Walmart/Corporations Kill Off "Mom and Pop Shops"...

[Cecilie1200]

But....but....but....the top 1%!!!

And....and...and.....why do you hate the poor?

And what about the fact that people can now oil paint as opposed to having to work for a living?

If they had had any talent as oil painters, they'd have been doing it WITHOUT the subsidy.

And I have no personal feeling about rich people OR poor people. I just know that I need money, and rich people have it to pay me for things, and poor people don't. So rich people are useful to me, and poor people are in my way while I'm trying to shop. Let's just say you don't see RICH people stopping a checkout line cold while they search for their coupons.

In other words to rich men you were an easy lay.....er way.....

Momma always said, "It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man . . . and a hell of a lot easier to STAY in love with him."

IF that were a commodity I was interested in selling, you're damned right I'd be selling it to people who could pay big bucks, rather than people who want to trade me Food Stamps for it. If YOU want to value yourself at the price of a McDonald's Dollar Menu meal . . . well, that's actually pretty realistic.

Personally, though, if his "great personality" isn't providing me with a way of buying food to stuff into my children's head holes, it's really of no use to me whatsoever.

 

[Jughead]

Walmart/Corporations Kill Off "Mom and Pop Shops"...

Although I am sympathetic to the Mom and Pop shops, I am also realistic and am aware that Walmart provides jobs for many in various communities who would otherwise be out of work. The Walmart Super Centers are especially convenient for those who like to do their shopping off hours to avoid the large crowds.

 

[KevinWestern]

I understand the point you think you're making. I just don't care. I also don't agree.

WalMart isn't the reason that manufacturers go overseas. They are simply dealing with the business world as it is, aka it's too damned expensive to manufacture here, in large part because doofuses like you think that commerce should be about making leftist moral statements than about balancing cost with value. WalMart doesn't really care much where their goods are manufactured. I'm sure they'd actually like to buy American if they could, but they can't if lefties have priced manufacturing out of the country with their stupid, extraneous "businesses shouldn't profit" demands.

You’re confusing me with someone who wants to regulate businesses, raise taxes on corporations, etc. I’m not one of those people. You realize your head doesn't have to be up the ass of that left/right paradigm all day you know – right? Breathe in some fresh air for once ya hack.

I’m not talking about forcing businesses to do anything - it's not the businesses fault! Companies merely respond to the needs and the wants of the consumer. Walmart isn’t evil and either is laying off people because you need to remain profitable! If anything is "evil", it's the consumer.

If consumers value jobs here in America, they need to learn that they might have to pay more. Pay $10 for that shirt you might not need instead of $5. Support your local American economy.

No, because it's based on multiple false premises, the first of which is that the world can and should operate with people like you as the Supreme Central Managers, imposing your personal moral decisions onto everyone else's lives.

The truth is, YOU have forced companies to lay off workers and move overseas, not WalMart. YOU are the bad guy here.

Again, you saw that I disagreed with you and due to your lack of analytical skills you quickly grouped me as a “leftist” and cannot comprehend anything outside of that generalization. It's an incredibly child-like way of navigating through this world.

Let me repeat – I don’t blame Walmart, I blame the consumer. If the consumer wants to see higher wages, better benefits, less jobs being shipped overseas, they need to realize that THEY need to pay more for goods. "Made in America" costs more than "Made in China".

Sorry Cecile, but you're sort of a gigantic partisan moron.

And sorry if that sounds mean but guess what - you attacked me first.


.

 

[asterism]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

WalMart didn't create the entitlement for public assistance, that is the legislature. All WalMart did was pay market wages to people who were making the same amount working for someone else but paid others to educate them on assistance programs.

That's not corporate welfare, the people working at Wal Mart were doing the same jobs for someone else for less money without the assistance.

 

[candycorn]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

WalMart didn't create the entitlement for public assistance, that is the legislature. All WalMart did was pay market wages to people who were making the same amount working for someone else but paid others to educate them on assistance programs.

That's not corporate welfare, the people working at Wal Mart were doing the same jobs for someone else for less money without the assistance.

