Alright, so that's the way it is.... If you aren't going to offer anything more than snide comments, how do you expect to prove anything. You have yet to present anything concrete, only opinion. Most of your retort is nothing but slanderous comments, and you seemingly throwing a temper tantrum. I was a little frustrated before because I could see that you were going to probably pull this shit, now I think I'm a little beyond that. Your bogus accusations, and constant derogatory claims only bolster the fact that you have no real argument to make. Let's get this show on the road shall we?
Watch who you mock boy. My name is in that little box that says who the moderator of the section.
So we start with an indirect threat, that productive. Like your standing is supposed to make me submit to you because you'll abuse your power if someone bruises your ego? Well, if that doesn't just set the tone for this brilliant expose I don't know what does?
Reiterate was a bad word choice.
OK, here you try to nit pick my use of words, which was fine I might add, to seemingly redirect attention from your lack of substance.
I've seen Frontline, thanks. If you have an original argument, let me know.
Another useless comment, and an accusation. That's some real prize winning debate there chief. Oh, and I have never seen frontline, don't know what it is, and therefore your assumption is invalid.
$2500 a year is the claim WalMart makes. Let's assume that they used really smart people to come up with that, but the exaggerated. We'll say $2000 for argument's sake. I don't know how often you buy TV's, but you can get a pretty good for less than two grand (and at an even better price at WalMart!).
This is still an estimated figure, notice it's a claim? Still, the numbers only add up over a year of saving. Let's be realistic here, no one is taking the marginal savings form their Wal-Mart shopping, and putting it away to save for that new t.v. you keep talking about. Sure, that may be the amount of money per person they make companies eat, but that is of no help to the economy, or individuals.
You were saying that Wal-Mart saves people such and such amount of money, and that those savings enable people to buy higher dollar products. Now, while there is some truth to that, there is still a catch and that is what I was pointing out. The catch is that you could only do so theoretically, and your proved that for me. As you said, it would be $2,500 over the course of a year, and as I pointed out, no one is actually doing that.
You would have to go figure out how much it would cost you to buy, lets say your groceries, at a competitor. Then you would have to determine how much the same groceries would cost you at Wal-Mart and if in fact you would be saving that much if anything. After that you would then have to figure out that savings, put it aside, and save it. Eventually your dream of everyone being able to afford new t.v.'s because of Wal-Mart would be realized I guess, but it still doesn't help the economy, and it still has nothing to do with their actual impact on the economy. You just put up smoke screens over ideas and front them as facts.
When I can but milk, meat, and eggs at Family Dollar, let me know.
I know this is going to piss you off but I swear to God there is a Family Dollar, and a Dollar General right up the road from my house where you can but all those things at a lower cost than at Wal-Mart. All I could do was laugh when I read this though, and that's not said in mockery. It was just too funny because how the hell are you supposed to know that there actually is a Family Dollar that has those things somewhere? I'm sorry if you happen to not see the humor in that. Here we are in this intense debate, your trying to rip my throat out over there, and here you come with a real hum-dinger, and sure as shit it just backfires on you just to spite you or something.
Yes, the company that employs more Americans than anyone other Obama's government and saves American families billions of dollars a year sure is a bad thing.
I am going to try and calmly re-explain this for you.
You are acting like Wal-Mart being the biggest employer is a good thing, and on the surface I can see how that appears so. That is actually apart of the problem though and I will show you why once more.
I already showed you in last post somewhere, that Wal-Mart pays the absolute minimum to it's employees. That means they pay more people an unlivable wage than anyone else too. I showed you evidence to support that not only do wages drop in other businesses in the communities they go into, but that their employees make less than people working for other major retailers i.e. substandard wages. This is significant because the biggest company, with the most money is in turn keeping people poor because they don't pay them enough.
