Wal-Mart is Evil

[Jeffery]

Seriously. HOW DARE TJEY do things the way they do.

I just bought a computer monitor from them. A 19" widescreen flat panel LCD. And you want to know how much they ripped me off for???

$125!!!!

[Buster]

/<3 Wal-Mart

[inked]

I skip lunch to buy cheaper things at Wal*Mart.

Because of Wal*Mart I have lost 20 pounds in the last 2 months. I have also got 20 CDs.

Go Wal*Mart!

[Buster]

I skip lunch to buy cheaper things at Wal*Mart.

Because of Wal*Mart I have lost 20 pounds in the last 2 months. I have also got 20 CDs.

Go Wal*Mart!

I see a new Jared:

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/01/23/jared_500.jpg

[Jeffery]

http://www.proview.net/ImgMProduct.aspx?im=726

Isn;t that the cutest baby picture EVER?

[inked]

I see a new Jared:

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/01/23/jared_500.jpg

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/walmartclothing1.jpg

Or next Wal*Mart fashion designer?

I can take this market by storm!

BTW. Nice monitor Jeffery!

[Buster]

http://www.proview.net/ImgMProduct.aspx?im=726

Isn;t that the cutest baby picture EVER?

So Jeffery, how are you loving?!

Is it ownzor to teh maxzor!?

[Hellblazer]

What'd you expect? Wal-Mart= practically slave labor and either really cheap and crappy items or more expensive and average item.

[inked]

What'd you expect? Wal-Mart= practically slave labor and either really cheap and crappy items or more expensive and average item.

Really!?

I didn't know Wal*Marts $10 CD is a crappy version of competitors identical $20 CD!

Seriously, Wal*Mart is genius.

BTW. Thye aren't slave labor.

[endless]

wal-mart destroys towns.. but in the everyday lust to save a penny, wal-mart rules as supreme shoping center

[Buster]

wal-mart destroys towns.. but in the everyday lust to save a penny, wal-mart rules as supreme shoping center

/ <3 x 100 Wal-Mart

[endless]

Yes, but is the cost to save a buck worth the loss of hundreds of jobs within your own town? People dont think, they just want to save the buck...

[VAMP7]

K-mart tried to things this way. They are going out of business in my town and soon to follow in other places. Though i must admit the convinent location is just as good as 7-11 the best place for all your 1 stop shopping:D

[Matt 34.5]

Seriously. HOW DARE TJEY do things the way they do.

I just bought a computer monitor from them. A 19" widescreen flat panel LCD. And you want to know how much they ripped me off for???

$125!!!!

I bought a 19" gray KDS LCD monitor from walmart like a month ago. wonder if I got ripped? =\ it was $230 + tax. ($262 CAD total).

[Buster]

I bought a 19" gray KDS LCD monitor from walmart like a month ago. wonder if I got ripped? =\ it was $230 + tax. ($262 CAD total).

/owned to the max :cool:

[endless]

thats because your canadian matt!

[Buster]

thats because your canadian matt!

Meh, Canada, and the USA have about the same currency now... lets look...

* Goes to http://www.xe.com/ucc/ *
* Types in the places *

* Gets:
262.00 CAD
Canada Dollars = 234.264 USD
United States Dollars
1 CAD = 0.894137 USD 1 USD = 1.11840 CAD

*

So... still / owned...

[endless]

but canadians just suck, simple.

/still 0wned..

[Buster]

but canadians just suck, simple.

/still 0wned..

Approves :cool:

[Jeffery]

Yes, but is the cost to save a buck worth the loss of hundreds of jobs within your own town? People dont think, they just want to save the buck...
People like you always amuse me. Lord knows that NO OTHER companies in the world pay minimum wage. I eman, it;s not like McDonals, Burger King, Wendy's. Taco Bell, K-Mart, Ames, Target, Meyers or any other chain stores pay any better, or treat their workers any better.

You say Wal-Mart "destroys towns". Please, name one town that has been destroyed. And I mean destroyed. Ma,e one where the tax base hasn;t GONE UP.
You claim that "hundreds of jobs" are lost, yet ignore the hundreds of jobs that are created. Not to mention that EVERYWHERE Wal-Mart builds, other businesses open up near it within a few years, also creating jobs. You also conveniently forget to actually show ANY proof of this destruction.

Where is your tax analysis from before and after a Wal-Mart opens? Where are your charts of joblessness, showing these hundreds of people no longer working?

Show me the tax base of one of these destroyed towns 5 years before Wal-Mart, when Wal-Mart was built and 5 years after it has been built.

[allstarGL]

*throws down hockey gloves, rips off helmet* Bring it endless and buster!

[Jeffery]

I wouldn't mind Canada half as much if they weren;t the red-headed stepchild of the world.

[allstarGL]

What the hell does that mean?

[ThatGuy]

Wal-mart> Everything else.

Wal-mart owns all. What else needs to be said?

[xerent]

Wal-mart doesn't destroy towns.

But it does destroy mom and pop shops.

Then again, so does most every major large retail chain outlet.

Wal-mart just does it better.

Starbucks didn't do that, at least not where I live.

If anything, there has been an upswing in independently owned coffee shops since the incarnation of Starbucks.

But we're talking about Wal-Mart.

And have you seen the people that go in there?

...

Have you?

No thanks.

I'll stick with supporting local shops owned by people I know.

I just feel better about not signing over a check to a nameless super-giant.

I don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks.

Because, in the end, I get much more than just the product I paid for.

I think that's important.

[Jeffery]

Wal-mart doesn't destroy towns.

But it does destroy mom and pop shops.

Then again, so does most every major large retail chain outlet.

Wal-mart just does it better.

Starbucks didn't do that, at least not where I live.

If anything, there has been an upswing in independently owned coffee shops since the incarnation of Starbucks.

But we're talking about Wal-Mart.

And have you seen the people that go in there?

...

Have you?

No thanks.

I'll stick with supporting local shops owned by people I know.

I just feel better about not signing over a check to a nameless super-giant.

I don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks.

Because, in the end, I get much more than just the product I paid for.

I think that's important.
"Mom and Pop" stores have been dying for decades longer than Wal-Mart has been around.
People used to complain about Woolworths destroying the M&P's.

If you don;t like living in a free market economy, you can feel free to move to Cuba.

[ThatGuy]

Wal-mart doesn't destroy towns.

But it does destroy mom and pop shops.

Then again, so does most every major large retail chain outlet.

Wal-mart just does it better.

Starbucks didn't do that, at least not where I live.

If anything, there has been an upswing in independently owned coffee shops since the incarnation of Starbucks.

