Who here doesnt like Wal-Mart? Options

[yarik83]

I hate walmart for the people that work there-never willing to help, always rude (such as argue right in front of you of which one should assist me and I can clearly see that neither one wants to at the first place. I hate some people that shop there for obvious reasons. I want a quick in and out and I dont want to wait in line because some (lets not be a sexist here) wants to buy pantyhose at 2.54 per pair but it is ringing up as 2.71 etc etc etc.

I do, however like their prices and that is why I come there whenever I need to buy something that I know would cost less at walmart... but I never buy anything below $50 mark because I would rather visit a more pleasuring atmosphere for easy shopping etc etc.

Also someone mentioned $9. something per hr. hell no. I made a mistake in working for Target, Wallmart, ToysRus, petsmart, BJs and sears on a seasonal basis. your paycheck is never $9/hr. for a regualr employee you are getting like $6.50-7.60 and $1 more per hr if you are working a nightshift ($8.50) working nightshift is a slave job.. I did it. You not only have no personal life but loose weight at a faster rate than if you were swallowing Leptoprin pills.

Easiest retail job-Toysrus because less people shop there when it is not a holiday season.

Also many people who work in the stores have 2 jobs.. but either way even if their income is 30K per year.. working 80hrs per week and sitting up to their ears in credit card bills and NOT having a decent life in general is inevitable. That is precisely why many people in this country are falling from middle class to low class whether they like it or not.

Now this is not to say that ALL people that work in stores are poor. Some people choose to be that way, some people have their better half making enough money for both of them.

I personally retired from retail and I am in food and beverage.. working as a server and attending college I am making on average $15-18 bucks per hr including tips and all

nothing more to say

[saleeka]

Wrong.  Wal-Mart is a contributor to a globalized economy, but so are good old american companies like GM, Ford, GE, and IBM, as well as companies like Toyota and Nissan, and thousands of others.  If you don't understand economics, especially globalization, you should read "The Choice."  It's only like 100 pages.  It tells why globalization is good and how protectionism is bad.  Outsourcing jobs enables Americans to attain better jobs than they would have had.  For example, instead of working in a factory, I went to college and am now an accountant.  Getting a college degree wouldn't be so important if we all had nice, secure, high paying jobs that required no skills.
[right][snapback]331766[/snapback][/right]

With that logic, the divison of class in the US becomes greater- it further thins out the middle class, enlarges the lower class, and makes the gap between lower class and upper that much farther away... of course the big corporations love globilazation because it allows them to keep spending down and profits steady, or better, usually at the expence of the blue collar worker. I guess I am too stupid to see how eliminating 1000 factory worker jobs in a community helps things out in the long run...

[macavely]

2 weeks ago i stepped foot into a wal mart for the first time with my girl and her mom... they had a lot of good stuff at great prices... i might go back again when i can..

[soltrain]

It tells why globalization is good and how protectionism is bad.

That's a really black and white view of a very complicated issue. Especially for a book that's only 100 pages..

This post has been edited by soltrain: Sep 7, 2005 - 5:39 PM

[jojobombiest]

the attitude of employees usually reflects how much they like working there and how well they are treated. anyone ever been to in n out burger in CA? they're the nicest people of all the fast food places. i had a friend that worked there and she said she loved it.

[BlackSTX]

It tells why globalization is good and how protectionism is bad.

That's a really black and white view of a very complicated issue. Especially for a book that's only 100 pages..
[right][snapback]331840[/snapback][/right]

Then read this one instead: The Commanding Heights. It's about 300-400 pages and a much more difficult and boring read but takes the same stance. It's even better because it gives historical proof. Our country's economy has been much stronger as a whole since the existence of Wal-Mart and globalization. The fact of the matter is that there have always been low paying jobs and cheap labor in this country. What industry and company it is in is just irrelevant. I seriously don't think a small local business would pay any better than a Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart has so many problems like everyone says, then there's room for competition. Personally, I don't even shop at Wal-Mart, and I'm poor. I don't like a single thing in their store, and they don't have a thing I can't find somewhere else. I don't like their big parking lot and long lines. Same thing with Meijer's and all the other "big box" stores.

[Jeremy1210]

Don't forget that walmart treats women like ****. A woman and a man at the same level with same time in and everything, the woman will be paid a lot less. They have had many lawsuits against them for this. Also, walmart will try to build in a city even when the city says that it doesn't want them there. I have no idea where someone got the information that walmart pays like 7-9$ and hour. that is completely wrong. My buddy had to beg to get 6. The manager there makes 7. In no way does that even give a person some quality of life. Thats way below poverty.