I also revealed facts showing how that they have also been found guilty on numerous occasions of different types of wage fraud, countering your claims of them "playing by the rules" as well as many other examples of them getting caught up not playing by the rules. How is any of that insufficient? It proves my points and counters yours exactly. If you are as smart as you say you are, without going into great detail, that should make obvious why they are on that point alone, bad for the economy. Unless somehow paying people sub standard wages and having enough influence to hurt your surrounding economy is somehow helpful.
See, here is where your lack of knowledge of the economy and taxation bites you in the ass. In Texas, unprocessed food is nontaxable. A gallon of milk that is listed at $3 costs $3 at the register. There is no tax. If people shop at WalMart, they save significantly on non-taxable items. These savings are then spent on taxable items, like Oreos as a special treat for the kids, new reels for dad, a new TV, etc.
This is still a theory sir. You go on the assumption that people will spend their money on taxable items. That is not true for every case, and impossible to support. It's a good theory and if people followed that model than sure, that would help, but you are assuming that people will manage their money like that, and obviously not enough people do.
Part of the problem here is not that I am dumb or that you are dumb. It is that the a lot of other people are. Sure, if people utilized the money they saved by shopping at Wal-Mart in some practical way, it could in theory help the economy. However, because unlike you or I most people are not smart enough to realize that, they do not take advantage of it, as a result there is not positive effect on the economy generated by those savings. Look, I'll commend you on the fact that what your saying if done accurately would work, but we have to be practical here. People are not doing that, if they did that would be great, but since they don't you can't really say that the so called "savings" at Wal-Mart make some huge difference.
Why? The people who work there know what they are signing up for.
Apparently not or else they wouldn't have been found guilty in so many cases for putting the screws to their employees the way they have in the past. If people did know that that was what they could expect, than obviously they wouldn't sig up for it. This is common sense. You are just being stubborn here, and I understand why. You have no real argument, and nothing fact based to support your argument. That is fine, just admit it, concede to that fact, and move on to the next.
Just because someone is making money is no justification for why they have to share.
When you are making it off the backs of millions of people it may not be a requirement, but it's only right. They could easily afford to pay more, their employees need it, and they will be no less rich as a result.
Greed is good. Greed is motivation. Greed leads to efficiency. I'm glad that the Walton family makes billions. Good for them.
Wow. I see where you were going with this but still. How could you try to defend greed? This is just another example of how off base your logic and thinking is. That's not just me saying it, it's your own words saying it.
So, WalMart's pointing out the flaws in the political system is WalMart's fault? Fuck that.
How is providing a plan that is so sub-standard that you encourage people to get on government assistance programs pointing out flaws in the political system? They pay people so little that they can't afford to go out and buy decent health insurance, and what they offer is worse than that provided by the government which is horrible as well. That system needs fixed true, and that isn't Wal-Mart's fault, but the adverse effects of more and more of these employees becoming dependent on government aid is, and it is bad for the economy.
You can't argue that. Our nations dependency on government aid is a large part of the economic problem we are in right now. Wal-Mart has helped feed that problem with their low wages, insufficient health plans, and encouragement of people getting on the even worse government programs. It was also covered in my last post that the plans they offer that do have decent coverage are too expensive for their employees to pay, which is another reason why them paying lower wages is a problem. If those people were making more money, they could invest in private insurance which is more beneficial, obviously.
The government needs to fix itself. No hope of that for three years.
You may very well have earned my respect with this comment. The government does need to fix itself and No, there is no hope for at least 3 more years. I whole heartedly agree with you here, and I am glad that while you are saying the things about me you are saying, and making the accusations of me you are, you at least are smart enough to recognize the above stated, and are not one of the contributors to this debacle of a presidencies existence.
Then sign up with a better plan.
For starters I had to correct your misspelling here, just thought I would point that out since you have been trying to put my intelligence in question so much.
I already explained, if Wal-Mart would pay their employees a decent wage, they could. See the paragraph above for more info since you didn't get it the first 2 times I laid it out for you.
Then buy supplemental coverage, or don't sign up for the cheapest plan. I am not seeing any fault with WalMart. I see fault with people who sign up for the cheapest plan without realizing they are paying for crap.
Once again, if these people could afford more they would treat themselves to more, but they can't, Wal-Mart makes sure of it. They are at fault because they are the ones knowingly providing it. You see fault in people signing up for the only plan they can afford, which in this case is the cheapest and is crap, but offer no viable alternative. Wal-Mart being the biggest company in the world should provide their employees with something better and more affordable. This comes down to business ethics and I already explained the economic facts.
Benefits from private industry must be the 25th amendment to the Constitution. Is it new?
More smart ass comments that prove nothing and have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand, more of the same defense. The above quoted was in reference to the following fact:
"On average, large firms (1,000 or more workers) insure 65% of their employees. If Wal-Mart was to minimally reach the average coverage rate, Wal-Mart would cover an additional 210,000 workers."
This was posted to show you that the majority of companies, which are all smaller than Wal-Mart and have less money, proved better for their employees, and the economy. Also these other companies aren't just treading the lines of legality to turn a profit, they are practicing rational business ethics. These are all companies that qualify as big business, and still find it within themselves to practice ethical business with less resources than the juggernaut that is Wal-Mart, so what is their excuse?
I'm sorry. Someone cracks a whip and makes them sign up for Medicaid? "Force" is a strong word and the kind of rhetoric one uses when he knows he is losing a debate.
What else are they to do, other than go without? Their meager health coverage is still only the beginning. A lot of these employees are also on housing assistance, food stamps, WIC, FIP, and a multitude of other flawed and loopholed government programs. It acts as a siphon on the American economy, and Wal-Mart openly admits to encouraging people to get on these programs, while still not doing anything to improve their employees ability to get off of them. The government directly ends up paying for Wal-Mart's short comings. This obviously is a blow to the economy as well. What have I not proven again ?
I love how you try to spin this around on me too. Your accusations and further lack of substance or support for your statements is embarrassing. I have at no point been losing this debate, you are trying to say that I am but let's take a look. I have provided ample evidence to support my arguments, you question it but it still stands as fact whether you accept it or not. Then you have nothing to disprove anything I have said, all you do is make smug remarks that really just make you look bad.
Actually, it saves twice that much in that those people have jobs when many of them wouldn't ordinarily.
That is an opinion not a fact, and you can't provide any evidence to support it. Your whole post is riddled with this kind of futile arguing. For the millionth time, you have proven nothing. Except maybe that you have no idea what your talking about. Your just shooting off at the mouth in a pissed off rant, not realizing the many holes and flaws in what you are fronting as some kind of intelligent argument.
Statistics in the hands of those not prepared to analyze them correctly are pretty dangerous.
Yet another example of your pissed off unintelligible remarks. When the facts are presented, it doesn't matter who looks at them so long as the facts stand. Numbers are numbers, how can you misinterpret Wal-Mart costing the government $2.5 billion dollars, due to their refusal to pay a livable wage?
Once again, where would these people be without WalMart? Homeless? Jobless? Dead? On drugs? How much would that cost the taxpayers?
Or how about, Once again you have nothing to say contrary to the fact I posted. Is this another one of your pissed off remarks? You can't discern where any of these people would be, and you making the assumptions of those people you did is basically the same as profiling.
Look, all this ideology is a good thing, but it is misplaced here. WalMart's clientèle needs the savings. Five cents per can of tuna over the course of a year really helps some families.
Your missing the point. I don't buy the can of tuna to save 5 cents, I buy it because I want it and I am a consumer. It doesn't matter that it is that much less, I can but another brand in the store and spend 5 cents more. How is it saving me money to go there? If I go to Wal-Mart to buy it, either way it's not saving me anything. The only one who saves is Wal-Mart. Why? Because, through their contractual agreements and the volume of their purchases they end up getting it at a lesser price saving them the money, not me the consumer. I mentioned this earlier, the only way it pays for me is if I was previously shopping elsewhere and I had to pay more at said location. If I am already shopping there I am not going from a negative to a positive, therefore not saving anything. It's not like every time I buy that can of tuna, I get to put a nickel in the piggy bank.
$1,000 per employee. The government spends $100 billion dollars a year to farmers to not grow crops. Individual farmers get millions, and you are telling me Walmart is the death of the economy for $1,000 per employee.
What that amount of money is equivalent to is irrelevant as is your comparison. The farmers subsidies are actually given to help the economy, it's based on supply and demand. For instance, when beans flood the market, the price drops so much that the farmers can not turn a profit. Therefore, when their isn't the great supply the prices go back up thus enabling the farmers to turn a profit. What you are talking about all depends on the type of subsidies the farmers are receiving or rather what they are receiving them for.
Besides that, the agriculture industry is too important to let it fall. If they can't afford to operate, millions starve to death. In Iowa alone we provide approximately 60% of the worlds corn. Cut that out and millions or billions are dead. In China, if they can't afford to grow rice, people here can't get it. There are tons of other similar examples.
Good. They get subsidies to put up a store in an urban area where no other businesses will locate. This brings goods to people and increases access for the poor to participate in the economy, empowering them to help sway policy by voting with their wallets. This is a bad thing how?
I've never seen a Wal-Mart in Compton, Brooklyn, Chicago, etc... So what urban areas are you talking about, yet again no substance, no support, only opinion and temper temper. Those poor people you mentioned are also the ones the employees at Wal-Mart. Did you mean rural areas, where no other businesses will locate? We already know the impact that has had, and it has done anything but empower those small towns. True, there are some small towns where a Wal-Mart helps bring some jobs, and does make more products available to that area, but your also cutting out mom and pop who are the backbone of the economy. Wal-Mart has moved into some of these small towns and turned them into ghost towns, wiping out all locally owned competition. All those vacant stores, also lower the land value of those areas, thus a negative trickle down effect. That's not my opinion that is what happens, and has happened all over. My state Iowa is a prime example.
Once again, no broken laws, just a broken system. So far, WalMart has done nothing but increase access to necessary and luxury goods and expose failures within the government. What a terrible company.
No broken laws, just immoral business practice. For someone who supposedly knows so much about business I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that. Treading the line of legality isn't exactly what I'd call a sure fire way to give your company a positive image. While not breaking any laws they are still denying the government the taxes they should be paying, while also taking money from the government, and costing the government even more money with their employees dependency on their government programs. All of this further proves my points and emboldens them. How could you miss this, you are touting yourself as some whiz, that should be obvious.
You only want me to "shut the fuck up" because you are getting your ass handed to you and you know it. You have done nothing but show that your business school sucks for letting idiots like you in. I should teach your professors so that school doesn't get tagged with giving people as stupid as you degrees. Thank you for spending this whole post regurgitating out of context assumptions from two shitty documentaries. Please, go back to your Pro-Choice rally and leave economic debates to those that understand the economy.
I've wanted you to shut the fuck up because your arguments and points are worthless, often have nothing to do with anything I have said or points I've raised, and you perpetually do nothing but call me names, make assumptions about me, and slander me in any way you can figure to do so. All that shows is that you have nothing better to say, nothing to counter the multiple facts I raised to prove you wrong on the subject.
By the way, I am pro-life, and a die-hard conservative republican who is for the people not big business, and how about all for my country and the strength of it's economy which Wal-Mart has had a strong hand in weakening as I have proven over and over again.
You have proven that you don't understand anything. You have also proven that you are regurgitating information in that you provide no analysis of your own, likely because you are incapable. You have also butchered the English language and made your school give out a sigh of relief that you have not mentioned their name.
