If someone is barely making a living wage, how are they to afford any training or education?
Get a friggin' brain. The United States is filled with thousands of Public Libraries that offer FREE books for loan, and offer to get you books from larger libraries, also for free.
Many, many people improve their lives by reading these free books.
The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous. If one is of normal intelligence and emotional stability, the only thing keeping you from becoming comfortably paid is yourself -- and the idiotic liberal-communists who want to steal your money to pay for their whores.
I don't like it, I've always knid of disagreed to these stores selling iPods , but no Macs. Wal-Mart isn't the kind of company that Apple should be associated with anyway.
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
I don't like it, I've always knid of disagreed to these stores selling iPods , but no Macs. Wal-Mart isn't the kind of company that Apple should be associated with anyway.
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
Not to try to totally change the topic, but I would like to know where everyone gets their ideas about Wal-Mart being evil, or promoting 'cheap, chezy, worhtless crap' (nice word use and spelling, btw, got my attention very well). Wal-Mart's only bad point, as far as I can tell from these posts, besides the myths of the media that I have already mentioned, is that they sell THE SAME products as their competitors, only at a lower cost to the consumer. The customer dictates what products are carried in Wal-Mart stores. The company would not be in business very long at all, much less become as large as it is, if they didn't carry the items that more people are after. Someone remind me how this is evil? Seems to me that it is the goal of the American entrepeneur. Find the most creative way to be profitable while allowing as many people as possible to reap the benefits. Let's face it, there are more less well-to-do people in this country than there are rich. Apple's own marketshare is usually accredited to (blamed on) this fact.
One more comment and I'll get off my soap box, and allow everyone to return to their Retail Giant bashing; Has anyone ever heard someone talking about Wal-Mart in a positive manner? I mean, of the 1.2 million associates the company has, surely there is someone that feels that there is more to Wal-Mart than just a job and a paycheck. (besides myself). My point is, the majority of the arguements I hear against the Bentonville Behemoth (those concerning mistreatment) are from people who have never worked there and (those who complain about the quality of goods) rarely, if ever, shop there.
The mistreatment allegations generally come from Union campaigns, which is only to be expected. The Union leadership always spreads hate propeganda about non-unionized companies. Go figure. Wal-Mart is not evil, just large, and has perhaps more power than any single company should have. But power is not a bad thing, it's all in how you use it. Very few people will continue to work for someone who is abusive, so I find it hard to believe that I am the only one of the Million Plus associates of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. who finds the negative, misinformed media attention humerous, if not frustrating.
Remember, 80% of Wal-Mart associates are stockholders, either by participation in the stock purchase plan, or just by our 401(k), which is invested primarily in WMT. Any time people start talking about the evils of Wal-Mart and get the media buzz going, the stock drops, and efforts to supposedly 'improve working conditions and wages' at Wal-Mart end up taking money out of our (my) pocket.
Back on topic, almost, iPod shuffle will fit in nicely with the majority of Wal-Mart's customer demographic. Think for a moment what it's target market is. This only makes sense. I could even see a place, in a year or so, for the Mac mini. But that's about it. No iMac or G5 at Wal-Mart. That is where the so-called culture clash people here are discussing would come in to play. But hey, as Mac users, it is our elitism and smaller market saturation that has kept us as content as we are. When is the last time any Mac users felt the urgent desire to run AdAware or AntiVirus? Many of Wal-Mart's customers simply would not understand the benefits of the Mac in this arena. The iPod, however, has such universal appeal, that this can only be a good thing.
While I try to avoid Wal-Marts as much as possible, having more exposure to Apple products for those that only know Apple by iPod commericals is a good thing.
As for Wal-Mart and some sort of morality tale, there was a very good Frontline episode last November:
I have a 4 yr. college degree, and I make a comfortable living.
My company provides me, in addition to a salary, a retirement (10% of said salary, which I have, fully vested, and can choose the plan, or re-choose, that it is invested in).
I have an additional 401K that I can pay into.
I have every federal holiday off, paid.
I get 3 weeks paid for vacation.
I also have 2 personal days off each year, paid.
I have approximately 13 paid sick days off each year (to take if either myself or a family member is ill)
If I work overtime, I can choose to either be paid that in overtime, or to take ?comp? time at another point to make it up.
I have my choice of a medical and dental coverage, vision, legal, etc., for myself, at no additional charge. My family coverage is, if the website quoted here is accurate:
cost me a third of what Walmart associates have to pay for their most minimal insurance coverage.