Everything youvisaid was correct except that it is corporate welfare insofar as taking advantage of the rules. . Nearly every employer does the same thing. Which is why I cant understand the anger at Wal-Mart. Chik fil A does the same thing.

 

[asterism]

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY

WalMart didn't create the entitlement for public assistance, that is the legislature. All WalMart did was pay market wages to people who were making the same amount working for someone else but paid others to educate them on assistance programs.

That's not corporate welfare, the people working at Wal Mart were doing the same jobs for someone else for less money without the assistance.

Everything youvisaid was correct except that it is corporate welfare insofar as taking advantage of the rules. . Nearly every employer does the same thing. Which is why I cant understand the anger at Wal-Mart. Chik fil A does the same thing.

But it's not taking advantage of the rules. If I paid an assistant $30,000 per year to answer phones that would be a fair wage for the job. With one child as a single mom she'd be at 200% of the poverty level. With five children she's below the poverty level, so why not help her get what the legislature says she deserves? Her extra children don't add value to my business so why should I pay her more? Shouldn't I pay according to the market wages and the value they add to the company?

I get the point that is being made, that in some way paying lower wages but helping people get benefits that allow them to live a lifestyle beyond the capabilities of those wages (even if it's very basic support for a family) could keep wages low but we have not seen that happen. Wal Mart doesn't decrease average worker wages in an area, it actually raises them. Mom & Pop stores displaced by Wal Mart didn't pay higher wages and certainly didn't have professionals helping with benefit applications.

 

[DriftingSand]

Whether I'm a fan of Walmart or not I've got to admit that I shop there all the time because they're convenient and because I can find almost everything I'm looking for at a reasonable price. I live almost across the street from a busy "Super Walmart" near Denver, CO. There are still lots and lots of independent stores of all kinds thriving in the area. It could very well be that because this Walmart draws so many people that the smaller business get a lot more free advertisement and local foot traffic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

Susanville, CA once had a vibrant Main St. When Wal-Mart moved in Main St. became a ghost town. Of course the Walton Children were thrilled, that is their business model; their mission statement has been adopted by the former GOP: "I got mine, Fuck the rest of you".

 

[KevinWestern]

Susanville, CA once had a vibrant Main St. When Wal-Mart moved in Main St. became a ghost town. Of course the Walton Children were thrilled, that is their business model; their mission statement has been adopted by the former GOP: "I got mine, Fuck the rest of you".

You can't stop Walmart, its shareholders, and all of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for that company by complaining. You can't stop all of the SUPPLIERS - like PepsiCo, Nabisco, Coke, Tyson, etc - from selling goods to their #1 customer (Walmart) by complaining.

The way to "stop" Walmart begins with you, and you only.

It's easy to simplify things and blame the problems on a single CEO, or family for the Walmart problem. But I ask you? What makes a successful company?

It the consumer that is the sole source of food for the monster. If we collectively decide to stop shopping at Walmart (because we as a society determined that they are not good for our communities/economies), they would either be shut down in a few months or drastically would need to change their business model. They react to we, the people and apparently the only thing we (seem) care about at the moment is low pricing and convenience and not the broader implications of that low pricing and convenience.

This is the absolute truth.

 

[DriftingSand]

Susanville, CA once had a vibrant Main St. When Wal-Mart moved in Main St. became a ghost town. Of course the Walton Children were thrilled, that is their business model; their mission statement has been adopted by the former GOP: "I got mine, Fuck the rest of you".

You can't stop Walmart, its shareholders, and all of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for that company by complaining. You can't stop all of the SUPPLIERS - like PepsiCo, Nabisco, Coke, Tyson, etc - from selling goods to their #1 customer (Walmart) by complaining.

The way to "stop" Walmart begins with you, and you only.

It's easy to complain about Walmart, and blame the problems on other people when in fact is the consumer that is the sole source of food for the monster. If we collectively decide to stop shopping at Walmart (because we as a society determined that they are not good for our communities/economies), they would either be shut down in a few months or drastically would need to change their business model. They react to we - the people - and apparently the only thing we (seem) care about at the moment is low pricing and convenience.

This is the absolute truth.

See ya'll later. Headed to Walmart to do my weekend shopping.

