I read the other day that a town petitioned to not have a Walmart added becuase it would outprice every local family-owned shop. that made sense to me at first, but later i looked up movie prices for x-mas gifts and saw that every movie was on average about 8 dollars cheaper at walmart. pretty much everything is cheaper at a Walmart, especially the Super Walmart in the shopping plaza of my job. and the more i go in there just to look around, the more i really notice how much cheaper everything is. so i was wondering if anyone had any strong opinions either way, good or bad, about walmart.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I hate to say it but I love Wal-mart. They have the best prices anywhere and, although it is sad, gone are the days of small mom and pop places is small towns. In the small town I live in, there is no Wal-mart but there are no more mom and pop places anymore either, which means I have to drive to the next town to buy anything.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I hate Walmart.
But...
It's all we have here. Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I agree with Mandy. I hate the fact that I go to Walmart so often, but I'm a poor college kid and they really do have the best prices. Were it possible, I'd buy all my groceries at the Whole Foods that just opened in my city. My budget just won't permit it. Posted by R. Ann Dryden (Member # 8186) on :
I hate it. Which doesn't stop me from shopping there almost exclusively. Sigh. The perils of super tight budgets.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I wish they'd improve their decor.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm a college student. Wal-mart is my life.
Although, apparently not so much in Chciago.
Oh, and in New Orleans, there was also a petition to stop a Wal-mart from being built on Tchoupitoulas, very close to Uptown, for those same reasons. Before that, the only way to get to Wal-mart was to drive out to the next parish.
It was built anyway. And it's much prettier and cleaner than the Jefferson Parish Wal-mart. They made an effort to make the building match the city.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great in the short term. Until they have run all the smaller enterprises out of town and people have fewer choices about both where to shop and about where to work.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Were it possible, I'd buy all my groceries at the Whole Foods that just opened in my city.
Whole Foods has its own issues, I'd almost rather send you to a Wal-Mart. Neither of them are evil, but they both put the growth of the company before the health of the employees.
[ October 25, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club unless there is NO OTHER CHOICE (like we're in the middle of nowhere and it's the ONLY store and we desperately need diapers or menstrual pads and absolutely can't wait or something.)
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: Whole Foods has its own issues, I'd almost rather send you to a Wal-Mart. Neither of them are evil, but they could both put the growth of the company before the health of the employees.
I agree, but I try (when I can afford it) to only buy free-range and organic meats/dairy/eggs/etc, and there isn't any other place in town that gives me that option. Whole Foods carries all the things that I feel guilty about buying in a regular grocery.
Posted by IrishAphrodite19 (Member # 1880) on :
Last year, I made it a point not to shop at Wal-mart. I would drive the extra 5 minutes to get to some any other store and that the extra 10 minutes to explain to my friends why we had to go to Store B when Wal-mart was "right there" and so much cheaper.
However, this year, like Avadaru, I have given in to being a college student and reverted back to the Wal-mart. Grr.
~Irish
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I shop at Target, we have both, and I like Target much better anyway, so why not? I fail to see why everyone goes to Walmart when Target is so much nicer and cleaner and just overall better.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I love Target. And we have 4 Targets within easy driving distance here, whereas I'd have to drive about 35 miles to find a Wal-Mart.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(But I shopped at Target instead even when Target was 10 minutes away and Wal-Mart was literally right across the street. Just to make that clear. )
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
There have been a few other threads on this, so a search....
My short answer, Wal-Mart is evil, and I won't go there even if that means doing without.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Someone is a copier. I made two or three threads about the evil that is Wal-Mart. But I'm too lazy to link to them. Sorry folks!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Walmart has that particularly useful quality of being open past 6 pm, which is when I'm finally free to go to the store. Most smaller stores in town close about the time I get off work. I couldn't bring my business to them if I wanted to.