My job also provides me with low-cost (1/2 price) mass transit benefits if I take the BART/bus to work. Oh, and I have 5 days a year, paid, that I can use for educational seminars, if I choose.
My husband has similar benefits- not as much automatically paid into retirement, but they provide 2% automatically of his salary into a plan (which he chooses), and then match, 50%, up to another 6%. He does not get as many holidays (his company is based in Singapore) but he gets more vacation. His health benefits are better than mine, and cost less, even for the family plans. He also gets a bonus each year, the amount differs, this year?s is equal to approximately 8% of his salary.
My husband works for a publicly traded company, I work for a private group.
?The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous. If one is of normal intelligence and emotional stability, the only thing keeping you from becoming comfortably paid is yourself. . .?
I disagree. How many of you had parents that had better ?benefits? than you, had more job security?
Things in this country have changed in the last 40 years, and not for the better.
My concern is that jobs like the ones my husband and I have will disappear (they are already harder to find), and my children, even though they are educated, will have a difficult time finding them at all.
To work full time for a company that reaps enormous profits and to oneself make a poverty level wage, well, that, to me, is ludicrous. Evil afoot? I leave you all to make the decision. I?ve already kissed the idea of a new Powerbook goodbye.
Additionally to all that's been said, it's not just how Wal-Mart treats it's workforce, but how they put all the small, independent businesses in the area out of business, and thus all the people who worked at these businesses. In exchange, Wal-Mart provides McJobs to these people at lower pay and benefits. Oh, and Wal-Mart also enforces "family values" by censoring the entertainment they sell, offering only movies and audio recordings that conform to their "values". Also among those values, I suppose, we can include hating gays and killing poor brown people of a different religion.
I don't see how Apple can influence the plight of Wal-Mart workers, so I guess it doesn't matter so much what they sell at Wal-Mart. Some day, Wal-Mart employees will take matters in their own hands and unionize, and really that is the only thing that will set the company straight in this country. It's going to take a Jimmy Hoffa to organize that beast...
Anyhow, there are two possible senarios, one good for Apple, one bad.
A. The good is that Walmart will sell iPod shuffles at the same price as anyone else
B. The bad is that Walmart will be allowed by Apple to undercut other reseller's price. I don't believe this senario is realistic. Apple should not and will probably not allow it. But if it happens I will somewhat agree with the negative sentiment.
People, if Walmart really is as evil as you say, go picket in front of it, try to pursaide people not to buy from it, write articles about it, write your congressman, DO something active and progressive against WALMART.
But I guarentee you that boycutting the companys that allow Walmart to resell their products will be futile and only serve your own egos. As I said, fight against WALMART all you like, that may be a noble cause, but why punish their customers?? Why should they not be allowed to buy a superior product in their store of choice, even if the store itself is inferior in your view??
Oh yeah, and while you're at it, unless you want to come off as hypocrites, make sure that you boycutt every single products by every single company that has any product on sale at Walmart.
I have been watching this thread with great interest, and it has actually been quite good and civil, until this point. I just had to respond to this one.
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
Get a friggin' brain.
This sort of this isn't really necessary. All it does is lower the civility of the discussion, offend people and, frankly, lower your own credibility.
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
The United States is filled with thousands of Public Libraries that offer FREE books for loan, and offer to get you books from larger libraries, also for free.
Many, many people improve their lives by reading these free books.
Yes we all know this. However, you assume that this is the only and best way for people to be "trained" into new skills. Some skills are not very amenable to simply reading about them. Some people are not very well "wired" to learn this way. Just the same, this is certainly something that is available to most people.
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous.
I don't think that anyone was suggesting that.
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
and the idiotic liberal-communists who want to steal your money to pay for their whores.
Here we go again. This kind of thing isn't really helpful to your argument.
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
LIBERALISM MUST BE DESTROYED!
Before you say this, perhaps you should try to understand what liberalism is truly about. Here is a good starting place:
In particular, the part that says: "Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government."
P.S. Oh, and you might think about what role "liberalism" has played in establishing and maintaining those "free" public libraries too.
I grew up very poor - my family lived on $400/month for a family of four (Mother and 3 kids). This was Canadian dollars in 1978, so roughly the same as US dollars now. All this talk of the "poverty line" is really kind of strange to me - if my mom could have gotten a $9/hour Wal-mart job, my life would have been a lot better.