 

[KevinWestern]

See ya'll later. Headed to Walmart to do my weekend shopping.

Lol my point exactly!

Note that I'm not necessarily saying it's good or bad to shop at Walmart, my point is that the only reason it exists is because we decide to shop there. It's pretty simple.

 

[DriftingSand]

See ya'll later. Headed to Walmart to do my weekend shopping.

Lol my point exactly!

Note that I'm not necessarily saying it's good or bad to shop at Walmart, my point is that the only reason it exists is because we decide to shop there. It's pretty simple.

True. It wouldn't be as massive as it is unless it appealed to the masses. People like low prices; convenience; and variety. Walmart fits the bill. They're wages may not be as high as we like but it they were then their prices would be high as well. I suppose that if folks don't like their wages then they can seek employment elsewhere. But it's human nature to NEVER be satisfied. So even if Walmart paid $15.00 per hour folks would bitch that the wages should be $17.00 per hour. And so it goes!

Now I'm headed to Home Depot and Office Max for a few more things I need.

 

[KevinWestern]

See ya'll later. Headed to Walmart to do my weekend shopping.

Lol my point exactly!

Note that I'm not necessarily saying it's good or bad to shop at Walmart, my point is that the only reason it exists is because we decide to shop there. It's pretty simple.

True. It wouldn't be as massive as it is unless it appealed to the masses. People like low prices; convenience; and variety. Walmart fits the bill. They're wages may not be as high as we like but it they were then their prices would be high as well. I suppose that if folks don't like their wages then they can seek employment elsewhere. But it's human nature to NEVER be satisfied. So even if Walmart paid $15.00 per hour folks would bitch that the wages should be $17.00 per hour. And so it goes!

Now I'm headed to Home Depot and Office Max for a few more things I need.

Too, just want to note that the "low wages" I was talking about doesn't apply to just Walmart associates; it applies to all of the millions of people producing the products going into Walmart from the plethora of suppliers they source from.

When you buy cheap chips, soda, shirts, you're doing so - at times - at the "expense" of the the employees that work at the companies that sell to Walmart. So, I think not considering anything but price affects not only the Walmart employees, but also the employees of Tyson, PepsiCo Coke, Nabisco, Kraft, etc, etc, etc.

It's all interconnected. And again, maybe not a bad thing, but maybe it is a bad thing. That's for us to decide.

But just note that when someone you know gets laid off due to downsizing, etc, part of the reason companies are doing that is because consumers are demanding lower, and lower, and lower prices and you and I might be partially to blame.

 

[darroll]

Around here we quit using Wal-Mart.
They hardly have milk. bread or eggs on the shelves.
We never see anyone stocking the shelves.
Walmart is doing it to Walmart.

 

[DriftingSand]

Alright! Here's how my totally politically incorrect day went.

1) I went to a Super Walmart but not the one across the street. Why? I live on a rough end of town. My local Walmart draws a huge crowd of illegal aliens who don't know English. I don't hate these working folks but they have a tendency to bring all 15 kids, grandma, and uncle Julio every time they go shopping. That wouldn't be so bad but illegals are totally opposed to training their kids who end up screaming to the top over their lungs every time they see something they just gotta have. They stand in the middle of aisles and block traffic. All the while, the parents seem oblivious that their kids even exist. Sooooo ... I went to the Walmart "up town" so I could actually shop instead of dodging the Mexican soccer team.
2) After shopping at that big-box store I went to Home Depot to get some lawn fertilizer and some seed.
3) I went to big box #3 by heading to Office Max for some pens and a new computer mouse (and a speaker for work that I really don't need).
4) Here's the biggy. While I was out shopping in the Belmar area (shopping mall not far from Denver) I spotted a brand new Chick-fil-A. This is especially good news for me as I am a fairly new, loyal customer of theirs and the one I usually go to is farther away. Soooo ... I'll be able to support them more often since they have opened this new location. Yahooooo!

 

[DriftingSand]

Too, just want to note that the "low wages" I was talking about doesn't apply to just Walmart associates; it applies to all of the millions of people producing the products going into Walmart from the plethora of suppliers they source from.

