the jobs are crappy) the offer incentives usually because of taxes the big boxes pay. Most states give a percentage of collected sales tax back to the city who collected it so the more sales tax you collect, the more money you have. Big box retailers collect a lot of this type of tax so it enriches cities to have them come in.
The other example of this type of thinking is usually auto dealerships.
I never asked it to be so. The bottomline is that if you need to stretch your dollar to make ends meet, you do what you have to. No one else is going to look after you or thank you for shopping where the prices are higher (not the people working in Walmart, not the rich people who live on the other side of town, not the Ma & Pa grocery store, not the government). If you can afford to shop elsewhere, by all means, do so, but that doesn't justify your looking down your nose at everyone else who doesn't. Not everyone is as blessed as you, unfortunately.
Please don't confuse what I am saying. I am not looking down my nose at anyone. I realize it is hard for many people on the planet to live life. I was only saying this problem is driven by consumer demand. Wal-Mart is a provider for low cost goods and services. I see many "middle class and wealthy people also shop at wal-mart and get their oil changed etc. To them they are happy paying $15.00 for an oil change where other places in town charge $27.00
This is not about me looking down at anyone. This is about me realizing that consumers are driving this and Wal-Mart is the provider to this.
Either wal-mart provides a service by providing cheaper goods and services or they don't. On the one hand it is a blessing for those who shop at wal-mart and can streatch their $$$ but on the other hand it may not be so hot for those working there. That is what I am saying.
no they don't. that is so far from their supposed job it's a joke. what a waste of my tax dollars. if you don't like what walmart does as a company, don't shop there. short of that, unless they're breaking laws, they are well within their rights.
But if they're not within the law they're not within their rights. That's the point. The government limits individuals to a certain standard, but not corporations. That's a problem. The less limits the better, but if I'm limited as an individual the corporations better be limited even more.
Shoppers can't know how good or bad a company really is. You're ignorant and naive if you think 'shop elsewhere' is a rational solution.
As a consumer, I can only trust that the companies that exist are legitimate and relatively clean of problems. It is the job of the government to keep things that way just as it's their job to keep the streets clean of criminals.
The government limits individuals to a certain standard, but not corporations. That's a problem. The less limits the better, but if I'm limited as an individual the corporations better be limited even more.
Shoppers can't know how good or bad a company really is. You're ignorant and naive if you think 'shop elsewhere' is a rational solution.
As a consumer, I can only trust that the companies that exist are legitimate and relatively clean of problems. It is the job of the government to keep things that way just as it's their job to keep the streets clean of criminals.
wtf are you talking about? how are companies not limited by law? they can't kill people. they can't rob. they are under more restrictive laws than an individual already.
again, if what they're doing isn't illegal, there's no reason for any govt. agency to step in.
as for claiming that you can't know how good or bad a company is, that's just crap. this is the age of the internet. you can find out everything you want to know about a company and their practices by looking them up online.
go ahead. look up "walmart employee rights" on google. that'll give you over 10,000 hits right there. sheesh.
if a company is doing something that is both legal, but which you consider unethical, your solution is to stop buying their stuff. it's not up to the govt. to babysit you.
wtf are you talking about? how are companies not limited by law? they can't kill people. they can't rob. they are under more restrictive laws than an individual already.
again, if what they're doing isn't illegal, there's no reason for any govt. agency to step in.
as for claiming that you can't know how good or bad a company is, that's just crap. this is the age of the internet. you can find out everything you want to know about a company and their practices by looking them up online.
go ahead. look up "walmart employee rights" on google. that'll give you over 10,000 hits right there. sheesh.
if a company is doing something that is both legal, but which you consider unethical, your solution is to stop buying their stuff. it's not up to the govt. to babysit you.
It's not about baby sitting, it's about ethics. It takes years, maybe even decades for a company the size of WalMart to 'come clean' in the eyes of the government. That's most of an adult's lifetime. If you're not privy to WalMart financials then you're SOL. You can't know how good or bad they are as a company. You'll spend most of your adult life shopping somewhere before you even realize that they're bastards.
As a shopper, I shouldn't have to worry if company X is legitimate or not. If they're in business it's because the government says they're legitimate enough to do business. If they're not, it's the government's fault that they haven't been run out of business since that's roughly what the law says should happen.
Even if noone work for less that $12/h here (with the exception of those under 18 years) we don´t have a minimum wage. The unemployment benefits, unions influence (more historical) and a general ideology of a liberal welfare state has kept the wages from falling under a certain "decency level". There is nothing that prevent any company to hire workers for $10. But of course noone would take that work and it would discredit the company in its customers eyes.
so you're telling me the government should legislate ethics?
We can be dense about this if we like, but it's a waste of time. Whether you like it or not the government regulates business. But, like with WalMart, a consumer has no way of knowing if the business is legit or not. By virtue of being open, the government has given its approval of said business.
So if WalMart is up and running, a consumer has to assume it's an OK business. Otherwise it wouldn't be up and running. By the time we hear about the bad side of things, like the recent court ruling against WalMart, we've already given WalMart years of business.
There's a lag in the cycle.