Education isn't always the answer - she had a masters degree in English. The problem is that the poor can't move to a better job market, they don't have the time or money. Wal-mart wages would have made me feel rich, and at that level you can afford to re-train if you like, and move if you like to a better job market.
The fellow above who thinks libraries are the answer for the poor, I don't think that you have ever been poor. Libraries are great for the poor, but only as an escape, not re-training. Nobody will hire you because you say you have read a lot of books.
Wal-mart pays decent wages - I wish that we had one where I grew up. The only problem is, in Canada, it would have been Unionised so you would have to be part of an old-boy network to get a job there.
I don't like it, I've always knid of disagreed to these stores selling iPods , but no Macs. Wal-Mart isn't the kind of company that Apple should be associated with anyway.
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
The theme seems to be how Wal-Mart hurts consumers by keeping the standard of living lower. I haven't seen this mentioned, but I think another big issue is how superstores like Wal-Mart *clean-up* when they come into town. Small retailers quite often die of starvation because they just can't compete on price. If they do manage to survive, their standard of living is lowered (as a business). My hats go off to the small business owners that get really creative and find ways of competing that Wal-Mart (etc) just can't do.
The general theme, in discussing business ethics and economic growth, seems to have been centered around 2 ideas.
1) Wal-Mart is bad for the local economy because they sell items cheaper than the local businessman.
2) The Local businessman then goes out of business due to competition.
At what point, then, do we draw the line? Any time a company brings out a new idea or product, it is always costly, and people hope that there will soon enter some competition to help drive the price down to a level that would allow more people the opportunity to buy. Wal-Mart has done just that. It must be remembered, that Wal-Mart has not always been as large as it is today. It had the most humble beginings of virtually any company. It was the idea that you shouldn't need to be the wealthiest or most well educated of people to enjoy a comfortable life that built Wal-Mart to what it is today, as a market power.
I understand the position of the local businessman who feels that Wal-Mart has put him out of business, but we should not forget that ANY new business' success comes only from the failure of whatever means had previously supplied their need. --And there will always be more consumers in an area than there are suppliers. Do I feel bad for the local business that is unable to compete with Wal-Mart and forced to close? Yes. Do I blame Wal-Mart? Absolutely not. Do I feel that Wal-Mart is bad for the local economy? How can they be? Because one business owner and less than a dozen of his employees (as this is usually the size business that is portrayed as suffering when a Wal-Mart comes to town) are forced to change their practices to stay in business? Or because all of the people living in that area, including the 300+ that get jobs at Wal-Mart at a higher pay rate than the local business owner was able to supply, have a place to purchase items to enrich their lives at a cost they can afford? Or because, in light of that, everyone has a chance at the 'comfortable life' that, previously, only the business owner enjoyed? This simply does not make sense.
--and to those who like to attack Wal-Mart from the idea that 'A Multi-Billion dollar company can afford to pay more' or 'A Fraction of the Walton Family fortune could cover healthcare' I do have a (hopefully short) comment for you.
Wal-Mart's wages are paid at store level, not corporate. Whereas most large companies pool the total budget for such capital expenses from all operating units, Wal-Mart's associates have more control, at store level. This goes back to Mr. Sam's vision of servant leadership. These are the conditions that Sam Walton worked with: he was a small business owner. Any expense the business had, he had. Any success his business enjoyed, was his to enjoy also. By having each store control it's own expenditures, from their own profit margins, you allow the associates (there are no 'employees' at Wal-Mart, if you can grasp the idea of 'associate' as 'partner', then this will all make more sense) to have full control over their own profit/loss. Everyone likes to get a bonus at the end of the year, but only Wal-Mart associates can really appreciate where that bonus comes from, and what to do to make it better next year, the way an independant business owner can. If, then, company success is to be shared with the assocaites, isn't it also, in the spirit of partnership, fair and expected that expenses should be shared more evenly, also. The union website that people keep referencing is using highly exaggerated and outdated data on healthcare expense. For a more accurate representation, go to www.walmartfacts.com. I can vouch for the figures there, I see if out of my own paycheck. Yes, I do pay more than others for my healthcare, though not as much more as the media insists, but as far as retail is concerned, I also enjoy greater overall benefits, and so the partner-like sharing of expenses is, in my mind, fair. I am sorry to be so long winded in these posts, but I believe that just spouting off nonsense like "I like Wal-Mart, they are good!" or "I hate Wal-Mart, they abuse their associates, and will not promote women, or minorities" without having some credible evidence or explination to back it up is useless. By the way, my assistant manager in my store is a Phillipino (I know, it's misspelled) female. We have a hard time understanding what she is saying much of the time, but I'm sure she has the same problem as us. This is North Carolina, ya'll. We are also in the process of getting a new District Manager in my area; the 'favorite' candidate is female. Interesting, to me, at least, also is the fact that our store is very typical of any, except for our smaller size, and out of the 35 Department Managers we have, only 3 are male. But the critics must be right, Wal-Mart does not promote women. After all, the Union leaders say so, and they never exaggerate. My apologies for the sarcastic tone.
The theme seems to be how Wal-Mart hurts consumers by keeping the standard of living lower. I haven't seen this mentioned, but I think another big issue is how superstores like Wal-Mart *clean-up* when they come into town. Small retailers quite often die of starvation because they just can't compete on price. If they do manage to survive, their standard of living is lowered (as a business). My hats go off to the small business owners that get really creative and find ways of competing that Wal-Mart (etc) just can't do.
I dont know how true that really is, I hate wallmart as much as the next person in these threads, but we have 2 (and soon to be 3) in a town of ~80,000, and we still have family owned grocers, like Marsh - we still have family run drug stores, as well as the chains like cvs, we still have small sporting good stores, toy stores (sans kaybee) we have auto shops for both pro repair/service and DIY retailers.
we have local clothing shops, and of course we can go to other stores in town like Kmart, target, Meijer, sears, JC Penny, Ayres, and so on if we wish.
While walmart does drive away "some" buesness, they maake other small busenesses, look at the stores attached to newer wallmarts, small restarants, family run shoppes, dollar stores (see five and dime) that on their own would not attract enough attention to stay profiteable.
Why has no one bitched at/about best buy - that is the real shame - since they came to town nearly every tv shop and computer store has gone under. Ma and pa shops cannot afford to sell a nice system with monitor for $399, muchless take out huge ads in the local paper for it. Where is the outrage at best buy?
And why is no one pissed at apple, since the applestore in indy oopened, the apple authotised retailer here dropped them like a hot potato...or did apple drop them?...where is the rage against apple?
I won't shop at Wal-Mart. Or Sam's Club. Thankfully, there are choices, and here in Northern California, there are plenty of stores that provide a living wage to their employees, as well as the extra benefits, like health care.
I see those Wal-Mart commercials on TV, too. Read the facts.
I shop where it's best for my family, and convenient
there is no place on my 1040 that says "donation for living wage so I pay higher prices" I wish walmart had better housewares like target but hey.
but that's your choice, aren't you glad you can???? America
is a wonderful place. Walmart and sam's has THE BEST REURN POLICY AND QUICKEST REURN EXPERIENCE. sam wanted to give people what they wanted and surprise they grew. Gee i only shop and places that are arrogant and make me wait.
Here's a story about best buy---i bought a laptop for my nephew, took 3 to get it right because the sales people work more for spiffs (extra conmmission for certain products and don't know there products) So they want you to "customize and set up the laptop" for 25-30 bucks, but that's not refundable--scam..Bought a tv, it broke, they wouldn't take it back or repair it "but I bought an extended warranty" ok they said we'll give you a refund on the extended warranty and you keep the broke tv"---then i called the manager and 1800 best buy main office, then they gave me a full refund. you must be careful.
This smells as bad as when Apple and Sears teamed up to sell Macs back in the early '90s. Selling to the masses doesn't seem to fit Apple too well.
the problem was that sears personnel didn't know apple products, at best buy do they put apple trained people, sears only knew they came in colors---i asked it was sorry
the problem was that sears personnel didn't know apple products, at best buy do they put apple trained people, sears only knew they came in colors---i asked it was sorry
Somehow I don't think that the Walmart staff will have any trouble explaining the iPod shuffle.
Comments
If someone is barely making a living wage, how are they to afford any training or education?
Get a friggin' brain. The United States is filled with thousands of Public Libraries that offer FREE books for loan, and offer to get you books from larger libraries, also for free.
Many, many people improve their lives by reading these free books.
The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous. If one is of normal intelligence and emotional stability, the only thing keeping you from becoming comfortably paid is yourself -- and the idiotic liberal-communists who want to steal your money to pay for their whores.