Walmart does affect local economies pretty severely, but I can't really see mom and pop stores disappearing altogether. There will always be a place for higher quality and specialty shopping that Walmart can't be bothered with. If the old mom and pop places close down, new ones will eventually open that are better positioned to stay on their feet in the new playing field. And business owners defeated by Walmart, if they still want to run businesses, will regroup and find success again.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
I shop at Walmart because I like them, they are cheap and I can get just about everything in one stop.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
It seems to me that a lot of people see opposition to Walmart simply as an effort to save "Mom and Pop" stores. That's not really the case. Walmart's negative effects on our society go way deeper than just edging out the local competition.
Simply put, Walmart takes a very heavy-handed and effective approach with manufacturers in order to keep prices low. They state a price, and the manufacturer must do whatever it takes to produce goods at that price, or be dropped from the shelves, effectively killing their US market. Inevitably, in order to meet these "always low prices", the manufacturers are forced to lower the quality of the product, and ship the labor overseas, where they don't have to pay for silly things like safe working conditions, environmental regulations, insurance, or fair wages.
And so, one-by-one, American factories are being shut down, and all the employees laid off. Chances are, they'll find themselves applying for their next job in the service sector... maybe even Walmart, the nation's largest employer! Against which case after case of unfair wages, hours, and employee discrimination have been filed.
But hey, who needs a decent job when you can buy a pair of Levi's for $16, anyhow?
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
Zeugma, I totally agree with you. I was just about to put that when I saw your post. I am glad that there are other people out there that feel the way I do .
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Woo! Rock on, Ze-buddy! Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Wal-Mart, Target, K-mart...
All get me what I need in a fashion that fits my budget. I don't give the rest much thought. Should I? Why?
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
Like a lot of people said, sometimes Wal-mart is a necessary evil.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Necessary is a big word. I mean, abortion isn't even a necessary evil.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm against Target for no other reason than their "trendy" commercials.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Necessary is a big word. I mean, abortion isn't even a necessary evil.
Not necessary for YOU, maybe.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:Wal-Mart, Target, K-mart...
All get me what I need in a fashion that fits my budget. I don't give the rest much thought. Should I? Why?
Johnsonweed, what sort of work do you do? The kind that could easily be done by someone in China working for less than a tenth of what you make?
I feel like a lot of the "so what?" attitude that I see from people who choose to shop at Walmart is because, hey, they don't work in a factory! They aren't in danger of seeing their jobs shipped overseas! But of course, when powerful companies like Walmart make it so simple to increase profits by off-shoring labor, other companies are quick to follow suit.
Does your job consist primarily of sitting in a cubicle, typing away at a computer and/or answering the phone? Well, India is full of bright folks who can do exactly the same thing you do, with a lot more enthusiasm and a lot less money. Unless your career requires that you be in person in the same room as customer or client, on US soil, then chances are it could shipped overseas. For cheap!
I'm entering about as white-collar a field as you can get, computer animation, and for all I know I'm going to have to move to Singapore in 10 years just to find a job.
And yeah, Walmart doesn't have anything directly to do with most of the white-collar jobs that are being sent overseas, but I don't think you'd have to dig deep to find that the offshoring-friendly legislation they help push through impacts all sorts of jobs in the US.
By not shopping at Walmart, I'm saying that I give a damn about my brothers and sisters in blue-collar America, who find themselves starting new careers mopping up aisle 5 because they weren't 10 times better at making jeans than their Chinese counterparts. I care.
Because I know that might be me some day.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Walmart is evil. They pay their employees like nothing. That doesn't sound so bad except.... Walmart has one of the world's most sophisticated satellite networks flying overhead, way up high... Do they have money or what?!
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
The worst evil, they tore down my elementary school to build a super walmart, half a mile from the old one, why not just tear it down and replace it!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Christy and I don't shop at WalMart. Ever. She does like to shop at Target, which I basically consider WalMart with a better logo, but I feel guilty about it.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
Evil Walmart. I totally relate to that South Park episode parodying Walmart...
Destroying America's factories. Ick. And for some odd reason, I always get a headache when I go to a Walmart. It's a cursed store.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
Oh, and have you heard that WalMart is going to start offering not only medicine, but in-store medical consultations? I can only imagine the high quality of those.
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
I have farmer relatives on my mom's side of the family, and they are all pretty serious about the damage Wal-Mart can do to a community. If conversation turns to Wal-Mart, my uncle will likely be found describing how Wal-Mart will move into a small community, put all the competition out of business by undercutting prices, which then puts other workers out of business, and eventually pretty much sucks the economy dry. He's pretty adamant about it.
I'm not saying I entirely endorse this point of view, I'm just putting it forward as the observations (opinions) of someone I know who deals with supply and demand on a large enough scale to feel personally the effects of corporate business.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I'm still undecided about the whole Wal-Mart argument since I like both sides of the argument. However, since this thread seems to have little evidence supporting Wal-Mart, I thought I would include this article.
Some excerpts:
quote: Suppose Sam Walton had spent his life as a farmer, and Wal-Mart never existed. Would baggers at Winn-Dixie and shelf-stockers at Costco be making a living wage and have great benefits? Would Kmart have avoided bankruptcy? Would small grocery stores in small-town downtowns be thriving? The answer to all three questions is likely no. More likely is that other companies would have married discounting—which existed before Wal-Mart—to free trade, weakening unions, and better technology.
quote: How about you, for one? After all, Wal-Mart is a mere pass-through for its customers—one that takes a slim margin for the trouble. At Wal-Mart, the customer is king, everyone else be damned: competitors, employees, and the domestic manufacturing base. Everything Wal-Mart does—particularly its low prices—is done in the name of slavish devotion to consumer demand. And every day, millions of Americans ratify Wal-Mart's strategy by shopping there. Stores don't kill economies, consumers do.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Johnsonweed, what sort of work do you do? The kind that could easily be done by someone in China working for less than a tenth of what you make?
I feel like a lot of the "so what?" attitude that I see from people who choose to shop at Walmart is because, hey, they don't work in a factory! They aren't in danger of seeing their jobs shipped overseas! But of course, when powerful companies like Walmart make it so simple to increase profits by off-shoring labor, other companies are quick to follow suit.
The solution is simple: encourage legislation that makes U.S. companies responsible for paying a U.S. minimum wage to their workers regardless of where they're located. Good luck ever making that happen, though, since this thread is a good representation of the effort Americans are willing to put forth to effect a change: lots of people saying "I hate Walmart, but I shop there anyway...but at least I feel a bit guilty about it!"
quote:Unless your career requires that you be in person in the same room as customer or client, on US soil, then chances are it could shipped overseas. For cheap!
Not if the language barrier remains where it is.
1) Tech support. Tech support has now been outsourced so heavily to India that I can't remember the last time that I spoke to someone without an unintelligible Indian accent, except with Comcast. I don't purchase products from companies that I know use outsourced tech support, not because I support businesses that keep it "home grown," but because I hate dealing with people that I don't understand and can't understand me. I value companies that have tech support and customer care systems where I feel like I"m valued: Indian outsourced tech support has never, in my experience, been anything but a person navigating a map.
2) Webdesign. I freelance webdesign as a secondary source of income, and I know at least a handful of you do it as a profession. 100% of my business is generated through word of mouth, and not because my design is superior: it isn't. I'm about as mediocre a designer as they come. I'm not the pinnacle of web efficiency, I know next to nothing about back end programming, I'm not an especially gifted graphic artist, and I use outdated coding software. People refer others to me because I translate what they want into the finished product, clearly and concisely. We're able to bounce ideas and results back and forth more or less painlessly. I can effortlessly translate the seemingly impenetrable world of online marketing and webdesign into layman's terms, and back.