But we're talking about Wal-Mart.

And have you seen the people that go in there?

...

Have you?

No thanks.

I'll stick with supporting local shops owned by people I know.

I just feel better about not signing over a check to a nameless super-giant.

I don't mind paying a couple of extra bucks.

Because, in the end, I get much more than just the product I paid for.

I think that's important.

I go to wal-mart..........:(

[endless]

People like you always amuse me. Lord knows that NO OTHER companies in the world pay minimum wage. I eman, it;s not like McDonals, Burger King, Wendy's. Taco Bell, K-Mart, Ames, Target, Meyers or any other chain stores pay any better, or treat their workers any better.

You say Wal-Mart "destroys towns". Please, name one town that has been destroyed. And I mean destroyed. Ma,e one where the tax base hasn;t GONE UP.
You claim that "hundreds of jobs" are lost, yet ignore the hundreds of jobs that are created. Not to mention that EVERYWHERE Wal-Mart builds, other businesses open up near it within a few years, also creating jobs. You also conveniently forget to actually show ANY proof of this destruction.

Where is your tax analysis from before and after a Wal-Mart opens? Where are your charts of joblessness, showing these hundreds of people no longer working?

Show me the tax base of one of these destroyed towns 5 years before Wal-Mart, when Wal-Mart was built and 5 years after it has been built.
Google is a wonderful tool isnt it? Just google it yourself. Its not hard to find. walmart uses its power. Forces companys into doing things they dont want because its what the "consumer" wants. I could go on and on. But you are exactly the kind of people who amuse me as well, out to save that buck..

[Jeffery]

Google is a wonderful tool isnt it? Just google it yourself. Its not hard to find. walmart uses its power. Forces companys into doing things they dont want because its what the "consumer" wants. I could go on and on. But you are exactly the kind of people who amuse me as well, out to save that buck..
Welcome to America. Did you want to modify the constitution and make it illegal to make money? Or will you simply just decide to try and revolt to make America a Communist country now and get rid of freedom entirely?

[xerent]

No doubt that Mom and Pop stores go out of business eventually, regardless of thier enviroment.

And from an economists point of view, Wal-mart is great.

All economists do though is measure stuff. Product, Leakages and Injections, Interest rates, etc. They create graphs, and see how steep they can make the line go up.

But economists don't factor in things less tangible. It makes for a ... sterile enviroment.

[endless]

Well i never said i dont support money making, nor did i say that coke,mcdonalds,etc.. dont do the same.

Ive been known to shop at walmart myself.. though i dont enjoy it.

[Grocery Legs]

I'm really tired of hearing people whine about walmart. They put one in our town a little while ago, and it's all you hear about.

Walmart is a fact of life. Americans like easy, cheap things. The stores are here to stay.

[Northwind]

Here's what I think about when I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Everytime you spend money somewhere, you are supporting that business. Buy something from a KKK store owner and you are indirectly supporting the KKK (Not that I actually know of any KKK store owners and not that I'm equating Wal-Mart with the KKK).

Like Xerent, when I spend my money I want to spend it on things and businesses I want to support. Thus, I don't buy meat produced as a result of industrial agriculture. I'd rather support small family farms and sustainable agricultural practices and am happy to put my money where my mouth is regarding this. As a result, I eat much less meat than I might if I bought the cheapest stuff. OK.

I also vastly prefer to support smaller shops in the area where the majority of the money goes to owners in the town that I live rather than being shipped off to some corporate headquarters in another state. This way, the money actually helps increase the prosperity of the area and produces a better life for those around me. I don't really WANT my money going to line the pockets of another billionaire businessman when I could instead support the guy that owns the hardware store down the street.

This also means that I've made some choices. I don't tend to buy what I don't really need and am probably a bit behind the times regarding technology. I neither have nor want a flat screen TV. I don't have a cell phone or a PDA or an mp3 player (though I am going to buy a 60 gig player within the next few months). And I'm OK with spending a little more for less stuff if it means that I'm supporting who I want to support.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with communism. No one is saying that others shouldn't be allowed to shop at Wal-Mart, only that doing so doesn't work for them. Jeffery, I'd think you'd at least know a bit about this whole thing as Wal-Mart pretty much single-handedly drove Rubbermaid into bankrupcy (which was based in Ohio). This despite the fact that Rubbermaid's products were considered the best on the market and they had been doing very well in the years prior to Wal-Mart's arrival.

So, long story even longer -- Shop where you want. Just don't pretend that the never-ending drive to save a couple of bucks doesn't have consequences in other places.

[Jeffery]

Here's what I think about when I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Everytime you spend money somewhere, you are supporting that business. Buy something from a KKK store owner and you are indirectly supporting the KKK (Not that I actually know of any KKK store owners and not that I'm equating Wal-Mart with the KKK).

Like Xerent, when I spend my money I want to spend it on things and businesses I want to support. Thus, I don't buy meat produced as a result of industrial agriculture. I'd rather support small family farms and sustainable agricultural practices and am happy to put my money where my mouth is regarding this. As a result, I eat much less meat than I might if I bought the cheapest stuff. OK.

I also vastly prefer to support smaller shops in the area where the majority of the money goes to owners in the town that I live rather than being shipped off to some corporate headquarters in another state. This way, the money actually helps increase the prosperity of the area and produces a better life for those around me. I don't really WANT my money going to line the pockets of another billionaire businessman when I could instead support the guy that owns the hardware store down the street.

This also means that I've made some choices. I don't tend to buy what I don't really need and am probably a bit behind the times regarding technology. I neither have nor want a flat screen TV. I don't have a cell phone or a PDA or an mp3 player (though I am going to buy a 60 gig player within the next few months). And I'm OK with spending a little more for less stuff if it means that I'm supporting who I want to support.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with communism. No one is saying that others shouldn't be allowed to shop at Wal-Mart, only that doing so doesn't work for them. Jeffery, I'd think you'd at least know a bit about this whole thing as Wal-Mart pretty much single-handedly drove Rubbermaid into bankrupcy (which was based in Ohio). This despite the fact that Rubbermaid's products were considered the best on the market and they had been doing very well in the years prior to Wal-Mart's arrival.

So, long story even longer -- Shop where you want. Just don't pretend that the never-ending drive to save a couple of bucks doesn't have consequences in other places.
Please, show prove of your accusations. Rubbermaid had trouble in the mid1990's due to MANY companies competing with their products.
Where you get the idea that Wal-Mart was the sole factor in the decline of the company I;d like to see.
Looking through the company history, i see several facotrs, none of them labeled "Efvil Wal-Mart". So please, since YOU made the accusation, show some proof.