[Kwanza26]

It tells why globalization is good and how protectionism is bad.

That's a really black and white view of a very complicated issue. Especially for a book that's only 100 pages..
[right][snapback]331840[/snapback][/right]

Then read this one instead: The Commanding Heights. It's about 300-400 pages and a much more difficult and boring read but takes the same stance. It's even better because it gives historical proof. Our country's economy has been much stronger as a whole since the existence of Wal-Mart and globalization. The fact of the matter is that there have always been low paying jobs and cheap labor in this country. What industry and company it is in is just irrelevant. I seriously don't think a small local business would pay any better than a Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart has so many problems like everyone says, then there's room for competition. Personally, I don't even shop at Wal-Mart, and I'm poor. I don't like a single thing in their store, and they don't have a thing I can't find somewhere else. I don't like their big parking lot and long lines. Same thing with Meijer's and all the other "big box" stores.
[right][snapback]331927[/snapback][/right]

C'mon now... you're from Florence Kentucky... 25,000 90% white "MIDDLE CLASS" population. What could you possibly know about living in poorest parts of the country? What experience could you possibly have about downsized buisness ousourcing jobs so Americans have the "opportunity" to attain new "better" jobs? Realize that most people who's jobs get outsourced do NOT suddenly gain new skills and reap the benefits of being "released" by getting better paying jobs (Released is a funny word too. I doubt people were actually locked up at a decent job... so they aren't actually being "released" or "let go"... kicked the fawk out perhaps). That's just a joke. It's so funny you actually believe that and you believe this because you read it in a book. Most people who get their jobs outsourced end up flipping burgers for minimum wage... assuming that can even support their families, pay the bills, and maintain their standard of living (hell no!). Go to LA... a city where not everyone is white and makes 45-50K a year, and take a look around... and see how great of jobs people have from big buisness globalization. See how well off these people are because their well paying jobs with good benefits have moved to a country where people are willing to work for 10 cents a day.

[saleeka]

thank you Kwanza for putting it "not so politely" as I would have... It's the truth, however- unemployed with no skills = screwed...

[jgreening]

thank you Kwanza for putting it "not so politely" as I would have... It's the truth, however- unemployed with no skills = screwed...
[right][snapback]332023[/snapback][/right]

Good reason to acquire some education and skills...

[jgreening]

It's so funny you actually believe that and you believe this because you read it in a book. 
[right][snapback]332001[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps you should read the book before you critisize it. Surely, you wouldn't fault someone from learning something from the BGB just because it was a "book" and not based on experience. The problem with basing everything off your personal experience is that people do not have sufficient experience to form competent opinions on all subjects. Thus, we read, listen and learn.

I don't think anyone that has seriously studied this issue fails to acknowledge that the short term effects for the workers whose jobs are displaced are significant and, in some cases, devastating. But, that does not answer the question about whether fostering a free market and a global economy is better for society as a whole. The negative effects must be balanced against the positive effects as well. Even left wing politicians like Bill Clinton and Al Gore have forcefully argued for more expansive and open trade agreements with less developed nations.

The difference between a society with an open market and one that engages in protectionist tactics or other marxist economy theory is not the existence of poor people. Indeed, both societies have poor people. The difference is the number of wealthy people and the relative health of the middle class.

For more insight on the laws of economics, try a google search on Austrian Economics. It is the purest economic discipline. In the end, I find the laws of economics to be like the laws of gravity: you can choose to believe them or not but your opinion does not make them any less true.

[BlackSTX]

It tells why globalization is good and how protectionism is bad.

That's a really black and white view of a very complicated issue. Especially for a book that's only 100 pages..
[right][snapback]331840[/snapback][/right]

Then read this one instead: The Commanding Heights. It's about 300-400 pages and a much more difficult and boring read but takes the same stance. It's even better because it gives historical proof. Our country's economy has been much stronger as a whole since the existence of Wal-Mart and globalization. The fact of the matter is that there have always been low paying jobs and cheap labor in this country. What industry and company it is in is just irrelevant. I seriously don't think a small local business would pay any better than a Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart has so many problems like everyone says, then there's room for competition. Personally, I don't even shop at Wal-Mart, and I'm poor. I don't like a single thing in their store, and they don't have a thing I can't find somewhere else. I don't like their big parking lot and long lines. Same thing with Meijer's and all the other "big box" stores.
[right][snapback]331927[/snapback][/right]

