HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How come Wal-Mart bashers can't understand a simple concept like supply and demand? If the wages were "too low" Wal-Mart would not have enough workers willing to work for them. Apparently the wages are high enough to fill the labor needs. Wal-Mart must be using mind control and coercing people to take jobs below their skill and education level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How come Wal-Mart bashers can't understand a simple concept like supply and demand? If the wages were "too low" Wal-Mart would not have enough workers willing to work for them. Apparently the wages are high enough to fill the labor needs. Wal-Mart must be using mind control and coercing people to take jobs below their skill and education level. You can bash Wal-Mart without bashing capitalism. I try to shop with a conscience and therefore don't shop at Wal-Mart. If you and rtconner want to shop there, feel free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 That's how we are too. We've fired more cleaning companies over the past couple of years. It takes a couple hours out of our time but it's well worth it. Oh, and I don't buy bling with the savings. I buy $12 plates of french fries at the St Regis. With or without trans fats? Actually what eats up my $$ is season tickets for the Bills...season tickets for the Seahawks....season tickets for the Symphony...2-3 trips to NYC annually...and my kid's college tuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 With or without trans fats? Actually what eats up my $$ is season tickets for the Bills...season tickets for the Seahawks....season tickets for the Symphony...2-3 trips to NYC annually...and my kid's college tuition. I'm not sure about the trans fats but it had truffles...hence the $12 price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I too boycott Walmart. It has probably been 10 years since I last shopped there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 So now CNN.com has placed this in the headline position. What's interesting, if you think about it, is that Wal-Mart let this go for awhile and THEN went after her. Again, within their rights. But when you think about all the money they are spending on advertisting in an attempt to improve their poor image, they could have gotten a ton of great PR for doing something for this lady. Certainly they spend more than $400k a week on advertising...and PR is more credible. If CNN keeps hammering on this, ALL that money they've spent on rehabilitation will have been in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So now CNN.com has placed this in the headline position. What's interesting, if you think about it, is that Wal-Mart let this go for awhile and THEN went after her. Again, within their rights. But when you think about all the money they are spending on advertisting in an attempt to improve their poor image, they could have gotten a ton of great PR for doing something for this lady. Certainly they spend more than $400k a week on advertising...and PR is more credible. If CNN keeps hammering on this, ALL that money they've spent on rehabilitation will have been in vain. No, if you think about it, WalMart went after the money after the initial trial against the trucking company. The reason it's still going on is the family kept appealing it, not WalMart. WalMart won the appeals and now SCOTUS refused to hear the case, that's why it's in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So now CNN.com has placed this in the headline position. What's interesting, if you think about it, is that Wal-Mart let this go for awhile and THEN went after her. Again, within their rights. But when you think about all the money they are spending on advertisting in an attempt to improve their poor image, they could have gotten a ton of great PR for doing something for this lady. Certainly they spend more than $400k a week on advertising...and PR is more credible. If CNN keeps hammering on this, ALL that money they've spent on rehabilitation will have been in vain. Two and a half years for the awareness of a need to take some sort of action to make it's way through a bloated corporate bureaucracy, file a suit, and win two appeals? That's pretty damn quick, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So now CNN.com has placed this in the headline position. What's interesting, if you think about it, is that Wal-Mart let this go for awhile and THEN went after her. Again, within their rights. But when you think about all the money they are spending on advertisting in an attempt to improve their poor image, they could have gotten a ton of great PR for doing something for this lady. Certainly they spend more than $400k a week on advertising...and PR is more credible. If CNN keeps hammering on this, ALL that money they've spent on rehabilitation will have been in vain. I really fail to see the problem. Walmart paid the medical expenses and were reimbursed. She now finds herself in a long term care situation. Health insurance doesn't cover long term care issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I really fail to see the problem. Walmart paid the medical expenses and were reimbursed. She now finds herself in a long term care situation. Health insurance doesn't cover long term care issues. But there is a sad picture and Wal-Mart is the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 More Wal-Mart bashing. Yawn. Propaganda campaign because they are not union. bs. Go Wal-Mart Correct. How come Wal-Mart bashers can't understand a simple concept like supply and demand? If the wages were "too low" Wal-Mart would not have enough workers willing to work for them. Apparently the wages are high enough to fill the labor needs. Wal-Mart must be using mind control and coercing people to take jobs below their skill and education level. Correct again. Cue more emotional Wal Mart bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Correct. Correct again. Cue more emotional Wal Mart bashing. Here's the thing about this thread: I don't think many are advocating boycotting Wal-Mart's right to !@#$ its employees--every company can do that within the bounds of the law. But several people are pointing out that there are other--better--ways to do business. And those people encourage others to shop elsewhere. rtconner provides a good example. He acknowledges Wal-Mart sucks, but he's worried that his neighbors are getting better prices than him so he still shops there. That's a guy with little moral spine, and it's those people that the Wal-Mart bashers are trashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 How come Wal-Mart bashers can't understand a simple concept like supply and demand? If the wages were "too low" Wal-Mart would not have enough workers willing to work for them. Apparently the wages are high enough to fill the labor needs. Wal-Mart must be using mind control and coercing people to take jobs below their skill and education level. The wages are "high enough" because Wal-Mart tells the employee that they can get gov't aid to augment the difference... Like in the Tenn case... I do agree, the employees are probably dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Here's the thing about this thread: I don't think many are advocating boycotting Wal-Mart's right to !@#$ its employees--every company can do that within the bounds of the law. But several people are pointing out that there are other--better--ways to do business. And those people encourage others to shop elsewhere. rtconner provides a good example. He acknowledges Wal-Mart sucks, but he's worried that his neighbors are getting better prices than him so he still shops there. That's a guy with little moral spine, and it's those people that the Wal-Mart bashers are trashing. If people want to bash Wal Mart for enriching China, or because their stuff is crap or because the store is full of retards, I'm on board with that. I can't stand being in those huge places surrounded by clueless people and rarely go to any big box store. But for people who have zero knowledge of their business model to bash them because they don't pay someone "enough" or give someone health insurance, or because they pursue their legal obligation to get reimbursement of a medical claim is asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The wages are "high enough" because Wal-Mart tells the employee that they can get gov't aid to augment the difference... Like in the Tenn case... I do agree, the employees are probably dumb. The difference in what...The difference between what their skill level is worth and what some idiot thinks Wal-Mart should pay them? If they are working for so much less than what their skills are worth, start a business and pay them more. I wonder how many WM bashers own businesses and pay their employees above what the market demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The wages are "high enough" because Wal-Mart tells the employee that they can get gov't aid to augment the difference... Like in the Tenn case... I do agree, the employees are probably dumb. Not to completely digress, but...what's with the War Chicken Coat-of-Arms avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Not to completely digress, but...what's with the War Chicken Coat-of-Arms avatar? EII = Sir Robin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Not to completely digress, but...what's with the War Chicken Coat-of-Arms avatar? Thanks Tom! And now back to our regularly scheduled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Maybe in honor of Dyngus Day which was Monday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Thanks Tom! And now back to our regularly scheduled Actually, immediately after I posted I realized it's a chickenhawk. But "War Chicken" was just too damned good to delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts