JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Porn Star YourNickname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    360
    Blog Entries
    3

    Code of Conduct

    Opposition to Wal-Mart

    It seems a societal norm to hate Wal-Mart - although, it seems, the vast majority of those opposed to it are involved in some masochistic relationship with them where they shop at one 'cause they're cheap, but still hate them.

    This leads to a logical fallacy ("Why is Wal-Mart under attack by consumers when it helps the retail sector and the consumer?"). When a friend and I were talking about this, he showed me an essay/blog/editorial by one economics professor which put the whole thing to words more eloquently than I ever could:

    One proof of Woods’s Law – that someone will eventually call to curb or abolish any market innovation that benefits the poor – can be seen by studying Wal-Mart. Here is a company that unquestionably increases the purchasing power of the poor, thus improving the poor’s standard of living and while helping the poor live more independent, autonomous, and (I would argue) virtuous lives. It’s heroic. So, following Woods’s Law, it is predictable that Wal-Mart is attacked by disparate and disgruntled – but well-funded – groups to force it to unionize its labor force and provide benefits to its workers above and beyond whatever benefits the firm and its employees would agree to voluntarily.

    That these groups are funded by unions who extract money from members under the threat of force raises moral questions that are not my focus today. Still, I wonder how much more effective Wal-Mart could be, and by extension how much better off the poor would be, if it didn’t have to divert resources to combat their efforts.

    A report issued by the research firm Global Insight last November identifies another economic benefit that occurs when Wal-Mart opens a new store in a community. In a broad study of the economic impact of Wal-Mart on the U.S. economy, researchers found that on the county level, Wal-Mart "serves to stimulate the overall development of the retail sector that leads to an overall positive impact (in terms of retail employment) for the counties in which Wal-Mart has expanded." (You can download the 64-page report here. It discusses many more areas than retail employment.) In other words, just as Southwest Airlines forces competition to become more efficient in those markets it enters (this known as the Southwest Effect), so does Wal-Mart affect the structure of county-level retail employment (the Wal-Mart Effect). Again, as a result of this activity, the poor benefit.

    Wal-Mart’s economic effects on the U.S. economy, in the aggregate, support this point. According to the report, in 2004, Wal-Mart was

    responsible for 210,000 net jobs, a level of total factor productivity (general economic efficiency of the economy) that is 0.75% higher … than it would have been. Nominal wages are 2.2% lower, but given that consumer prices are 3.1% lower, real disposable income is 0.9% higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart.

    It seems contradictory, in light of this, that today’s world with Wal-Mart includes the establishment of a Communist Party committee in two of its Chinese stores, a concession the firm probably thinks is necessary if it is to be allowed by the Chinese government to establish a larger market presence there. (It currently has 60 stores in China.) This news, followed a week after it was announced that Wal-Mart would recognize trade unions in China, has been called a double-standard by a spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, one of the firm’s union-funded detractors. "Wal-Mart's applying a complete double standard here," said Nu Wexler. "Why are they [sic] comfortable with it in one country and fighting it in another?"

    Wexler is right. It is a double-standard, but one forced on it by the State. Because economic laws are universal, this policy will have the same harmful economic effects that unions have in the U.S. People will go unemployed because they can’t find work at the union wages. Many of them will then become dependent on, and supporters of, the party in power. Unskilled workers will remain unskilled because they will be denied the opportunity to develop the skills plus the work ethics and values that are only learned in the workplace. Prices will exhibit upward pressures as the firm tries to recoup costs incurred both complying with union regulations and proving that it is complying with union regulations.

    By fighting unionization in the United States, Wal-Mart does have a double-standard being forced upon it. All this proves, however, is that for groups like Wal-Mart Watch to force the unionization of Wal-Mart’s labor force, they must agitate for the U.S. government to be a little more like the Chinese government than it already is.

    It also proves that the effects of Woods’s Law are relatively harmless, except when governments get involved on the side of those calling for the repeal of market innovations. When that happens, violence is introduced where it previously did not exist, and as always, the poor suffer more than they otherwise would.

    ~Written by Chris Westley, who teaches economics at Jacksonville State University, Alabama.
    Original link


    Now, he makes sense. I was never opposed to Wal-Mart, but I was caught up in the yolk of "it destroys the community!" So, while I question my stance on this, why do you (or why do you not) oppose Wal-Mart?

    And could I have one wish this year,
    this only would it be:
    I'd like to be the sort of friend
    that you have been to me.


  2. #2
    cyphered87
    Guest

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Mainly because I worked there.

    It's doubt, though - that WM is so status quo with wages and benefits - or really below, where and when I worked at WM - because it has to be, or because status quo for employees means above status quo for the rest of the world. It's bull****. WM could pay more, give better benefits, and not treat its people like s*** and still make more than enough. But it doesn't.

    So it's evil. None of this "but it helps the majority..." bull****. It screws people over.

  3. #3
    Peto Antoni
    Guest

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    There isn't too much hatred for W.M. in my neck of the woods, not by a long shot!

  4. #4
    Sex God Brad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central IL
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    742

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Wal-Mart is a big nasty fish that has depleated the ocean of other fish more paletable. I shop at wal-mart because it's pretty much all that's left to me. I shop there more often than I should need to because the shit I buy there breaks, wears out, or just plain doesn't work more than when I shop else where. They have put as many people out of work as they have put to work. I miss the retail America of my childhood. My mom really did know the owners of the places she shopped and they cared to see her and talk to her. What do I get? The under paid, ancient Wal-mart greeter who also misses the places he or she used to shop.
    "I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down." Dixie Chics

  5. #5

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Interesting, because when I shop I tend to want to be left alone; Wal-Mart leaves you alone. They don't try and sell you one thing---no magazines or warranties (or a euphemism for warranty, like "protection program") or store/credit cards. In fact, you can be left so alone that you can ring your ownself up. And yet whenever I need help there's someone there that, despite their department, are nice and helpful. If those employed there have a problem with their corporate masters then they should be the ones crying foul the loudest.

    The key thing from the article, that which I've stated helps more than raising the minimum wage EVER will, is this: "Here is a company that unquestionably increases the purchasing power of the poor, thus improving the poor’s standard of living...Nominal wages are 2.2% lower, but given that consumer prices are 3.1% lower, real disposable income is 0.9% higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart."

  6. #6
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    It's good to be the king! But for the rest of us, why don't we all just sing along ......

    Sixteen Tons
    by Tennessee Ernie Ford

    Some people say a man is made outta mud
    A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
    Muscle and blood and skin and bones
    A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

    You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
    I owe my soul to the company store

  7. #7

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    The key thing from the article, that which I've stated helps more than raising the minimum wage EVER will, is this: "Here is a company that unquestionably increases the purchasing power of the poor, thus improving the poor’s standard of living...Nominal wages are 2.2% lower, but given that consumer prices are 3.1% lower, real disposable income is 0.9% higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart."
    Oh, dem lucky po folk! As long as they only buy crap from Wal-Mart they're going to be ahead of the game. Of course if they want to buy medical or dental care, or buy a house, or pay rent, they're screwed.

    Wouldn't the opposite of Wal-Mart logic also work. If they paid higher wages and benefits and charged comparable higher prices the employees could still buy at Wal-Mart but also afford a few of the necessities of life?

    I don't hate Wal-Mart, I think it's a pretty interesting company which is slowly evolving. What they should get credit for, and has not been mentioned is their huge buying power which forces down the cost of merchandise. They are also experimenting with walk-in Medical Clinics in some of their big box stores.