LIBERALISM MUST BE DESTROYED!
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
Originally posted by isomething
I don't like it, I've always knid of disagreed to these stores selling iPods , but no Macs. Wal-Mart isn't the kind of company that Apple should be associated with anyway.
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
Not to try to totally change the topic, but I would like to know where everyone gets their ideas about Wal-Mart being evil, or promoting 'cheap, chezy, worhtless crap' (nice word use and spelling, btw, got my attention very well). Wal-Mart's only bad point, as far as I can tell from these posts, besides the myths of the media that I have already mentioned, is that they sell THE SAME products as their competitors, only at a lower cost to the consumer. The customer dictates what products are carried in Wal-Mart stores. The company would not be in business very long at all, much less become as large as it is, if they didn't carry the items that more people are after. Someone remind me how this is evil? Seems to me that it is the goal of the American entrepeneur. Find the most creative way to be profitable while allowing as many people as possible to reap the benefits. Let's face it, there are more less well-to-do people in this country than there are rich. Apple's own marketshare is usually accredited to (blamed on) this fact.
One more comment and I'll get off my soap box, and allow everyone to return to their Retail Giant bashing; Has anyone ever heard someone talking about Wal-Mart in a positive manner? I mean, of the 1.2 million associates the company has, surely there is someone that feels that there is more to Wal-Mart than just a job and a paycheck. (besides myself). My point is, the majority of the arguements I hear against the Bentonville Behemoth (those concerning mistreatment) are from people who have never worked there and (those who complain about the quality of goods) rarely, if ever, shop there.
The mistreatment allegations generally come from Union campaigns, which is only to be expected. The Union leadership always spreads hate propeganda about non-unionized companies. Go figure. Wal-Mart is not evil, just large, and has perhaps more power than any single company should have. But power is not a bad thing, it's all in how you use it. Very few people will continue to work for someone who is abusive, so I find it hard to believe that I am the only one of the Million Plus associates of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. who finds the negative, misinformed media attention humerous, if not frustrating.
Remember, 80% of Wal-Mart associates are stockholders, either by participation in the stock purchase plan, or just by our 401(k), which is invested primarily in WMT. Any time people start talking about the evils of Wal-Mart and get the media buzz going, the stock drops, and efforts to supposedly 'improve working conditions and wages' at Wal-Mart end up taking money out of our (my) pocket.
Back on topic, almost, iPod shuffle will fit in nicely with the majority of Wal-Mart's customer demographic. Think for a moment what it's target market is. This only makes sense. I could even see a place, in a year or so, for the Mac mini. But that's about it. No iMac or G5 at Wal-Mart. That is where the so-called culture clash people here are discussing would come in to play. But hey, as Mac users, it is our elitism and smaller market saturation that has kept us as content as we are. When is the last time any Mac users felt the urgent desire to run AdAware or AntiVirus? Many of Wal-Mart's customers simply would not understand the benefits of the Mac in this arena. The iPod, however, has such universal appeal, that this can only be a good thing.
As for Wal-Mart and some sort of morality tale, there was a very good Frontline episode last November:
Is Wal-Mart Good for America?
And you can watch it online--albeit with Windows Media or Real.
The answer to the show's title is not clear, but I was surprised at the power Wal-Mart has--and it has no problem in wielding it.
My company provides me, in addition to a salary, a retirement (10% of said salary, which I have, fully vested, and can choose the plan, or re-choose, that it is invested in).
I have an additional 401K that I can pay into.
I have every federal holiday off, paid.
I get 3 weeks paid for vacation.
I also have 2 personal days off each year, paid.
I have approximately 13 paid sick days off each year (to take if either myself or a family member is ill)
If I work overtime, I can choose to either be paid that in overtime, or to take ?comp? time at another point to make it up.
I have my choice of a medical and dental coverage, vision, legal, etc., for myself, at no additional charge. My family coverage is, if the website quoted here is accurate:
http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political...rm/walmart.cfm
cost me a third of what Walmart associates have to pay for their most minimal insurance coverage.
My job also provides me with low-cost (1/2 price) mass transit benefits if I take the BART/bus to work. Oh, and I have 5 days a year, paid, that I can use for educational seminars, if I choose.
My husband has similar benefits- not as much automatically paid into retirement, but they provide 2% automatically of his salary into a plan (which he chooses), and then match, 50%, up to another 6%. He does not get as many holidays (his company is based in Singapore) but he gets more vacation. His health benefits are better than mine, and cost less, even for the family plans. He also gets a bonus each year, the amount differs, this year?s is equal to approximately 8% of his salary.