Or go back to being a good communist and just reiterating "factoids" that you are unable to prove like a proper communist.

[Northwind]

Or go back to being a good communist and just reiterating "factoids" that you are unable to prove like a proper communist.
I can try to dig up some stuff. However, I'm camping with my family this weekend so can get to it early next week at best.

But seriously . . . I want to support local businesses so I'm a communist? I always thought they had more stringent entrance requirements. If they've lowered their standards enough to let me in, they're really in trouble.

Is it not possible for you to have ANY discussion with someone you disagree with, where you don't immediately resort to name-calling? Impressive.

P.S. Would it make any difference to you if they were largely responsible for Rubbermaid's demise? If it could be shown that Wal-Mart was largely to blame, would you like Wal-Mart any less? 'Cause if it doesn't matter to you, I'd prefer not to spend the time tracking it down.

[MokoToko]

In 1994, a certain resin that rubbermaid used to create their products increased 80%. This cost rubbermaind an additional 250 million dollars in production. They went to wal-mart to increase the price of their products but wal-mart refused and went to far as to remove rubbermaid from their stock, opting for sterlite plastic products instead.

This cost rubbermaid an addition 30% of their profit until they succumbed to Wal-marts demands. Rubbermaid never recovered and in 1999, 3 years after Rubbermaid was considered Fortune magazines "most admired company", was absorbed by its rival Newell, inc. Since 2001, Newell Rubbermaid has shut down 69 of its 400 facilities, and fired over 11,000 of its employees.

C. Mark Heaseldon, the equity research director at Associated Trust & Co., claims that Newell Rubbermaid will have to “shift about 50% of production to low-cost countries,” which could force an additional 131 Rubbermaid plants to close, and 20,000 workers to lose their jobs.

Wal-mart' demands for certain prices will now force Newell Rubbermaid to shift about 50% of production over seas in order to meet the final cost that Wal-mart sets. This might close an additional 131 factories to close and around 20,000 american workers to become unemployed.

This is only Rubbermaid, some more estimates for other companies are as follows. (I understand that large round number estimates can't always be trusted, but I have found these approximate numbers from a couple sources)

GE has fired more than 100,000 workers. GE is also one of the top five biggest companies in America.

Masterlock fired 250 union workers in 2000 when Wal-Mart suddenly dropped the company's products and switched to an offshore, low-wage competitor.

During the past 18 months, after meetings with Wal-Mart, Levi Strauss announced it will shut down its four remaining production plants in North America and shift the work to Ibero-America and Asia. Several hundred jobs will be lost.
-----------------------------------

Wal-mart supports many overseas "factories" wherein woman and children work as indentured servants under horrible living conditions. The most infamous of which is American somoa wherein 230 workers from vietnam and china were cheated of their meager wages, beaten, starved, sexually harassed, and threatened with deportation if they complained. On Feb. 21, 2003, in a court in Hawaii, the proprietor of the factory, Kil Soo Lee, was found guilty of 14 of 18 counts brought against him for indentured servitude.
------------------------------------

Walmart, inc. is fiercly anti-union.

Wal-Mart's grocery workers earn an average $8.23 per hour—23% less than grocery workers at unionized stores.

According to the AFL-CIO, 66% of unionized workers at large companies are covered by health insurance. According to one study, only 45% of Wal-Mart workers are covered, and according to another study, only 38% are covered.

There are court cases against Wal-mart in 36 states for not paying overtime to workers. Some cases have been reported wherein a worker is locked inside the store overnight in order to finish a display.

Wal-mart does all this with its humongous hold on the american economy. Wal-mart imports 10% of all american imports from china. It ranks ahead of Russia and England in total imports.

Wal-mart is planning to add 800,000 more jobs in the near future, but on average the Wal-mart employee makes $3-$4 less than competitor union employees.

Thats about what I found.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3044wal-mart.html
http://www.wisconsinprogressive.com/news/060106-wal-mart.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm

[endless]

How long did that take you? 5 secconds tops?

[inked]

Wal Mart has everything you need in one location for cheap.

In China, Wal Mart wasn't doing so hot, so they invaded the Chinese food market. Now Wal Mart owns that too. They provide the majority of the food sold in areas that have a Wal Mart. Because it is cheaper, and has everything in one place.

Sure they kill off all the small businesses around them, but they provide a ton of jobs all with a good working enviroment. If you want a higher paying job, you better try harder than the lowest spots of retail. Wanting to be a millionaire from being a shelf stocker is stupid.

Wal Mart provides money for its employee's, its investors, meanwhile giving the same products to its consumers for cheap.

[MokoToko]

It wasn't hard, maybe 10 minutes because I looked at a couple different sources and tried not to just copy+paste.

[inked]

I just viewed this thread again, and there was a Wal*Mart ad at the top.

That made my day.

[Jeffery]

And how does that prove that Rubbermaid, which btw closed +29 per sdhare, has been "destroyed"?

Seems to me the only thing you have proven is Wal-Mart is anti-union (well duh) and likes overseas factories (well no shit).
The fact is Rubbermaid is still a thriving company doing not-so-bad for itself in the current economy.

You claimed it destroyed the company, of which I see no proof. (Unless you are ignorant enough to think 1 factory = entire company????)


Also, where are these "competitor union" jobs? There ARE NO UNIONS in competition with Wal-Mart, because the other companies like Wal-Mart are just as anti-union.


Perhaps you and North need to click these links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=destruction&x=0&y=0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demise&x=0&y=0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reorganization&x=0&y=0

[Northwind]

And how does that prove that Rubbermaid, which btw closed +29 per sdhare, has been "destroyed"?

Seems to me the only thing you have proven is Wal-Mart is anti-union (well duh) and likes overseas factories (well no shit).
The fact is Rubbermaid is still a thriving company doing not-so-bad for itself in the current economy.

You claimed it destroyed the company, of which I see no proof. (Unless you are ignorant enough to think 1 factory = entire company????)


Also, where are these "competitor union" jobs? There ARE NO UNIONS in competition with Wal-Mart, because the other companies like Wal-Mart are just as anti-union.


Perhaps you and North need to click these links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=destruction&x=0&y=0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demise&x=0&y=0
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reorganization&x=0&y=0
So this is what passes for discussion with you Jeffery? Posting definitions of common words to score some arcane "point" because Moko and I didn't word things the way you like? This in informed conversation . . . how?

Moko actually does the research that you asked for and you respond like this? Pardon me if I don't waste my time "discussing" things with you in the future.