  8. #8

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    I don't shop at WalMart.
    I also don't dine at the "chain" restaurants.
    WalMarts prices might be lower, but they underpay their employees while Sam Waltons heirs are getting obscenely rich.
    I prefer the "Mom & Pop" restaurants too. The food isn't all shipped in from a central distributor frozen in precisely measured packages and warmed up.
    I've mentioned that I spend a month each Spring in Italy with a childhood friend and his family. They live in a vey small town without supermarkets and restaurant chains. He's a heavy sleeper and frequently I go shopping in the morning with his wife. There is a separate cheese store, fish market, green grocer, bread bakery, butcher etc., with different fresh choices every day. Nothing like the prepackaged, chemically treated crap we get here.
    I prefer the individuality of choice and not a monopolized choke hold by the big guys.

  9. #9

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Some people who shop at Wal-Mart are shopping there because there is no other alternative for them. Wal-Mart has totally obliertated local shops and groceries in areas, especially rural towns. It's a known fact that once competition is gone from an area around Wal-Mart, they jack up their prices and leave the customers hanging. Plus we all know that most employees that work in Wal-Mart are below or on the poverty line. It's sickening coming from a corporation that is supposed to be rich and profitable.

    And I don't buy that crap that Wal-Mart is improving the life of the poor either. If anything they're the ones using the poor and taking advatage of them.

    Luckly I live in a city where there are alot of other local shops and places I can go to. It may cost a bit more, but at least I know my money is going to a local business and not some fraud of a corporation.

  10. #10

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Oh, dem lucky po folk! As long as they only buy crap from Wal-Mart they're going to be ahead of the game. Of course if they want to buy medical or dental care, or buy a house, or pay rent, they're screwed.
    That may seem humorous to you, but it doesn't either refute the article's point or mine.

    Wouldn't the opposite of Wal-Mart logic also work. If they paid higher wages and benefits and charged comparable higher prices the employees could still buy at Wal-Mart but also afford a few of the necessities of life?
    Yeah, that shows a fundamental ignorance on your part of capitalism, but if you think it can be done then no one stops you from doing it.

  11. #11

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    ^I have noticed that every time someone disagrees with you, you simply state that they are wrong and ignorant. I know libertarians don't share their money with anyone, but are you equally stingy with your lofty understanding of these issues? We all seek enlightenment.

  12. #12

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    ^I have noticed that every time someone disagrees with you, you simply state that they are wrong and ignorant. I know libertarians don't share their money with anyone, but are you equally stingy with your lofty understanding of these issues? We all seek enlightenment.
    Ignoring your assumption that I am stingy with money and whatever it is you are trying to assert regarding "lofty understanding of these issues", and going with your inability to defend your positions, I'll only request that if I call people wrong and ignorant every time then my post history would be filled with them. I'm curious, when was the last time I called someone "wrong and ignorant" and who was the poor victim?

  13. #13
    Sex God SuperPsyze's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tucson
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    747

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    A lot of people pick on Wal-Mart, but I honestly don't see what makes them so different from other department stores. Wal-Mart just happens to be one of the bigger ones.

  14. #14
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Maybe one of the reasons that this topic has come up, is because once again it's an election year. Witness todays Op-Ed piece in the Dallas Morning News.


    Sebastian Mallaby: So now Democrats have decided they hate Wal-Mart Too bad the big box actually helps low-income families


    07:31 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2006



    Once upon a time, smart Democrats defended globalization, open trade and the companies that thrive within this system. They were wary of tethering themselves to an anti-trade labor movement that represents a dwindling fraction of the electorate. They understood the danger in bashing corporations: Voters don't hate corporations, because many of them work for one.
    Then dot-bombs and Enron punctured corporate America's prestige, and Democrats bolted. Rather than hammer legitimately on real instances of corporate malfeasance – accounting scandals, out-of-control executive compensation and the like – Democrats swallowed the whole anti-corporate playbook.
    To see the difference between then and now, just look at the Clintons. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hillary Clinton sat on Wal-Mart's board; and when Sam Walton died in 1992, Bill Clinton lauded him as "a wonderful family man and one of the greatest citizens in the history of the state of Arkansas."
    Times change. Last year Mrs. Clinton returned a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart, even though she had no compunction in banking a check from Jerry Springer. The nation's most successful retailer, which has seized the opportunities created by globalization to boost the buying power of ordinary Americans, is now seen as too toxic to touch. But a trash-talking TV host is acceptable.
    Mrs. Clinton is not alone in this. The stiff-necked Joe Lieberman, who holds fast to his principles on the Iraq war, recently abandoned his centrist economic credentials by appearing at an anti-Wal-Mart rally. No matter that Mr. Lieberman once served as chairman of the business-friendly Democratic Leadership Council. Now he proclaims his determination "to wake up Wal-Mart and say, 'Treat your workers fairly.' "
    After Mr. Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut, stepped down as chairman of the DLC, he was succeeded by Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Well, Mr. Bayh recently showed up at an anti-Wal-Mart rally, too, as has Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is the current DLC chairman.
    The Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign bus, which is trundling across the country on a 35-day tour, ensnares prominent Democrats in almost every state it passes through.
    How can supposedly centrist Democrats defend this betrayal of their principles? Some claim that their beliefs are consistent but that the company has changed: The Wal-Mart of the early 1990s mainly bought American, whereas today's irresponsible monster buys cheap stuff from China.
    But this argument merely illustrates how far Democrats have come. Since when did the party's centrists believe that trading with China is evil? It was the Clinton administration that brought China into the World Trade Organization.
    Mrs. Clinton and Sen. John Kerry have attacked Wal-Mart for offering health coverage to too few workers. But Mr. Kerry's former economic adviser, Jason Furman of New York University, concluded in a paper last year that Wal-Mart's health benefits are about as generous as those of comparable employers. Moreover, the two senators know perfectly well that market pressures limit the health coverage that companies can provide.
    The truth is that none of these Democrats can resist dumb economic populism. Even though we are not in a recession, and even though the presidential primaries are more than a year away, the DLC crowd is pandering shamelessly to the left of the party – perhaps in the knowledge that the grocery workers union, which launched the anti-Wal-Mart campaign, is strong in the key state of Iowa.
    It gets worse. According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families' food bills by one-fourth.
    Because Wal-Mart's price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government's $33 billion food-stamp program.
    How can centrist Democrats respond to that? By beating up Wal-Mart and forcing it to focus on public relations rather than opening new stores, Democrats are harming the poor Americans they claim to speak for.
    Sebastian Mallaby writes for The Washington Post. His e-mail address is mallabys@ washpost.com.
    To me the entire article misses the criticism of Walmart and it's practices, and goes against those who criticize Walmart.

    I say take things to the next logical conclusion, and have the Federal Government follow Walmart's business plan. Cheap shit for everybody!

    Now where's my effing tax cut?
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  15. #15
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    The key thing from the article, that which I've stated helps more than raising the minimum wage EVER will, is this: "Here is a company that unquestionably increases the purchasing power of the poor, thus improving the poor’s standard of living...Nominal wages are 2.2% lower, but given that consumer prices are 3.1% lower, real disposable income is 0.9% higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart."
    This argument is short of fact and disconnected from reality -- I do not comprehend how you arrive at these conclusions, I really don't.

    Can you buy a used car at discount there? Is there a WalMart within walking distance of EVERY POOR PERSON in AMERICA? We don't have WalMart's in Manhattan -- in fact, there isn't a single WalMart in the entire city of New York, a city of 8 million people and over 1 million poor -- the nearest one is 8.5 miles from Times Square. Further, can you rent an apartment through WalMart? Can you have heart surgery there? How about tuition -- does WalMart have that?