My husband works for a publicly traded company, I work for a private group.
?The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous. If one is of normal intelligence and emotional stability, the only thing keeping you from becoming comfortably paid is yourself. . .?
I disagree. How many of you had parents that had better ?benefits? than you, had more job security?
Things in this country have changed in the last 40 years, and not for the better.
My concern is that jobs like the ones my husband and I have will disappear (they are already harder to find), and my children, even though they are educated, will have a difficult time finding them at all.
To work full time for a company that reaps enormous profits and to oneself make a poverty level wage, well, that, to me, is ludicrous. Evil afoot? I leave you all to make the decision. I?ve already kissed the idea of a new Powerbook goodbye.
Originally posted by e1618978
I had a Performa (not Proforma - I think that is a legal term). A
number of Engineers I know also had one - it was a good computer,
roughly the equivelant of the new mac mini. Mine had a 25 MHz
68040.
I also had a 9500/120 that I bought at the same time - cost about $10,000
including all the extras ($2000 for 64 MB or ram - ouch!). There were differences in features, but not (as far as I could tell) quality.
Also - Minimula, good post, good info - hopefully it will sink in.
You paid $10,000 for a 9500/120 that intro'd at $5,000 and $2,000 for 64 MB of memory?
Um... I've got some realistate in Arizona I'll sell you, oh and a bridge in New York...
I don't see how Apple can influence the plight of Wal-Mart workers, so I guess it doesn't matter so much what they sell at Wal-Mart. Some day, Wal-Mart employees will take matters in their own hands and unionize, and really that is the only thing that will set the company straight in this country. It's going to take a Jimmy Hoffa to organize that beast...
Originally posted by ch@os
You paid $10,000 for a 9500/120 that intro'd at $5,000 and $2,000 for 64 MB of memory?
Um... I've got some realistate in Arizona I'll sell you, oh and a bridge in New York...
You must be young. That was a good price for the memory. If you
are not young, you must not have bought memory during the dark
period after the memory plant burned down in Japan.
95/120 $4000
memory $2000
printer $2000
scanner $1000
software $1000
total $10,000
Anyhow, there are two possible senarios, one good for Apple, one bad.
A. The good is that Walmart will sell iPod shuffles at the same price as anyone else
B. The bad is that Walmart will be allowed by Apple to undercut other reseller's price. I don't believe this senario is realistic. Apple should not and will probably not allow it. But if it happens I will somewhat agree with the negative sentiment.
People, if Walmart really is as evil as you say, go picket in front of it, try to pursaide people not to buy from it, write articles about it, write your congressman, DO something active and progressive against WALMART.
But I guarentee you that boycutting the companys that allow Walmart to resell their products will be futile and only serve your own egos. As I said, fight against WALMART all you like, that may be a noble cause, but why punish their customers?? Why should they not be allowed to buy a superior product in their store of choice, even if the store itself is inferior in your view??
Oh yeah, and while you're at it, unless you want to come off as hypocrites, make sure that you boycutt every single products by every single company that has any product on sale at Walmart.
Originally posted by jccbin
Get a friggin' brain.
This sort of this isn't really necessary. All it does is lower the civility of the discussion, offend people and, frankly, lower your own credibility.
Originally posted by jccbin
The United States is filled with thousands of Public Libraries that offer FREE books for loan, and offer to get you books from larger libraries, also for free.
Many, many people improve their lives by reading these free books.
Yes we all know this. However, you assume that this is the only and best way for people to be "trained" into new skills. Some skills are not very amenable to simply reading about them. Some people are not very well "wired" to learn this way. Just the same, this is certainly something that is available to most people.
Originally posted by jccbin
The insinuation that there must be some evil afoot because one makes a poverty-level wage is ludicrous.
I don't think that anyone was suggesting that.
Originally posted by jccbin
and the idiotic liberal-communists who want to steal your money to pay for their whores.
Here we go again. This kind of thing isn't really helpful to your argument.
Originally posted by jccbin
LIBERALISM MUST BE DESTROYED!
Before you say this, perhaps you should try to understand what liberalism is truly about. Here is a good starting place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
In particular, the part that says: "Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government."
P.S. Oh, and you might think about what role "liberalism" has played in establishing and maintaining those "free" public libraries too.