It's fine if you don't care about the effects of the companies that you buy from. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone will suddenly stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Also, not everyone will necessarily think that the loss of American jobs and low wages for foreign workers are a bad thing. That's fine, but at least it's a position. Your only position as far as I can tell is to try to run down anyone with different ideas so that you can smugly tell yourself how "smart" you are. And for the record, I never said "demise," "destruction," or "reorganization." I said "bankruptcy." Are we really gonna spend our time throwing semantics around? How useful.

I'd like to think that you're capable of more than this.

[MokoToko]

And how does that prove that Rubbermaid, which btw closed +29 per sdhare, has been "destroyed"?

Newell Rubbermaid and Rubbermaid are not the same. Newell inc. is a company that buys companies that are on the brink of bankruptcy. Get that straight.

Seems to me the only thing you have proven is Wal-Mart is anti-union (well duh) and likes overseas factories (well no shit).
The fact is Rubbermaid is still a thriving company doing not-so-bad for itself in the current economy.

Wal-mart doesn't just "like" overseas factories. It practically forces and RECOMMENDS that its suppliers move their factories overseas in order to take advantage of the sweatshops and practical slavery. When China enacts labor laws you will see all this happen again in India. No, its not a thriving company because it doesn't exist. Newell Rubbermaid exists and I don't have to tell you why they still use "rubbermaid".

You claimed it destroyed the company, of which I see no proof. (Unless you are ignorant enough to think 1 factory = entire company????)

one factory? Newell Rubbermaid has shut down 69 facilities which makes 11,000 jobs. They are planning to close around 131 more factories making ANOTHER 20,000 jobs. Thats not one factory. Thats more like half of their entire production in the U.S.A

Also, where are these "competitor union" jobs? There ARE NO UNIONS in competition with Wal-Mart, because the other companies like Wal-Mart are just as anti-union.

The competitors?
Kroger, Safeway and Costco all have union employees.

Its true that there are no unions that can compete with Wal-mart, its too powerful and too ruthless.
-Won't hire anyone that has belonged to a union
-reportedly fires workers who score too high on a "union probability index."
-When a union tries to unionize a Wal-Mart cluster of stores, "labor experts" are flown in from Bentonville to counterorganize.
-Workers are ordered to sit in on weekly "labor relations classes," where management tells them why they should not join a union
-At one store in Texas, where a union tried to organize, 15 surveillance cameras were installed.

[endless]

Look at what i started... the monster i have created!

Well i withdraw from this arguement form lost of intrest.

[Jeffery]

You forgot " Has threatened to close store entirely if it goes too pro-union".

And Rubbermaid was purchased by Newell, yes. But gee, the company still exists as part of it. Unless you have a magical world where byouts make previous companies cease to exist.......


And Northwind, those common words that you guys used are the perfect example of how people will use words to emotionally sway readers. Claiming a company was destroyed. Claiming entire towns have died. Claiming millions of people have been killed.

Wal-mart is simply a perfect example of a free market society.

[Speed Demon]

Here's something you may not have known...

Did you know that the Largest company in the world is Wal-Mart!
They're now even opening in places in China.

Go Wal-Mart!

[GeneralBenedict]

So this is what passes for discussion with you Jeffery? Posting definitions of common words to score some arcane "point" because Moko and I didn't word things the way you like? This in informed conversation . . . how?

Moko actually does the research that you asked for and you respond like this? Pardon me if I don't waste my time "discussing" things with you in the future.

It's fine if you don't care about the effects of the companies that you buy from. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone will suddenly stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Also, not everyone will necessarily think that the loss of American jobs and low wages for foreign workers are a bad thing. That's fine, but at least it's a position. Your only position as far as I can tell is to try to run down anyone with different ideas so that you can smugly tell yourself how "smart" you are. And for the record, I never said "demise," "destruction," or "reorganization." I said "bankruptcy." Are we really gonna spend our time throwing semantics around? How useful.

I'd like to think that you're capable of more than this.

Well said, well said. Oh, and about putting your money where your mouth is. More power to ya :). It's refreshing to see people stand up for what they believe in and think about the long term ramifications of their actions.

[Office_Shredder]

Wal-mart is simply a perfect example of a free market society.

And by free market society, you mean government funded mega corporation society

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9ITMefWMm5cJ:www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf+walmart+tax+break&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Oh yeah, try competing with that. If you extrapolate the numbers given in the reader's note and executive summary to cover all of walmart's stores and such, you realize that walmart's profit entirely comes from the taxpayer. How the hell is this a good thing?

[Realist]

If you extrapolate the numbers given in the reader's note and executive summary to cover all of walmart's stores and such, you realize that walmart's profit entirely comes from the taxpayer.

Not really.

First of all, the report cites some WalMart figure as saying that 1/3 of WalMarts were subsidized, equalling around 1000 stores--and the report found that 166 stores only recieved subsidies of 1 billion--meaning that a highly unscientific extrapolation would put total subsidies as only around (1000/166) * billion = around $6 billion in total, for a company that the report also says has revenues over $10 billion annually. A lot of money, too much money, but hardly one of the main reasons for WalMart's success.

Second, although I didn't go through the entire report, all the stuff in the beginning mentioned WalMart and WalMart only, making the entire thing pretty useless. If WalMart is getting the same subsidies as all other retailers, then it isn't the subsidies that allow them to make such huge profits, it's a real competitive advantage. These figures are useless without comparisons.

The report is obviously a hit piece on WalMart--funded by a union. Not necessarily a reason to discount the info presented immediately, but at least look at what they are saying very carefully, keeping their ulterior motives in mind.

[Snork]

1000/166) * billion = around $6 billion in total, for a company that the report also says has revenues over $10 billion annually. A lot of money, too much money, but hardly one of the main reasons for WalMart's success.


First of all, everybody here is wrong.
I don't have any facts, figures, or even opinions to back it up since I didn't read the thread, but you're probably wrong. People in opinion threads tend to be crazy.

If I understand your figures correctly, and I probably don't, since I started at the last page, Wal-mart made 10 Billion last year, and 6 b's is from subsidies. If that's the case, more than half of the revenue comes from pay offs.
When it's to a company that people complain destroy other businesses wherever it goes, that is a huge deal. And unfair.

I hearby encourage everybody to sneak out after curfew tonight and burn down your local Walmart in a peaceful protest for all the downtrodden merchants out there.

[Rock Hard]

*throws down hockey gloves, rips off helmet* Bring it endless and buster!
**join allstar lets beat them up :D **

[Speed Demon]

lol Wal-MArt on Fridays is packed with immigrants.

[Snork]

lol Wal-MArt on Fridays is packed with immigrants.

What's your point?