    How much money would a family of four, led by a minimum wage worker earning $10,712 per annum, actually be able to spend at WalMart? And even if they spent ALL of that money at the store, at 3% savings, that's $300 per year. Now, a $2 per hour raise in the minimum wage would yield a worker $4,160 per year in REAL MONEY, or roughly twelve times as much real money. So pardon me if I say screw WalMart -- pay people a living wage!

    CENTEX: Mallaby is a Washington Post columnist and also the kind of smarmy, Ivy Leagued "Miss Priss" that every sensible person just wants to slap into next year. The Mallabys (of Boston, Manhattan, Palm Springs and Paris) wou;dn't be caught DEAD in a WalMart, let alone BUY anything there.

  16. #16
    Not a Cabbage
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the tubes
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,422
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    I'm personally boycotting Walmart because they're fundamentally bad stores. They're generally dimly lit caverns which seem to be laid out specifically to make shopping harder on the consumer. More over they're both under-staffed (not enough employees) and poorly staffed (too few managers, employees with bad aditudes etc).
    I cant count the number of times I've waited in excessivly long lines while a manager at walmart stood there and DID NOTHING. I honestly think walmart is chasing the stock price and not the success of it's business by providing so little compensation.
    Knowing is half the battle.

  17. #17

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    How much money would a family of four, led by a minimum wage worker earning $10,712 per annum, actually be able to spend at WalMart? And even if they spent ALL of that money at the store, at 3% savings, that's $300 per year. Now, a $2 per hour raise in the minimum wage would yield a worker $4,160 per year in REAL MONEY, or roughly twelve times as much real money. So pardon me if I say screw WalMart -- pay people a living wage!
    Of course, that's you just assuming that a minimum wage increase occurs without any consequences, which is an assumption that "is short of fact and disconnected from reality -- I do not comprehend how you arrive at these conclusions, I really don't." How will you prevent the inevitable inflation that will end up negating the pay increase, as well as counterbalance the global economic ramifications resulting from such an upset?

    Oh, and to make iman's charge appear true, you are "wrong and ignorant."

  18. #18
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    CENTEX: Mallaby is a Washington Post columnist and also the kind of smarmy, Ivy Leagued "Miss Priss" that every sensible person just wants to slap into next year. The Mallabys (of Boston, Manhattan, Palm Springs and Paris) wou;dn't be caught DEAD in a WalMart, let alone BUY anything there.
    Thanks GA!

    I thought that his article smelled a little pugnacious.

    Now I know why.
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  19. #19

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    It said Washington Post at the bottom of your posting of it.

    And isn't that response rather lacking? One doesn't have to shop at Wal-Mart or be likeable for them to analyze a situation and prove their position. I'm certain one could, other than commit such atrocious dismissals or ad homs, focus on proving his actual argument wrong.

    There, I caught and called out a "Dem" doing it, vanman (or whoever it was that kept wailing and whining about threads containing Americablog as a source).

    Here is one thing that caught my eye in regards to this article: "To see the difference between then and now, just look at the Clintons. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hillary Clinton sat on Wal-Mart's board; and when Sam Walton died in 1992, Bill Clinton lauded him as 'a wonderful family man and one of the greatest citizens in the history of the state of Arkansas.'"

    He then faults Mrs. Clinton for returning a check in 2005, even though Sam Walton had been dead for 13 years and a lot can change, even in corporate America, in 13 years. The same for when he chided Lieberman---he's not actually discussing how Mrs. Clinton or Lieberman came to their current conclusions (unless you call that vapid generalized post-Enron Democrat response), and he also assumes that nothing changed in regards to Wal-Mart in 13 years, placing the blame generally on Democrats and their positions.

    The point about Wal-Mart, or businesses in general, should worry about health care costs is absurd and "wrong and ignorant"---socialize it and the problem is solved. Quit, like that minimum wage increase nonsense, trying to push the responsibility on others, Dems!