I'm not really regurgitating anything. I've given all the information to shut the fuck down, period. And this is all you can come with, a bunch of personal attacks because you can't provide the information to counter what I have given as evidence. My own analysis and research is what brought me to my opinion on the matter, so that theory of your is shot too. I also don't know where you come off trying to say I some how butchered the English language especially when I have had to edit some of the quotes I have posted of yours. I may get long winded with the commas but long winded with the appropriate usage of the commas is still grammatically correct. Besides that point, this isn't an English debate, quite trying to sidetrack and take the attention off of your argument, or lack thereof. What it is about is the negative effects of Wal-Mart on our economy, government, and society.
Really? No one sells cars or anything, right? Furthermore, you completely missed the boat on that one too. I said that unions, fucking unions, are the death of this economy. All of our troubles can be traced back to unions and the 2006 congressional elections.
Totally taking what I was saying out of context. I never said anything along the lines you are suggesting. What I was aiming at was that you can't compare the two industries. Obviously retail and the auto industry are very different. This point was made because we were getting into the debate about unions. The UAW is the kind of union you give reference too, and I agree they are fucked up in the way they muscle the auto makers with outrageous demands, but that is far from what we are talking about people trying to do in Wal-Mart. This is people trying to unionize not to gain outrageous pay and benefits, but those that would at least qualify as livable. As for your mentioning of the 2006 congressional elections, that was all due to the dems taking majority over the house and senate, we all know their brand of politics. Still, you make no convincing or valid arguments that disprove what I have said otherwise.
Sounds like the purpose of business to me. Maximize profits. Did you professors tell you that was a bad thing? Your University of Phoenix online education truly is a travesty.
Making profits is
a purpose of business. There are many other aspects of business as well as right and wrong business practices based on business ethics that have been established well before Wal-Mart. My professor taught me those right and wrong business ethics, and how to determine the right and wrong courses of action to take. It all depends on what you are or are not willing to do for money, and some things that may make you money aren't always the right thing to do, like selling crack. I would have thought that your professor would have taught you that, maybe it is actually you who have the University of Phoenix degree and are fronting as something else?
Translation: The following out of context exaggerated numbers show that I can cut and paste from websites, but the lack of analysis shows that I do not know what they mean and I am not smart enough to make my own arguments.
This proves what against my case? Nothing. More of your useless temper tantrum as you try to find witty ways to convince the readers that you a. have a clue, and b. aren't full of shit, or c. have anything informative or useful to add. The numbers are not exaggerated at all, the only thing they exaggerate is how wrong you are on the topic. I posted the facts I did because I knew exactly what they meant, and you do too which is why you are doing your damnedest to try discredit them. I made my argument and backed it up with solid evidence, you have done nothing of the sort. It is not my fault you can't handle the fact that you have been ineffective, and outmatched. Well, the outmatches part is my fault.
OK, so? If people don't want to make less money, they should find another job. WalMart is following the capitalist mantra to a T. This, of course, is the mantra you endorsed in your last post. Now, when it's inconvenient, you abandon it. You are either a hypocrite, a liar, or an idiot. I vote all three.
Just saying that people should find another job is not a valid argument, again that is an opinion and a lousy one coming from someone who is supposedly so enlightened. Yes I endorse capitalism, but not the abuse of it and the system that allows it to flourish. I never abandoned it, and it never became inconvenient to my conversation. Furthermore I am neither a liar, and idiot, or a hypocrite. I never said that as a whole capitalism is bad, the way Wal-Mart operates under capitalism. The way Wal-Mart uses the capitalistic ideals is the flawed part of their operations or business as a whole, which has been my argument, not that capitalism is bad. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Is it 1% or 10%? You fuckwit, you just gave the same argument twice with two different statistics. Your credibility has gone out the door.
Alright let's take a gooood look at this one just we can show how off base your comments here are and how pathetically you interpreted the provided information. It was either that or you intentionally misrepresented it so it wouldn't shut you down even worse. Let's take a look at the two statistics in question and see who the real fuckwit is here.