[Northwind]

Sorry all. I was away camping with my family yesterday and earlier today, so I haven't replied here. We had a great time . . . thanks for asking. :)And Rubbermaid was purchased by Newell, yes. But gee, the company still exists as part of it. Unless you have a magical world where byouts make previous companies cease to exist.......
Just so I understand Jeffery, is it your contention that Rubbermaid didn't have huge financial troubles (can I use that term without some pointless dictionary.com links?) largely as a result of Wal-Mart? And more importantly, would it matter to you if it did? Is it your position that Wal-Mart doesn't harm companies, small stores, and employees across the world or is it your position that it doesn't matter if it does? It's important to distinguish the two if we're gonna have any discussion here.And Northwind, those common words that you guys used are the perfect example of how people will use words to emotionally sway readers. Claiming a company was destroyed. Claiming entire towns have died. Claiming millions of people have been killed.
Um . . . wow. :huh: "Entire towns have died," "Millions of people have been killed" Wha??? :confused: Now who's trying to "emotially sway" readers?

I honestly don't know where to begin here except to worry about your connection to reality. Nobody I've seen in this thread said anything remotely similiar to what you're talking about, so I'm gonna do us both a favor and pretend I didn't see that. :dry: Wal-mart is simply a perfect example of a free market society.
Well we can agree that Wal-Mart is an example of a free market society. (Except for the stuff that Office posted suggested that it's not really so "free market" after all.)

If you boil it all down, my point is that there are certain costs for all of our goods. Driving down the costs through policies that are aggressive anti-union, anti-American, and anti-environmental just means that some of the costs have been shifted from consumers to . . . elsewhere.

When you can buy a flatscreen monitor for $100 less at Wal-Mart than you can anywhere else, it just means that you've saved money because Wal-Mart doesn't pay health care for it's workers, pays below living wages in other countries, and doesn't demand any sort of environmental policies from companies it buys from (and actively precludes all of these as they would increase the costs of the goods they sell).

Now maybe you don't care about how workers, etc. are treated as long as you can buy your monitor for $125. I can't make you. But please don't pretend that I'm a "communist" because this stuff DOES matter to me.

[Jeffery]

No, Northy, the difference is that I don;t sit there like you and pretend Wal-Mart is MORE evil than the rest of the companies in the world.
Are you telling me you don;t shop at a single place that doesn;t do business in much the same way?
The differecne is I don;t pretend to care about an issue, then go along and support other companies that do business the same way Wal-Mart does, only not as efficient.

It is my position that Wal-Mart does not destroy companies or towns any more so than any other large business. Next you will claim that Wal-Mart is responsible for Ford cutting thousands of jobs.

Businnesses small and large have been going out of business for many hundreds of years before Wal-Mart came around. Using it as a scapegoat and ignoring reality is simply another way for you to cry in your soup about the big bad boogieman.

When you come back and prove that a company was destroyed (gee, you still haven;t), or that entire towns have died (gee still nothing there), then maybe you will have a point. Until then you simply havethe same old whine that people have been making up for years.

[Northwind]

No, Northy, the difference is that I don;t sit there like you and pretend Wal-Mart is MORE evil than the rest of the companies in the world.
Are you telling me you don;t shop at a single place that doesn;t do business in much the same way?
The differecne is I don;t pretend to care about an issue, then go along and support other companies that do business the same way Wal-Mart does, only not as efficient.

Hmmm . . . It might be useful to . . . oh, I don’t know, ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING about me before accusing me of hypocrisy. I haven’t claimed to NEVER shop at any business that does business like Wal-Mart. You know as well as I that that is simply not possible in this day and age in America. We (my wife and I) do, however, try to put as much of our money as we can into businesses that we want to support. We try to buy local and/or organic foods when possible (we are members of a community supported farm), we buy local and/or family farmed meat, and we shop at local “mom and pop” stores whenever we can. Are we 100% successful at always doing this? No. How could we be? There are some items that simply can’t be bought this way. But we do what we can and don’t pretend that not being able to do something 100% percent means that we should give up entirely.

Are there other businesses with similar predatory business practices? Sure. However, as you note – none of them are as “efficient” (read: predatory) as Wal-Mart. Thus, I believe that it is reasonable to use Wal-Mart as a shining example of the abuses of the completely unhinged “free market” on average working people the world over. (Though, again, Wal-Mart apparently isn’t a big fan of the “free market” when it comes to tax subsidies.)


It is my position that Wal-Mart does not destroy companies or towns any more so than any other large business. Next you will claim that Wal-Mart is responsible for Ford cutting thousands of jobs.

And it is my position that Wal-Mart is simply the worst of the lot – due not to particularly evil intentions, but due to the near-monopolistic force and ruthlessness of it’s practices.


Businnesses small and large have been going out of business for many hundreds of years before Wal-Mart came around. Using it as a scapegoat and ignoring reality is simply another way for you to cry in your soup about the big bad boogieman.

Um . . . not sure what you’re doing here. Did I say that businesses never went belly up before Wal-Mart? What scape-goating and soup-crying have I been doing. I brought up some specific facts that had to do with Wal-Mart’s business practices. I didn’t get into the entire history of commercial retail (or commerce for that matter) because I didn’t think it relevant to this discussion. Nor did I discuss the Norman Invasion of 1066 – though you’re welcome to work it into the thread. :dry:

When you come back and prove that a company was destroyed (gee, you still haven;t), or that entire towns have died (gee still nothing there), then maybe you will have a point. Until then you simply havethe same old whine that people have been making up for years.

Rather than respond to your pissy little questions about stuff that I never claimed (PLEASE show me where I ever said that “entire towns have died.” PLEASE, I am begging you.), let me ask you this in as calm and objective tone as I can to someone who has called me a communist, hypocrite, scape-goater, and soup-crier while I’m trying to have a decent discussion.

1) Do the working conditions and wages of employees of a company matter to you?

2) Do you think companies have ANY moral obligations to their employees?

3) Do you agree that it is best to close factories in America to move to other areas of the world with the fewest worker and environmental protections and cheapest, most exploitative labor?

4) Does low price trump ALL other factors in business?

5) Is there any business practice that you wouldn’t support if it meant lower prices for the consumer? What about child labor, slave labor, demonstrable environmental harm, etc. Where do you draw the line for yourself?

Now I won’t hold my breath waiting for your apology for your childish name-calling ('cause, you know, I don't want to die from lack of oxygen), but I really am interested in having a discussion about these issues. I honestly am curious about where you draw the line regarding these questions and whether any practice is permissible as long as it results in lower prices.

Your turn.

[Jeffery]

Hmmm . . . It might be useful to . . . oh, I don’t know, ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING about me before accusing me of hypocrisy. I haven’t claimed to NEVER shop at any business that does business like Wal-Mart. You know as well as I that that is simply not possible in this day and age in America. We (my wife and I) do, however, try to put as much of our money as we can into businesses that we want to support. We try to buy local and/or organic foods when possible (we are members of a community supported farm), we buy local and/or family farmed meat, and we shop at local “mom and pop” stores whenever we can. Are we 100% successful at always doing this? No. How could we be? There are some items that simply can’t be bought this way. But we do what we can and don’t pretend that not being able to do something 100% percent means that we should give up entirely.

Are there other businesses with similar predatory business practices? Sure. However, as you note – none of them are as “efficient” (read: predatory) as Wal-Mart. Thus, I believe that it is reasonable to use Wal-Mart as a shining example of the abuses of the completely unhinged “free market” on average working people the world over. (Though, again, Wal-Mart apparently isn’t a big fan of the “free market” when it comes to tax subsidies.)




And it is my position that Wal-Mart is simply the worst of the lot – due not to particularly evil intentions, but due to the near-monopolistic force and ruthlessness of it’s practices.




Um . . . not sure what you’re doing here. Did I say that businesses never went belly up before Wal-Mart? What scape-goating and soup-crying have I been doing. I brought up some specific facts that had to do with Wal-Mart’s business practices. I didn’t get into the entire history of commercial retail (or commerce for that matter) because I didn’t think it relevant to this discussion. Nor did I discuss the Norman Invasion of 1066 – though you’re welcome to work it into the thread. :dry:



Rather than respond to your pissy little questions about stuff that I never claimed (PLEASE show me where I ever said that “entire towns have died.” PLEASE, I am begging you.), let me ask you this in as calm and objective tone as I can to someone who has called me a communist, hypocrite, scape-goater, and soup-crier while I’m trying to have a decent discussion.

1) Do the working conditions and wages of employees of a company matter to you?

2) Do you think companies have ANY moral obligations to their employees?

3) Do you agree that it is best to close factories in America to move to other areas of the world with the fewest worker and environmental protections and cheapest, most exploitative labor?

4) Does low price trump ALL other factors in business?

5) Is there any business practice that you wouldn’t support if it meant lower prices for the consumer? What about child labor, slave labor, demonstrable environmental harm, etc. Where do you draw the line for yourself?

Now I won’t hold my breath waiting for your apology for your childish name-calling ('cause, you know, I don't want to die from lack of oxygen), but I really am interested in having a discussion about these issues. I honestly am curious about where you draw the line regarding these questions and whether any practice is permissible as long as it results in lower prices.

Your turn.
1) Not when it comes to nitpicking one particular business. You bawl about Wal_mart, and yet have mentioned nothing about ANY fast-food chain. Gee, where are the food worker unions for their workers? Where are the tears for their low wages?
2) Again, I don;t pick on one business over another. Welcome to the world.
3) It's been being done for far longer than Wal-Mart has been around, and been done by companies that DON'T do business with Wal-mart. So, again, whing about Wal-Mart causing this is useless for you.
4) No, quality of product counts to.
5) Please, go ahead and prove any of those as well as you've proven any of your BS. It'll be nice to see you blow more smoke up your ass.

BTW, you DID claim that Rubbermaid was "destroyed". And golly gee, somehow being bought out by other companies is equal to destruction in your world. Must be horrible to see Tim Hortons destroyed. Wow, that must have suicked when Time Warner was destroyed. Golly, when Sprint died the world must have ended....
Oh wait, none of those companies were destroyed either.

[WaCk-HeAd]

:huh:

Odd answers.

[Lord Sesshomaru]

Big Rapids, MI 1987. My home town. K-Mart is built. Local grocery stores and businesses, State Street Hardware, Denny's Value land, Farmer's Market, and Giant stay in business. Wal-Mart is built in 1993. Giant goes belly up and Village market replaces it. Meijer is built in 2000. Denny's Value land goes bankrupt.

Because of the pressure from Meijer, Wal-Mart adds on to thier old store and creates a Super Wal-Mart (No really, thats the real name). After the creation of Super Wal-Mart, the businesses ive mentioned: Village Market, Farmer's Market, and State Street Hardware all go out of business, in that order.

Because of these large chains our local hardware store is gone (Which had better parts, and a better selection in my mind. Plus you dont have some idiot in a blue vest who doesnt know where anything is let alone what you actually need). If you want to buy groceries, you have no other choice but to buy from these chains because there is nowhere else to buy groceries. They are all out of business. Unless you want to drive 14 miles to Reed City.

It's not just Wal-Mart, its a lot of the large chains in general. Although Wal-Mart is worse than most.

[Office_Shredder]

Jeffery, you are over-generalizing this company buy out. There are a number of reasons to buy a company:

1.) It's successful, and you believe you can make it more successful
2.) You're really just merging companies in order to reduce competition pressure
3.) The company's going bankrupt, and it can be bought real cheap
4.) You want to be able to use the brand-name on your product
5.) You have too much money to spend (if you're flush with cash, investing in capital is a good business strategy)

[Northwind]

Jeffery,

I owe you an apology. You see, I assumed that you might be capable of engaging in a thoughtful discussion about an area that we disagreed about as a way to highlight both sides of an issue and to help each other understand why we believed what we believed. I see now that I expected too much of you. Given the other evidence that you’ve displayed on this forum, I realize that it was naïve of me to assume that you had this capacity and I fear that by attempting to engage in discussion with you, I set you up to look foolish in the eyes of others. I am sorry to have done this you and assure you that it won’t happen again.

P.S. I assume that you purposely misinterpreted my fifth question about exploring if there were any practices that you wouldn’t want to support with your money. In case you weren’t doing this purposely, I thought it was obvious that I was simply interested in your opinion and wasn’t charging that Wal-Mart used child or slave labor, etc. My apologies for confusing you.


Others,

As many of you have picked up on, I’m not really gonna lose sleep over whether others shop at Wal-Mart or not. I’m just trying to encourage people to think about the consequences of their choices and what they are really supporting when you spend money in one place or another. Please carry on. :)

[GeneralBenedict]

Ack! Somebody clear out the stupid....

[Jeffery]

Jeffery, you are over-generalizing this company buy out. There are a number of reasons to buy a company:

1.) It's successful, and you believe you can make it more successful
2.) You're really just merging companies in order to reduce competition pressure
3.) The company's going bankrupt, and it can be bought real cheap
4.) You want to be able to use the brand-name on your product
5.) You have too much money to spend (if you're flush with cash, investing in capital is a good business strategy)
And note how not a single one of those reads "Company is destroyed" before during or after the buyout. ;)

And Northy, sarcasm is not your strong suit. YOU are the one who made charges that Wal-Mart destroys companies. Just because you've been unable to prove it is not my problem.