  20. #20

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    The point about Wal-Mart, or businesses in general, should worry about health care costs is absurd and "wrong and ignorant"---socialize it and the problem is solved. Quit, like that minimum wage increase nonsense, trying to push the responsibility on others, Dems!
    Of course, if one didn't like the pay scale, one could quit. The other alternative is to organize and demand better wages. Wal-Mart uses it's buying power to buy merchandise at lower prices than the competition can it's competition can secure. Why shouldn't employees use their their ability to deny Wal-Mart their services to get higher wages?

    I guess these are just rhetorical questions because I have learned not to expect a valid response from you, but I can't wait to see if you will resort to insults or obfuscation.

  21. #21

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Of course, if one didn't like the pay scale, one could quit. The other alternative is to organize and demand better wages. Wal-Mart uses it's buying power to buy merchandise at lower prices than the competition can it's competition can secure. Why shouldn't employees use their their ability to deny Wal-Mart their services to get higher wages?
    I've not once said the employees can't vie to increase their salaries. I'm saying that raising the minimum wage, which is a government action not an employee action, is a foolish endeavor. Why must you lie and claim that I say things I've not?

    I guess these are just rhetorical questions because I have learned not to expect a valid response from you, but I can't wait to see if you will resort to insults or obfuscation.
    Insults and obfuscation now? Why must you be a liar and resort to such fallacious attacks?

  22. #22
    JUB 10k Club
    CTF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    El corazón de Tejas
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    20,054
    Blog Entries
    23

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    It said Washington Post at the bottom of your posting of it.

    And isn't that response rather lacking? One doesn't have to shop at Wal-Mart or be likeable for them to analyze a situation and prove their position. I'm certain one could, other than commit such atrocious dismissals or ad homs, focus on proving his actual argument wrong.

    There, I caught and called out a "Dem" doing it, vanman (or whoever it was that kept wailing and whining about threads containing Americablog as a source).

    Here is one thing that caught my eye in regards to this article: "To see the difference between then and now, just look at the Clintons. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hillary Clinton sat on Wal-Mart's board; and when Sam Walton died in 1992, Bill Clinton lauded him as 'a wonderful family man and one of the greatest citizens in the history of the state of Arkansas.'"

    He then faults Mrs. Clinton for returning a check in 2005, even though Sam Walton had been dead for 13 years and a lot can change, even in corporate America, in 13 years. The same for when he chided Lieberman---he's not actually discussing how Mrs. Clinton or Lieberman came to their current conclusions (unless you call that vapid generalized post-Enron Democrat response), and he also assumes that nothing changed in regards to Wal-Mart in 13 years, placing the blame generally on Democrats and their positions.

    The point about Wal-Mart, or businesses in general, should worry about health care costs is absurd and "wrong and ignorant"---socialize it and the problem is solved. Quit, like that minimum wage increase nonsense, trying to push the responsibility on others, Dems!
    Make no mistake about it Walmart has revolutionized the way that Americans (regardless of class or party affiliation) buy thier goods.

    Gone are the days of quaint town-squares, and Mom and Pop stores. I can drive you to virtually any town in America. If they have a Wal*Mart Super Center somewhere, I can show you empty main streets, and vacant town-squares.

    I can cite several examples just in my area where Wal*Mart came in and sweet-talked municipalities with the promise of retail tax receipts filling the city coffers, on the condition that they receive a 10 year "tax-abatement" on their property in return for building there. Nothing wrong with that right? As soon as the ten year contract was up, they would (in one local case that I know) closed thier store and built another one across the street because they got a sweet abatement over the city line (street) there.

    Wal*Mart is a done deal people! Face it. There's no going back.

    However, Wal*Mart built part of its reputation on "Buy America!" Good luck finding any American made products at a U.S. Wal*Mart now.

    If a company like Wal*Mart can get away with paying near mimimum wages, why should other big retailers pay any higher?

    It's a free market, and Wal*Mart is setting the standard.

    Why shouldn't they be held accountable? Why should Wal*Mart get a free ride when so many others have been getting the shaft from the same company?