C'mon now... you're from Florence Kentucky... 25,000 90% white "MIDDLE CLASS" population. What could you possibly know about living in poorest parts of the country? What experience could you possibly have about downsized buisness ousourcing jobs so Americans have the "opportunity" to attain new "better" jobs? Realize that most people who's jobs get outsourced do NOT suddenly gain new skills and reap the benefits of being "released" by getting better paying jobs (Released is a funny word too. I doubt people were actually locked up at a decent job... so they aren't actually being "released" or "let go"... kicked the fawk out perhaps). That's just a joke. It's so funny you actually believe that and you believe this because you read it in a book. Most people who get their jobs outsourced end up flipping burgers for minimum wage... assuming that can even support their families, pay the bills, and maintain their standard of living (hell no!). Go to LA... a city where not everyone is white and makes 45-50K a year, and take a look around... and see how great of jobs people have from big buisness globalization. See how well off these people are because their well paying jobs with good benefits have moved to a country where people are willing to work for 10 cents a day.
[right][snapback]332001[/snapback][/right]

Dude, I'm not from Florence. I still don't make 45,000-50,000 a year either. I grew up in a trailer in central Kentucky in a town called Athertonville. Look up the stats for that place. You can't seriously tell me that you think there are many places in the U.S. that are as impoverished as rural Kentucky. I started out working the register at a Long John Silver's for $5 an hour, then worked in a facotry for $6 an hour, then went to college. I ended up in Florence after my wife took a job there. Most people move here because of "globalization". Procter & Gamble is located in the area, and Toyota's North American manufacturing headquarters is two miles away, and we have an industrial park full of internationally owned companies. The two "big towns" I grew up near each got Wal-Marts when I was a kid and it was good for both of them. Both towns had lost a lot of low paying jobs from factories that supplied parts to automotive manufacturers and GE appliance park in Louisville. Wal-Mart gave jobs to a lot of these people. My point is that instead of pouting about the lost job opportunities in my home towns I seized the opportunity to go to college and find an even better job. Some of you think you have the "right" to have a good job and that it's supposed to be provided for you. That's not the case. Sometimes, you have to make things happen for yourselves. Instead of complaining about your low-paying jobs, pick up a classified ad and pick one of the many thousands of jobs listed. I find it hard to believe there are no open jobs in L.A. If there aren't, then move to Florence.

[Kwanza26]

Perhaps you should read the book before you critisize it.  Surely, you wouldn't fault someone from learning something from the BGB just because it was a "book" and not based on experience.  The problem with basing everything off your personal experience is that people do not have sufficient experience to form competent opinions on all subjects.  Thus, we read, listen and learn. 

I'm not criticizing the fact that it was read it in a book. I criticize the fact that people so often base opinions off of opinions. If you've read the works of Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes, John Mill, there are radically differing opinions on economy, even though it's all based on relatively the same laws and ideas, and as time changes, economic needs and society changes. Something like the BGB is not a book based on ideas or laws... it is simply a manual depicting almost exactly how something works. If you look at when I give people sh!t about cars... it's not really a matter of opinion. Most econ books that are based on old-time laws and facts which still does ring true... but because of modernization and technology, a lot of the old globalization antic dotes no longer apply to the vast majority. Much of modern economics will differ greatly between areas. The topic here specifically are the pros and cons of globalization. A fairly broad topic such as globalization and its effects on national and global economies have been argued to death time and time again. A simple way to explain my point of view: how often do you see "made in the USA"...

I don't think anyone that has seriously studied this issue fails to acknowledge that the short term effects for the workers whose jobs are displaced are significant and, in some cases, devastating.  But, that does not answer the question about whether fostering a free market and a global economy is better for society as a whole.  The negative effects must be balanced against the positive effects as well.  Even left wing politicians like Bill Clinton and Al Gore have forcefully argued for more expansive and open trade agreements with less developed nations. 

I actually am in the middle when it comes to globalization... I don't dismiss the fact that there is good in globalization, but nor will I ignore the fact that globalization is essentially feeding other countries economies. Take China for example... exponential growth in the past 20-30 years... not even mentioning exploitation at the cost of American jobs...

The difference between a society with an open market and one that engages in protectionist tactics or other marxist economy theory is not the existence of poor people.  Indeed, both societies have poor people.  The difference is the number of wealthy people and the relative health of the middle class. 

I agree... but I'm not really trying to preach isolationism or marxian socialism or anything like that... I'm preaching more... "take a walk in another man's shoes before you jump to a conclusion"... I'm really not trying to argue economics here... I'm arguing understanding. More psychology than economics...