[Office_Shredder]

And note how not a single one of those reads "Company is destroyed" before during or after the buyout. ;)



Actually, that's generally how companies go bankrupt

[Northwind]

And Northy, sarcasm is not your strong suit.
That's OK. I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Jeffery]

Actually, that's generally how companies go bankrupt
No, companies go bankrupt by being an Airline business.

And Northy, When you someday get around to trying to prove something, then I'll take you serious. Until then you can keep crying for all the orphans that big bad Wal-Mart has put into the streets and pretending to be superior. But the next burger you eat you might want to consider whether or not that Ketchup was made by some evil conglomerate out to steal your soul.

[Realist]

I sort of wanted to avoid this thread. But, meh...Jeffery's arguments are so innane that I feel someone needs to actually defend the free market side. So NW, let me give you some real answers to your questions.

1) Do the working conditions and wages of employees of a company matter to you?

Yes, but your tactic doesn't actually help the working class. Prices are only the beginning of the issue, though of course high prices do hurt the poor the most.

Another thing to consider--the higher the wages of the employees, the fewer employees will be hired at those wages. Keeping wages low allows a company to hire more workers, since a company will only hire a worker if his or her value is greater than cost. Getting more people into stable, not-the-lowest-end jobs is good justification for somewhat lower wages and workiing conditions.

Moreover, wages which actually reflect a person's value are beneficial to the economy as a whole. Artificially subsidizing wages--either by unions or by well-meaning citizens only shopping at companies that pay workers certain wages--discourages training for jobs which benefit society more. Say a person makes $7/hr for a job that is only valued at $5/hr. If he sees an offer for a job worth $7/hr and only paying its worth, he has no incenitive to switch--depriving the economy of an extra $2/hr of service. Consider also that there may be someone who wants the guy's job even at $5/hr, and isn't skilled enough to do the job valued at $7/hr--this someone will remain unemployed or at a worse job while the first guy stagnates at his overpaid job. Thus, your little moralism is actually harming someone who needs help more than the people you're trying to help.

I have one further comment on this issue. Why not shop the cheapest you can and donate the saved money to some charity? It's pretty obvious that many individuals living in the third world need the help way more than even the lowest paid WalMart workers, and your current behaviour also has side economic effects which at least aren't obvious, if not detrimental.

) Do you think companies have ANY moral obligations to their employees?

Yes. They cannot coerce their workers into staying. They cannot violate their contract with their workers. As long as you have the right to leave, anything that happens to you on the job is your own choice in return for the money you make.

3) Do you agree that it is best to close factories in America to move to other areas of the world with the fewest worker and environmental protections and cheapest, most exploitative labor?

Qualified yes, with the exception of the environmental protection factor. Environmental protections should be universal, and the fact that it currently is not is an important anti-globalization argument. Provided we found a way to work that out though....

Workers in poor countries choose to work in these factories because it is the best opportunity that they have. Do you really want to take away this opportunity from these workers and send them into even deeper poverty?

Moving factories away from the US helps Americans as well--this is another moderately complicated subject, so I'll leave it for another post if someone wants to discuss it.

4) Does low price trump ALL other factors in business?

Not necessarily, but companies acting in their own rational best interest tends to both keep prices low and maximize the efficiency of the economic system, thus providing the most wealth for the most people. Low prices is only one benefit.

[GeneralBenedict]

All valid free-market arguements. Unfortunatly they are short-sighted when it comes to society as a whole. Maximum economic efficiancy is not maximun efficiancy for society.

[Realist]

All valid free-market arguements. Unfortunatly they are short-sighted when it comes to society as a whole. Maximum economic efficiancy is not maximun efficiancy for society.

Um, explain....

Can you specifically discount one of my arguments? If not, offer one of your own....

[russian]

Um, explain....

Can you specifically discount one of my arguments? If not, offer one of your own....
. . .

I have one further comment on this issue. Why not shop the cheapest you can and donate the saved money to some charity? It's pretty obvious that many individuals living in the third world need the help way more than even the lowest paid WalMart workers, and your current behavior also has side economic effects which at least aren't obvious, if not detrimental.

Better yet, use those Plasma TV savings to buy stock in Walmart and donate that to a foundation whose sole purpose will be to help us save those who are worse off due to my Plasma TV savings.

So please do what you can and start over paying, every dollar that you overpay will save a factory worker in Vietnam or go toward supplementing the health care cost of a Wal Mart greater (those geriatric greaters are cute, but their prescription drugs aint't cheap).

[Northwind]

Realist,

First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful response. This is what I was hoping would happen earlier, with the obvious disappointing results. Your response has certainly caused me to think. :)

Second, I have done a bit of poking around regarding arguments for and against Wal-Mart. In doing so, I came across this interesting article (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/02/walmart_a_devil.html)by a conservative law professor at UCLA. He makes some interesting points, and although he approaches the issue from a different direction than I would, he ultimately arrives in a similar place. He has the additional benefit of appearing to know what he's talking about. :rolleyes:

I sort of wanted to avoid this thread. But, meh...Jeffery's arguments are so innane that I feel someone needs to actually defend the free market side. So NW, let me give you some real answers to your questions.

1) Do the working conditions and wages of employees of a company matter to you?

Yes, but your tactic doesn't actually help the working class. Prices are only the beginning of the issue, though of course high prices do hurt the poor the most.

Another thing to consider--the higher the wages of the employees, the fewer employees will be hired at those wages. Keeping wages low allows a company to hire more workers, since a company will only hire a worker if his or her value is greater than cost. Getting more people into stable, not-the-lowest-end jobs is good justification for somewhat lower wages and workiing conditions.

Moreover, wages which actually reflect a person's value are beneficial to the economy as a whole. Artificially subsidizing wages--either by unions or by well-meaning citizens only shopping at companies that pay workers certain wages--discourages training for jobs which benefit society more. Say a person makes $7/hr for a job that is only valued at $5/hr. If he sees an offer for a job worth $7/hr and only paying its worth, he has no incenitive to switch--depriving the economy of an extra $2/hr of service. Consider also that there may be someone who wants the guy's job even at $5/hr, and isn't skilled enough to do the job valued at $7/hr--this someone will remain unemployed or at a worse job while the first guy stagnates at his overpaid job. Thus, your little moralism is actually harming someone who needs help more than the people you're trying to help.