Fact 1:
A 2007 study found that the opening of a single Wal-Mart store lowers average retail wages in that county nearly 1%
Ok, this is stating a decrease of one percent in average retail wages in any given county that a new Wal-Mart is built.
Fact 2:
In the general merchandise sector, wages fell by 1% for each new Wal-Mart.
Ok general merchandise sector, wages down 1% for each new Wal-Mart. A completely different stat than the previous one.
Fact 3:
And for grocery store employees, the effect of a single new Wal-Mart was a 1.5% reduction in earnings.
Ok, this is talking about the effects of Wal-Mart on grocery store employees earnings that went down 1.5%, another different stat.
Fact 4:
The average wage for retail workers is 10% lower than it would have been without Wal-Mart's presence.
And here, we have wage average for retail workers declining 10% due to Wal-Mart's presence in their markets.
Where in this did I contradict myself, state the same thing twice, or anything that could be confused as such. I presented the necessary material, you tried to spin it as something other than what it was, you going down along with your argument.
Yawn....the average nationwide salary grew by something like 7% in the 90's. Furthermore, the Clinton administration adjusted the poverty line during his time as President. The poverty rate decreased at a slower rate because it was easier to be considered poor, not because anyone was making less money. Once again, your lack of understanding of the economy baffles the mind.
This is simply the difference between micro and macro. What I pointed out was the trend of economic downturn in the presence of Wal-Mart's in areas that previously had not had said issues, it is a trend not a coincidence. Furthermore no one was talking about average nationwide salary. This was more concentrated as I said, micro to macro. The stat I provided focused on counties, not the country. Your lack of understanding of anything I have said baffles my mind.
Awesome. No one should be forced to have to deal with unions. Unions have destroyed the auto, steel, and manufacturing industries. Retail should not be next.
On the contrary, no one should be forced to settle for menial pay, menial benefits with a menial payoff, or the company the work for working against them. No one is talking about crippling the industry, people just want what they are worth, or something close to it. I'm not disputing the dangers of unionization, I am pointing out why there is a perceived need for it amongst Wal-Mart employees. If they were being taken care of, they wouldn't need to unionize and make demands. When people have tried to do it, they have taken the lowest possible road out of it and been reprimanded for it. Obviously there was something wrong with the way things were being handled over the entire corporation, not just one random store or some random scam artist, or they wouldn't have been reprimanded.
A liberal court found in favor of the unions? No fucking way.....
Sounds like smart business. Unions suck.
More smart ass remarks that do you no justice.
I could go file a rape charge against you right now. Doesn't mean it will hold up.
But take a look at the number of cases that have in fact been found not to be fraudulent, and how many convictions, or rulings have been made against them. If these cases had been ruled differently you might have a point, but after a trial Wal-Mart has been found guilty of everything I originally said they were, I never lied about anything. As soon as I backed up everything I said, you decided to puff up and try to make something of it. I can't believe I am even wasting this amount of time on you, it's pointless. The more I prove the more you deny. The more wrong I show you to be, the more you slander and try to dismiss the obvious. It's like arguing with a stubborn child.
Sounds like smart business. Unions suck.
Another stubborn response to evidence showing Wal-Mart to be clearly in the wrong. This is just belligerence at this point.
So? They paid their penalty and there has been no problem since. Microsoft was sanctioned by the Justice Department. Congress' job is to monitor business. Shit happens. How does this prove your point at all? WalMart made a mistake so they are the downfall of the American economy? I don't see the connection.
Really? Where is your proof. I found cases as recent as 2008, what else have you got ? Nothing. There was a major point, you are just oblivious to it. It was further back up to my proving that they have in fact not done things "By the Book" or however you put it, that in fact they are one of the dirtiest companies. This was also in relation to the overall business practices the company has displayed over the course of a long period of time, these aren't isolated incidents, it's rampant corruption. I.E. their corruption has been a large factor in the downfall of the American economy. I am not surprised that you did not see the connection.
You are either a liar or not bright, but either way, you fail.