This argument started when someone suggested shopping elsewhere. My point is that by the time you know you should be shopping elsewhere you've already given WalMart years of your dollars.
You think it's a waste of your tax dollars for the government to regulate business? Does that mean you don't want a minimum wage? Or you want to revert back to when we didn't have child labor laws? How about forcing 70 hour work weeks again? Or like most people do you actually like the fact that the government regulates things but you don't realize it or want to admit it?
ok, were you or were you not saying this is an ethical problem that the government should regulate?
Quote:
You think it's a waste of your tax dollars for the government to regulate business? Does that mean you don't want a minimum wage? Or you want to revert back to when we didn't have child labor laws? How about forcing 70 hour work weeks again?
i never said it was a waste of time to regulate business. again with the reading comprehension. reread what i wrote.
what walmart is doing is not illegal. all of the examples you gave would be illegal.
if a company is acting in a legal manner, but you think what they're doing is wrong/unethical (BUT NOT ILLEGAL) your solution is to NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
I thought people who had cable tv and a big telly weren't poor.
Well that just makes me a rich person .. no 30+ in tvs, no cable, no cigarettes.
Me too. No tv at all, no cigarettes and liqour...well hello ms. Bombay Sapphire and mr. Stolichnaya. I had forgotten you were sitting in there. What about we arrange a meetup in my stomach?
Comments
The government has to be involved at some level
no they don't. that is so far from their supposed job it's a joke. what a waste of my tax dollars. if you don't like what walmart does as a company, don't shop there. short of that, unless they're breaking laws, they are well within their rights.
as for "povs" not having enough money to shop anywhere but WalMart, i find that hard to believe. i have yet to see a house of supposedly poor people that doesn't have the following:
either liquor, beer or cigarettes (or some combination of them)
a large (30+ inch TV) with cable TV
the cost of those alone would make up for any difference you might get for shopping at WalMart vs. any other store.
WalMart treats their workers like crap, and has a history of requiring lower quality products to meet their cost structure. they blow.
Heck, there's a company in town that makes school buses (Thomas Bus Co.), and they make $20/h!
Originally posted by alcimedes
as for "povs" not having enough money to shop anywhere but WalMart, i find that hard to believe.
Of course they can shop elsewhere...but their dollar isn't going to go quite as far. So what's the incentive? The pleasure in knowing somebody else will benefit from their expense?
Quote:
i have yet to see a house of supposedly poor people that doesn't have the following:
either liquor, beer or cigarettes (or some combination of them)
a large (30+ inch TV) with cable TV
All poor people are guilty of this, right? They should not only live a poorer life, but they are also obliged to "look" like they do? Goodness forbid if they should want a drink, a smoke, or watch some TV (on the one nice thing they actually own and makes life remotely worth living to them), after a hard day's work. There is so much fallacy in a statement that judges what they should or should not have, I don't even know where to start.
Quote:
the cost of those alone would make up for any difference you might get for shopping at WalMart vs. any other store.
So you concede that shopping at Walmart has then enabled them to afford a few meager pleasures in life? Well someone ought to stop them, because po people are certainly very well undeserving of some pleasure in their lives.
Quote:
WalMart treats their workers like crap,...
Just Walmart does??? It's not a justification for the treatment, but certainly it isn't just a feature of Walmart. Would a union help here for that? I can tell you from personal experience that a company can still treat you like crap, despite a union. So basically this comes down to if a company is prone to treat you like crap, not much is going to stop them. Getting paid an extra $4.00/hr isn't going to suddenly make things "even". How about an extra $8? Will that do it? An a$$ reaming is an a$$ reaming. You are better off negotiating the ceasing of the a$$ reaming, rather than the price that would compensate for that a$$ reaming.
Quote:
...and has a history of requiring lower quality products to meet their cost structure.
If they are really low quality products, they won't sell at any cost.
Quote:
they blow.
Perhaps, but others seem to have found a worthwhile purpose for their existence.
The other example of this type of thinking is usually auto dealerships.
Nick
Originally posted by Randycat99
I never asked it to be so. The bottomline is that if you need to stretch your dollar to make ends meet, you do what you have to. No one else is going to look after you or thank you for shopping where the prices are higher (not the people working in Walmart, not the rich people who live on the other side of town, not the Ma & Pa grocery store, not the government). If you can afford to shop elsewhere, by all means, do so, but that doesn't justify your looking down your nose at everyone else who doesn't. Not everyone is as blessed as you, unfortunately.
Please don't confuse what I am saying. I am not looking down my nose at anyone. I realize it is hard for many people on the planet to live life. I was only saying this problem is driven by consumer demand. Wal-Mart is a provider for low cost goods and services. I see many "middle class and wealthy people also shop at wal-mart and get their oil changed etc. To them they are happy paying $15.00 for an oil change where other places in town charge $27.00
This is not about me looking down at anyone. This is about me realizing that consumers are driving this and Wal-Mart is the provider to this.
Either wal-mart provides a service by providing cheaper goods and services or they don't. On the one hand it is a blessing for those who shop at wal-mart and can streatch their $$$ but on the other hand it may not be so hot for those working there. That is what I am saying.