Education isn't always the answer - she had a masters degree in English. The problem is that the poor can't move to a better job market, they don't have the time or money. Wal-mart wages would have made me feel rich, and at that level you can afford to re-train if you like, and move if you like to a better job market.
The fellow above who thinks libraries are the answer for the poor, I don't think that you have ever been poor. Libraries are great for the poor, but only as an escape, not re-training. Nobody will hire you because you say you have read a lot of books.
Wal-mart pays decent wages - I wish that we had one where I grew up. The only problem is, in Canada, it would have been Unionised so you would have to be part of an old-boy network to get a job there.
Originally posted by isomething
I don't like it, I've always knid of disagreed to these stores selling iPods , but no Macs. Wal-Mart isn't the kind of company that Apple should be associated with anyway.
Apple is trying to promote high quality, easy to use products, while Wal-Mart promotes cheap, chezy, worhtless crap. It's not a good combo if you ask me.
The theme seems to be how Wal-Mart hurts consumers by keeping the standard of living lower. I haven't seen this mentioned, but I think another big issue is how superstores like Wal-Mart *clean-up* when they come into town. Small retailers quite often die of starvation because they just can't compete on price. If they do manage to survive, their standard of living is lowered (as a business). My hats go off to the small business owners that get really creative and find ways of competing that Wal-Mart (etc) just can't do.
1) Wal-Mart is bad for the local economy because they sell items cheaper than the local businessman.
2) The Local businessman then goes out of business due to competition.
At what point, then, do we draw the line? Any time a company brings out a new idea or product, it is always costly, and people hope that there will soon enter some competition to help drive the price down to a level that would allow more people the opportunity to buy. Wal-Mart has done just that. It must be remembered, that Wal-Mart has not always been as large as it is today. It had the most humble beginings of virtually any company. It was the idea that you shouldn't need to be the wealthiest or most well educated of people to enjoy a comfortable life that built Wal-Mart to what it is today, as a market power.
I understand the position of the local businessman who feels that Wal-Mart has put him out of business, but we should not forget that ANY new business' success comes only from the failure of whatever means had previously supplied their need. --And there will always be more consumers in an area than there are suppliers. Do I feel bad for the local business that is unable to compete with Wal-Mart and forced to close? Yes. Do I blame Wal-Mart? Absolutely not. Do I feel that Wal-Mart is bad for the local economy? How can they be? Because one business owner and less than a dozen of his employees (as this is usually the size business that is portrayed as suffering when a Wal-Mart comes to town) are forced to change their practices to stay in business? Or because all of the people living in that area, including the 300+ that get jobs at Wal-Mart at a higher pay rate than the local business owner was able to supply, have a place to purchase items to enrich their lives at a cost they can afford? Or because, in light of that, everyone has a chance at the 'comfortable life' that, previously, only the business owner enjoyed? This simply does not make sense.
--and to those who like to attack Wal-Mart from the idea that 'A Multi-Billion dollar company can afford to pay more' or 'A Fraction of the Walton Family fortune could cover healthcare' I do have a (hopefully short) comment for you.
Wal-Mart's wages are paid at store level, not corporate. Whereas most large companies pool the total budget for such capital expenses from all operating units, Wal-Mart's associates have more control, at store level. This goes back to Mr. Sam's vision of servant leadership. These are the conditions that Sam Walton worked with: he was a small business owner. Any expense the business had, he had. Any success his business enjoyed, was his to enjoy also. By having each store control it's own expenditures, from their own profit margins, you allow the associates (there are no 'employees' at Wal-Mart, if you can grasp the idea of 'associate' as 'partner', then this will all make more sense) to have full control over their own profit/loss. Everyone likes to get a bonus at the end of the year, but only Wal-Mart associates can really appreciate where that bonus comes from, and what to do to make it better next year, the way an independant business owner can. If, then, company success is to be shared with the assocaites, isn't it also, in the spirit of partnership, fair and expected that expenses should be shared more evenly, also. The union website that people keep referencing is using highly exaggerated and outdated data on healthcare expense. For a more accurate representation, go to www.walmartfacts.com. I can vouch for the figures there, I see if out of my own paycheck. Yes, I do pay more than others for my healthcare, though not as much more as the media insists, but as far as retail is concerned, I also enjoy greater overall benefits, and so the partner-like sharing of expenses is, in my mind, fair. I am sorry to be so long winded in these posts, but I believe that just spouting off nonsense like "I like Wal-Mart, they are good!" or "I hate Wal-Mart, they abuse their associates, and will not promote women, or minorities" without having some credible evidence or explination to back it up is useless. By the way, my assistant manager in my store is a Phillipino (I know, it's misspelled) female. We have a hard time understanding what she is saying much of the time, but I'm sure she has the same problem as us. This is North Carolina, ya'll. We are also in the process of getting a new District Manager in my area; the 'favorite' candidate is female. Interesting, to me, at least, also is the fact that our store is very typical of any, except for our smaller size, and out of the 35 Department Managers we have, only 3 are male. But the critics must be right, Wal-Mart does not promote women. After all, the Union leaders say so, and they never exaggerate. My apologies for the sarcastic tone.