When you buy cheap chips, soda, shirts, you're doing so - at times - at the "expense" of the the employees that work at the companies that sell to Walmart. So, I think not considering anything but price affects not only the Walmart employees, but also the employees of Tyson, PepsiCo Coke, Nabisco, Kraft, etc, etc, etc.

It's all interconnected. And again, maybe not a bad thing, but maybe it is a bad thing. That's for us to decide.

But just note that when someone you know gets laid off due to downsizing, etc, part of the reason companies are doing that is because consumers are demanding lower, and lower, and lower prices and you and I might be partially to blame.

It's not just corporations to blame though. Our government recently injected billions (trillions?) of fiat money into the economy. That means that the supply of money rose dramatically which lowered it's value. In other words, our dollars don't buy what they used to buy. That's inflation. When the value of money decreases and the price of goods goes up then we walk out of the store with fewer goods than we did 10 years ago (for the same price)

I don't know about anyone else but as the price of living has increased my wages have remained generally static. That means that I take a pay cut every day. When that happens I have to find new and unique ways to survive on less. That forces me to buy from the most affordable outlets.

There's no doubt in my mind that there is a certain amount of collusion between large corporations and the Federal Government (regardless of which Party is in charge). The corporations supply the Feds with giant sums of tax money while the Feds bail out their Wall Street buds when they find themselves in hot water. The Feds also offer tax breaks. So, as they scratch each others' backs the rest of us scratch the barnyard for morsels of food.

 

[candycorn]

WalMart didn't create the entitlement for public assistance, that is the legislature. All WalMart did was pay market wages to people who were making the same amount working for someone else but paid others to educate them on assistance programs.

That's not corporate welfare, the people working at Wal Mart were doing the same jobs for someone else for less money without the assistance.

Everything youvisaid was correct except that it is corporate welfare insofar as taking advantage of the rules. . Nearly every employer does the same thing. Which is why I cant understand the anger at Wal-Mart. Chik fil A does the same thing.

But it's not taking advantage of the rules. If I paid an assistant $30,000 per year to answer phones that would be a fair wage for the job. With one child as a single mom she'd be at 200% of the poverty level. With five children she's below the poverty level, so why not help her get what the legislature says she deserves? Her extra children don't add value to my business so why should I pay her more? Shouldn't I pay according to the market wages and the value they add to the company?

I get the point that is being made, that in some way paying lower wages but helping people get benefits that allow them to live a lifestyle beyond the capabilities of those wages (even if it's very basic support for a family) could keep wages low but we have not seen that happen. Wal Mart doesn't decrease average worker wages in an area, it actually raises them. Mom & Pop stores displaced by Wal Mart didn't pay higher wages and certainly didn't have professionals helping with benefit applications.

It isn't what I meant but I see what you're saying.

I don't decry Wal Mart doing what it does because every business from Amazon to Zappos does the same thing with very few exceptions.

What gives me pause is that some conservatives look at those who are on public assistance and assumes that these people are lazy or unmotivated or ____________ and wish to eliminate and/or reduce the programs in place. All the while, a large segment of those on PA are working but are under-employed due to the corporations wishing to take care of shareholders before employees.

WMT pays $0.48 per share per quarter to shareholders; it has something like 3 billion shares outstanding. It's a blue chip so there is a lot of institutional interest involved owning about a billion of those shares. Paying a stout $0.45 per share would allow WMT to give employees a raise without seriously hurting their standing with Wall Street. TGT pays less; I think Sears pays $0.00.

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

Who's blaming the workers? I only see the left say that about the right. But that's par for the course. "We" hurt them by electing idiots that pass legislation that makes full time employees expensive with taxes and regulation. An employee is only worth so much, when costs exceed the benefit you make cuts. Walmart isn't the problem, big government is.

 

[Seawytch]

Bernie Sanders rips Walmart: Why should taxpayers subsidize ‘starvation wages’?

 

[mal]

Bernie Sanders rips Walmart: Why should taxpayers subsidize ‘starvation wages’?

How much did Walmart pay in Taxes in 2013?

How much does the average Mom and Pop Shop pay it's Cashier?... Do they have Retirement or Health on average?... Opportunity for Advancement?



peace...