I have one further comment on this issue. Why not shop the cheapest you can and donate the saved money to some charity? It's pretty obvious that many individuals living in the third world need the help way more than even the lowest paid WalMart workers, and your current behaviour also has side economic effects which at least aren't obvious, if not detrimental.
I think Prof. Bainbridge partially addresses your first point. Ultimately, more people DON'T have jobs. This is a temporary effect until the market shifts and the other smaller local stores go out of business. The other issue is that there are a limited number of people on the planet buying a limited number of goods. One way or another people would sort this out and it doesn't seem that any particular business practice will radically alter the net number of jobs on the planet. The real question is where will these jobs be located and how will the workers be compensated. (I hope that made sense.)

Regarding your second point - that is very interesting and I'm gonna have to think about it some more.

While your last point is an interesting one, there is still the issue of what I want to support. And, until I'm convinced otherwise, I don't want to support what Wal-Mart is doing. One of the things that happens in corporations like Wal-Mart is that, despite their vaunted "efficiency," a great deal of money goes to the upper management - money that could help more people if it was spread out more. Why is it that when laborers make $1 more an hour it is an example of "inefficiency," but when upper management gets millions and billions of dollars in bonuses it is an example of the "free market?" :huh: ) Do you think companies have ANY moral obligations to their employees?

Yes. They cannot coerce their workers into staying. They cannot violate their contract with their workers. As long as you have the right to leave, anything that happens to you on the job is your own choice in return for the money you make.
This is a good argument, though history is rife with corporations doing exactly that to their workers. This was the reason for the original rise of unions - corporations showed their willingness to do ANYTHING to keep workers and to make sure that they artificially depressed wages. One of the things that I fear happening (and have come across some reports of this) is that the move to other countries with fewer worker protections means that we don't have any idea what their actual practices might be.

3) Do you agree that it is best to close factories in America to move to other areas of the world with the fewest worker and environmental protections and cheapest, most exploitative labor?

Qualified yes, with the exception of the environmental protection factor. Environmental protections should be universal, and the fact that it currently is not is an important anti-globalization argument. Provided we found a way to work that out though....

Workers in poor countries choose to work in these factories because it is the best opportunity that they have. Do you really want to take away this opportunity from these workers and send them into even deeper poverty?

Moving factories away from the US helps Americans as well--this is another moderately complicated subject, so I'll leave it for another post if someone wants to discuss it.
First, the environmental issue is huge. This is one of my only problems with NAFTA, etc - it actively encourages environmental destruction in the never-ending pursuit of "more for less." We have elevated the good of this idea (more for less) into the most sacred idea on the planet - with predictable results.

Second, I am _very_ interested in understanding how the loss of jobs is good for America. You seem to be arguing both sides of this issue - that jobs are good for everyone else in the world but Americans. And, just to clarify, I am not in the "jobs for America and screw everyone else" camp. My concern is that by shifting jobs to other places in the world with fewer worker and environmental protections, Wal-Mart (and others) are artificially lowering wages below a level that is sustainable on a variety of levels.

4) Does low price trump ALL other factors in business?

Not necessarily, but companies acting in their own rational best interest tends to both keep prices low and maximize the efficiency of the economic system, thus providing the most wealth for the most people. Low prices is only one benefit.
This sort of touches at a place that I think truly divides us. While wealth is certainly A good, it does not strike me as the only, or even primary good of life. There are other goods, like connection and meaning, that I feel should be equally considered in these discussions. While it's difficult to point to numbers to support this, it seems to me than an economic and corporate system that encourages one (wealth) at the expense of the others, seems ultimately short-sighted and anti-life. To the extent that Wal-Mart's (and others) practices might do this, it should be seen as a bad thing. The argument of whether or not Wal-Mart's business practices are ultimately anti-connection and anti-meaning is obviously tremendously complicated (and I'm not sure that I want to wade into it). However, I do think it's important that we broaden our thinking on the issue to include these less-tangible "goods."

[Glamdring]

I stormed Wal-Mart once. You can see me in the video, if you know what I look like and what I'm wearing... but I'm not going to tell you. Later in the video a couple people shout my name, and you can definitely hear that. It's a very long video and sometime I think I'm going to edit it to be more watchable, with less funny camera action, but for now this is what you get... It was a hilarious show.

Without further ado: http://www.pirates-r-us.com/video/

[danoodle]

I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading this thread and seeing both sides of the issue :)

[Serge]

I stormed Wal-Mart once. You can see me in the video, if you know what I look like and what I'm wearing... but I'm not going to tell you. Later in the video a couple people shout my name, and you can definitely hear that. It's a very long video and sometime I think I'm going to edit it to be more watchable, with less funny camera action, but for now this is what you get... It was a hilarious show.

Without further ado: http://www.videodoesn'tload.com

character limit

[Glamdring]

... did you push play? ;)

[Serge]

I promise you it wasn't working when I first tried it, cheater.

[Glamdring]

You forgot to push play, didn't you. Nub.

[Serge]

You forgot to push play, didn't you. Nub.
<3

[EatMine]

I wouldn't call Jeffery's arguments inane, it's just his way to come to the point:
this thread (at least the last page) is not about Wal-Mart, it's about the consequences of capitalism and globalization.

The real question is where will these jobs be located and how will the workers be compensated.Exactly, unfortunately the answer solely depends on your standpoint:
Are you a worker, or are you an owner? Are you American or are you Chinese?
[side blow to Glamdring] Are you a caucasian, wealthy college student and up for a funny afternoon with costumes and hippie attitude, or are you a poor Wal-Mart customer? [/side blow]
To which extent are you willing to regulate free markets?

I don't really have a general opinion on this issue, so i am interested in yours :)

[Jeffery]

I stormed Wal-Mart once. You can see me in the video, if you know what I look like and what I'm wearing... but I'm not going to tell you. Later in the video a couple people shout my name, and you can definitely hear that. It's a very long video and sometime I think I'm going to edit it to be more watchable, with less funny camera action, but for now this is what you get... It was a hilarious show.

Without further ado: http://www.pirates-r-us.com/video/
You're lucky. Try that at the Wal-Mart here and they;d have you all in handcuffs within about 3 minutes.

[WaCk-HeAd]

I stormed Wal-Mart once. You can see me in the video, if you know what I look like and what I'm wearing... but I'm not going to tell you. Later in the video a couple people shout my name, and you can definitely hear that. It's a very long video and sometime I think I'm going to edit it to be more watchable, with less funny camera action, but for now this is what you get... It was a hilarious show.

Without further ado: http://www.pirates-r-us.com/video/

Tree hugging hippie crap!