Originally posted by coolfactor
The theme seems to be how Wal-Mart hurts consumers by keeping the standard of living lower. I haven't seen this mentioned, but I think another big issue is how superstores like Wal-Mart *clean-up* when they come into town. Small retailers quite often die of starvation because they just can't compete on price. If they do manage to survive, their standard of living is lowered (as a business). My hats go off to the small business owners that get really creative and find ways of competing that Wal-Mart (etc) just can't do.
I dont know how true that really is, I hate wallmart as much as the next person in these threads, but we have 2 (and soon to be 3) in a town of ~80,000, and we still have family owned grocers, like Marsh - we still have family run drug stores, as well as the chains like cvs, we still have small sporting good stores, toy stores (sans kaybee) we have auto shops for both pro repair/service and DIY retailers.
we have local clothing shops, and of course we can go to other stores in town like Kmart, target, Meijer, sears, JC Penny, Ayres, and so on if we wish.
While walmart does drive away "some" buesness, they maake other small busenesses, look at the stores attached to newer wallmarts, small restarants, family run shoppes, dollar stores (see five and dime) that on their own would not attract enough attention to stay profiteable.
Why has no one bitched at/about best buy - that is the real shame - since they came to town nearly every tv shop and computer store has gone under. Ma and pa shops cannot afford to sell a nice system with monitor for $399, muchless take out huge ads in the local paper for it. Where is the outrage at best buy?
And why is no one pissed at apple, since the applestore in indy oopened, the apple authotised retailer here dropped them like a hot potato...or did apple drop them?...where is the rage against apple?
Originally posted by sheilae
I won't shop at Wal-Mart. Or Sam's Club. Thankfully, there are choices, and here in Northern California, there are plenty of stores that provide a living wage to their employees, as well as the extra benefits, like health care.
I see those Wal-Mart commercials on TV, too. Read the facts.
http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political...rm/walmart.cfm
I shop where it's best for my family, and convenient
there is no place on my 1040 that says "donation for living wage so I pay higher prices" I wish walmart had better housewares like target but hey.
but that's your choice, aren't you glad you can???? America
is a wonderful place. Walmart and sam's has THE BEST REURN POLICY AND QUICKEST REURN EXPERIENCE. sam wanted to give people what they wanted and surprise they grew. Gee i only shop and places that are arrogant and make me wait.
Here's a story about best buy---i bought a laptop for my nephew, took 3 to get it right because the sales people work more for spiffs (extra conmmission for certain products and don't know there products) So they want you to "customize and set up the laptop" for 25-30 bucks, but that's not refundable--scam..Bought a tv, it broke, they wouldn't take it back or repair it "but I bought an extended warranty" ok they said we'll give you a refund on the extended warranty and you keep the broke tv"---then i called the manager and 1800 best buy main office, then they gave me a full refund. you must be careful.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Selling to the masses doesn't seem to fit Apple too well.
Maybe because until now they have not had any products with true mass-appeal...?
Originally posted by Power Apple
Maybe because until now they have not had any products with true mass-appeal...?
True. Maybe that was one quality that attracted me to Macs.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
This smells as bad as when Apple and Sears teamed up to sell Macs back in the early '90s. Selling to the masses doesn't seem to fit Apple too well.
the problem was that sears personnel didn't know apple products, at best buy do they put apple trained people, sears only knew they came in colors---i asked it was sorry
Originally posted by NOFEER
the problem was that sears personnel didn't know apple products, at best buy do they put apple trained people, sears only knew they came in colors---i asked it was sorry
Somehow I don't think that the Walmart staff will have any trouble explaining the iPod shuffle.