Fellowship
Originally posted by alcimedes
no they don't. that is so far from their supposed job it's a joke. what a waste of my tax dollars. if you don't like what walmart does as a company, don't shop there. short of that, unless they're breaking laws, they are well within their rights.
But if they're not within the law they're not within their rights. That's the point. The government limits individuals to a certain standard, but not corporations. That's a problem. The less limits the better, but if I'm limited as an individual the corporations better be limited even more.
Shoppers can't know how good or bad a company really is. You're ignorant and naive if you think 'shop elsewhere' is a rational solution.
As a consumer, I can only trust that the companies that exist are legitimate and relatively clean of problems. It is the job of the government to keep things that way just as it's their job to keep the streets clean of criminals.
You're blind if you see it otherwise.
The government limits individuals to a certain standard, but not corporations. That's a problem. The less limits the better, but if I'm limited as an individual the corporations better be limited even more.
Shoppers can't know how good or bad a company really is. You're ignorant and naive if you think 'shop elsewhere' is a rational solution.
As a consumer, I can only trust that the companies that exist are legitimate and relatively clean of problems. It is the job of the government to keep things that way just as it's their job to keep the streets clean of criminals.
wtf are you talking about? how are companies not limited by law? they can't kill people. they can't rob. they are under more restrictive laws than an individual already.
again, if what they're doing isn't illegal, there's no reason for any govt. agency to step in.
as for claiming that you can't know how good or bad a company is, that's just crap. this is the age of the internet. you can find out everything you want to know about a company and their practices by looking them up online.
go ahead. look up "walmart employee rights" on google. that'll give you over 10,000 hits right there. sheesh.
if a company is doing something that is both legal, but which you consider unethical, your solution is to stop buying their stuff. it's not up to the govt. to babysit you.
Originally posted by alcimedes
wtf are you talking about? how are companies not limited by law? they can't kill people. they can't rob. they are under more restrictive laws than an individual already.
again, if what they're doing isn't illegal, there's no reason for any govt. agency to step in.
as for claiming that you can't know how good or bad a company is, that's just crap. this is the age of the internet. you can find out everything you want to know about a company and their practices by looking them up online.
go ahead. look up "walmart employee rights" on google. that'll give you over 10,000 hits right there. sheesh.
if a company is doing something that is both legal, but which you consider unethical, your solution is to stop buying their stuff. it's not up to the govt. to babysit you.
It's not about baby sitting, it's about ethics. It takes years, maybe even decades for a company the size of WalMart to 'come clean' in the eyes of the government. That's most of an adult's lifetime. If you're not privy to WalMart financials then you're SOL. You can't know how good or bad they are as a company. You'll spend most of your adult life shopping somewhere before you even realize that they're bastards.
As a shopper, I shouldn't have to worry if company X is legitimate or not. If they're in business it's because the government says they're legitimate enough to do business. If they're not, it's the government's fault that they haven't been run out of business since that's roughly what the law says should happen.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so you're telling me the government should legislate ethics?
We can be dense about this if we like, but it's a waste of time. Whether you like it or not the government regulates business. But, like with WalMart, a consumer has no way of knowing if the business is legit or not. By virtue of being open, the government has given its approval of said business.
So if WalMart is up and running, a consumer has to assume it's an OK business. Otherwise it wouldn't be up and running. By the time we hear about the bad side of things, like the recent court ruling against WalMart, we've already given WalMart years of business.
There's a lag in the cycle.
This argument started when someone suggested shopping elsewhere. My point is that by the time you know you should be shopping elsewhere you've already given WalMart years of your dollars.
You think it's a waste of your tax dollars for the government to regulate business? Does that mean you don't want a minimum wage? Or you want to revert back to when we didn't have child labor laws? How about forcing 70 hour work weeks again? Or like most people do you actually like the fact that the government regulates things but you don't realize it or want to admit it?
You think it's a waste of your tax dollars for the government to regulate business? Does that mean you don't want a minimum wage? Or you want to revert back to when we didn't have child labor laws? How about forcing 70 hour work weeks again?
i never said it was a waste of time to regulate business. again with the reading comprehension. reread what i wrote.
what walmart is doing is not illegal. all of the examples you gave would be illegal.
if a company is acting in a legal manner, but you think what they're doing is wrong/unethical (BUT NOT ILLEGAL) your solution is to NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i have yet to see a house of supposedly poor people that doesn't have the following:
either liquor, beer or cigarettes (or some combination of them)
a large (30+ inch TV) with cable TV
I thought people who had cable tv and a big telly weren't poor.
Well that just makes me a rich person .. no 30+ in tvs, no cable, no cigarettes.
Originally posted by Giaguara
I thought people who had cable tv and a big telly weren't poor.
Well that just makes me a rich person .. no 30+ in tvs, no cable, no cigarettes.
Me too. No tv at all, no cigarettes and liqour...well hello ms. Bombay Sapphire and mr. Stolichnaya. I had forgotten you were sitting in there. What about we arrange a meetup in my stomach?
Originally posted by alcimedes
what walmart is doing is not illegal. all of the examples you gave would be illegal.
The courts disagree with you.