    Net sales for the six months ended July 31, 2006, were $163.359 billion, an increase of 11.9 percent over the first six months of fiscal 2006. Income from continuing operations for the six months ended July 31, 2006, increased 5.2 percent to $5.645 billion, up from $5.365 billion in the same prior year period. Earnings per share from continuing operations for the six months ended July 31, 2006, were $1.35, up from $1.28 in the same prior year period. Earnings per share from continuing operations for the six months ended July 31, 2005, were favorably impacted by two items totaling $145 million after tax or $0.03 per share: an increase due to favorable tax resolutions of $77 million and positive legal developments of $68 million after-tax.
    source: Walmart's Financial Release for July 2006

    And the American Poor, and working poor should just be thankful that they have a low paying job I guess.



    What Wal*Mart really needs is to spend some of those net profits on a really good PR firm.
    Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

  23. #23

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    I've not once said the employees can't vie to increase their salaries. I'm saying that raising the minimum wage, which is a government action not an employee action, is a foolish endeavor. Why must you lie and claim that I say things I've not?
    Okay, same thing. The electorate wants the minimum wage raised and pressures Congress, while Wal-Mart pressures Congress to not raise it.

    I do appreciate you helping me to understand the libertarian pathology. If one thinks everyone is a liar and/or ignorant it is understandable that one adopts an anti-social philosophy.

  24. #24

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Okay, same thing. The electorate wants the minimum wage raised and pressures Congress, while Wal-Mart pressures Congress to not raise it.
    That is not the same thing---first off the whole of the electorate does not want it raised and second that Congress is not imposing this just on one business but across the board.

    I do appreciate you helping me to understand the libertarian pathology. If one thinks everyone is a liar and/or ignorant it is understandable that one adopts an anti-social philosophy.
    Don't make hasty generalizations based on how you warp what I say and never back up your ad hom-ish claims.

  25. #25
    Porn Star YourNickname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    360
    Blog Entries
    3

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Opposition to Wal-Mart

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    This argument is short of fact and disconnected from reality -- I do not comprehend how you arrive at these conclusions, I really don't.
    The facts he cited were in the article I provided, which got its facts from a 64 page report from an official statistics institute.

    Can you buy a used car at discount there? Is there a WalMart within walking distance of EVERY POOR PERSON in AMERICA? We don't have WalMart's in Manhattan -- in fact, there isn't a single WalMart in the entire city of New York, a city of 8 million people and over 1 million poor -- the nearest one is 8.5 miles from Times Square. Further, can you rent an apartment through WalMart? Can you have heart surgery there? How about tuition -- does WalMart have that?
    Are you implying you'd like Wal-Mart to be a conglomerate that has everything? Because, if not, I don't get what you're getting at. You aren't attacking them for their aid to the purchasing power of the poor, just for the fact that they don't directly have that purhcasing power effect on other aspects? They certantly do indirectly, so...

    How much money would a family of four, led by a minimum wage worker earning $10,712 per annum, actually be able to spend at WalMart? And even if they spent ALL of that money at the store, at 3% savings, that's $300 per year. Now, a $2 per hour raise in the minimum wage would yield a worker $4,160 per year in REAL MONEY, or roughly twelve times as much real money. So pardon me if I say screw WalMart -- pay people a living wage!
    The Department of Labor shows that under 2% of the workforce earns minimum wage. 2/3rds of Minimum Wage workers are single people under the age of 24 who do not support themselves and work part-time.

    Now, I would attack your argument directly - rather than undermine and disprove the various things you said - except for the fact that you didn't present an argument. You jumped around, attacking a source that you overlooked, attacking Wal-Mart for not entering every aspect of retail, and then going off about the Minimum Wage (which, by the way, most Wal-Mart employees earn more than).

    And could I have one wish this year,
    this only would it be:
    I'd like to be the sort of friend
    that you have been to me.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.