For more insight on the laws of economics, try a google search on Austrian Economics.  It is the purest economic discipline.  In the end, I find the laws of economics to be like the laws of gravity: you can choose to believe them or not but your opinion does not make them any less true.
[right][snapback]332047[/snapback][/right]

The problem with topics like these is that people tend to jump to conclusions. One of the laws of power states a person needs to stay as neutral as possible. Neutrality allows one freedom to adapt and lean towards either or... as neccesary for one's advantage and needs. Economics is a system based on proven laws, but as times change... laws need to adapt to suit modern needs. That's my opinion on the matter.

Dude, I'm not from Florence. I still don't make 45,000-50,000 a year either. I grew up in a trailer in central Kentucky in a town called Athertonville. Look up the stats for that place. You can't seriously tell me that you think there are many places in the U.S. that are as impoverished as rural Kentucky. I started out working the register at a Long John Silver's for $5 an hour, then worked in a facotry for $6 an hour, then went to college. I ended up in Florence after my wife took a job there. Most people move here because of "globalization". Procter & Gamble is located in the area, and Toyota's North American manufacturing headquarters is two miles away, and we have an industrial park full of internationally owned companies. The two "big towns" I grew up near each got Wal-Marts when I was a kid and it was good for both of them. Both towns had lost a lot of low paying jobs from factories that supplied parts to automotive manufacturers and GE appliance park in Louisville. Wal-Mart gave jobs to a lot of these people. My point is that instead of pouting about the lost job opportunities in my home towns I seized the opportunity to go to college and find an even better job. Some of you think you have the "right" to have a good job and that it's supposed to be provided for you. That's not the case. Sometimes, you have to make things happen for yourselves. Instead of complaining about your low-paying jobs, pick up a classified ad and pick one of the many thousands of jobs listed. I find it hard to believe there are no open jobs in L.A. If there aren't, then move to Florence.

Did I hit a nerve? Heh... I do that too often... but don't take anything personally. I try never to take personal jabs... unless the person deserves it. My statements weren't meant as a personal shot at your situation... but more to "hope" that you'll try and see the "other side" before you make those beliefs the gospel truth. Try to understand that not everyone in the world is able to go to college, nor are they able to change their situation at will. There are people working 2-3 jobs night and day just to make end's meat... and I'm sure most of them would gladly change that if their situations permit it (mortgage, kids, bills, work, + higher education?). College costs in California have more than doubled in the past 3-4 years alone... and it's probably gonna go up still. I know that your world and mine are vastly different... but I'm not gonna generalize and say people can overcome adversity and change their lives for the better. I wish we all could... but it isn't how things work. It's the American dream... as Michael Moore puts it (btw... i'm not a huge fan of michael moore or anything... he's a bit of an extreme liberal) The American Dream is a dream all Americans can achieve, but Americans need to dream less and do more. Society just won't function without the working class... and the goal of the American Dream is to live richly and not have to work. Every American tries to live this dream... unknowing that there's a silent social order that people all need to fit into.

Anyway... I'm done with this. As I've always stated in the past... I don't like political or social discussions. People get offended really easily... and considering I do that easily enough in the tech forum... I'll definately knock heads here... =D PEACE!

[jgreening]

Intelligent reply and I agree with 99% of it. The only part I don't agree with is this:

Economics is a system based on proven laws, but as times change... laws need to adapt to suit modern needs.

Laws don't change or "adapt" as you suggest. Perhaps they need to be applied differently or more facts need to be added to the equation. More likely, we just don't like the results of the laws so we dismiss them as "outdated" or "inapplicable in the real world". An example is welfare. The laws of economics indicate that the higher you make welfare payments, the more people will rely on it and not work. Therefore, increasing welfare funding actually has the effect of causing a higher incidence of poverty. Many people dislike that conclusion so much they will dismiss the economic laws it is based upon. Again, these folks are free to believe anything they want - but the economic principal is constant. (Edit: Please understand that I am not advocating the absence of a safety net despite the fact that its a fact that more people will be self-sufficient and prosperous without one)

In any event, I think we can agree to disagree on this point.

[97lestyousay]

:

This post has been edited by 97lestyousay: Apr 4, 2012 - 7:57 PM

[darksecret]

Let's not forget the cities that deny Wal-Mart, the land Wal-Mart is basically condemed, one town in I believe Pa denied Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart simply that they'll sit on the land until a new generation agrees to have one. A town near Charlotte called Marvin told Wal-Mart to shove it (it's a very wealthy area and they consider Wal-Mart low class) well Wal-Mart worked some kind of magic and still managed to build there but the town sort of rebelled and came to an agreement (since big business usually gets what it wants) Wal-Mart cannot post a sign near the road so that the locals can't see it or it has to be really small.