There are thousands of people in India eager to jump on the webdesign market. I recently tried posting on craigslist to find someone to do some back-end work for a client of mine*, and about 4/5 of the responses I got were from Indians looking for work that completely misunderstood what I was looking for. Sure, they were willing to do it for dirt cheap, but why would I want to subject myself to the nightmarish communication involved?
3) Newegg. 100% home grown, baby, and their customers are so loyal it hurts. Their products are never the cheapest, but people come back again and again because the service is right.
My point is this: all you have to do to secure your job against outsourcing to a foreign country is make yourself valuable in a way that can't be replicated by a foreigner. The easiest way I can think of is to exploit the language barrier. I'm sure you can think of others.
*That job is still open, if any of you are familiar with Geeklog, or a system similar enough to get what I want done accomplished. E-mail me. Please. Pretty please.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Stores don't kill economies, consumers do.
Amen.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Walmart does not have everything. There are a great many things that Walmart just does not provide, and there is plenty of market for these things for the small busnesses to fill up. Service is a great big huge one. If small businesses are only successful because of lack of competition, then they need to improve or die if a Walmart comes into town.
Most of the patterns I see involve Walmart moving into a building in the middle of some nowhere city plot, drawing a huge amount of business, then seeing *Small Businesses* build up *around the Walmart* to take advantage of the people traffic. But then, I'm from Arkansas. I have a pet theory that Walmarts become worse in quality the farther you get from Bentonville -- I once remarked that no wonder Californians hated Walmart, the ones they had were terrible in comparison to the ones I was used to.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Workers at CostCo make over 150% of the hourly wages of comparable Wal*Mart workers. I think well over: certainly enough so that CostCo can be considered to be paying a decent living wage. Wal*Mart does not pay the overwhelming majority of its employees anything close to a living wage. CostCo employees are covered by medical and dental insurance, amd the overwhelming majority of Wal*Mart workers are not. Instead, the Wal*Mart human resources department trains those employees to take advantage of the welfare system to make up for the shortfall in wages&benefits.
CostCo employees are eligible for a retirement benefits package, the overwhelming majority of Walmart employees are not.
Same with Target in comparison to Wal*Mart, though I don't think that Target's wage&benefits package is as high as CostCo's.
[ October 26, 2005, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
According to a friend of mine, Wal-mart does give benefits to its employees. I have no idea about the wages, though, and I'm sure that varies with the region.
And not only does Wal-mart not offer some services/products, but also there are plenty of things that I would not feel comfortable getting at Wal-mart.
For example, I would not want a Wal-mart eye exam. However, I WOULD order my contact lenses from Wal-mart.
-pH
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, only a minority of Wal*mart employees are eligible for benefits. And only a minority of Wal*mart employees are paid living wages. Your friend is talking of that minority; which Wal*Mart likes to brag about in their advertisements. Wal*Mart's treatment of the overwhelming majority of its employees is swept under the corporate rug.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
What are we defining "living wages" as? Because in my mind, "living wages" is "minimum wage."
Unless you live in Hawaii. *shudder*
Posted by jd2cly60 (Member # 450) on :
Walmart is neither Great nor evil.
In a way, yes Walmart is the prime example of 'vulture economics' where they suck as much money out of a community (and to Fayetteville) as possible while putting back in as little possible through low wages.
On the other hand, many more small towns have been hurt more by refusing a Walmart, only to find Walmart settles for their second choice location fifteen miles away and immediately siphons off a much greater proportion of their town's income as a big majority of the local populace converts to shopping at the WalMart in the adjacent community (which benefits from the added tax revenue as well as larger amounts of human traffic drawn into their community)
Cabool, MO, at the junction of two US highways, is a classic example of this. WalMart wanted a supercenter there, the community defeated it and saw Walmarts go in fifteen miles to the east and twenty miles to the North on the respective highways. The town (a locus for a thriving farm community) floundered for many years as it felt an almost immediate vaccuum in local commerce. It has managed to stay afloat and rebound but just barely.
Both Whole Paycheck and Target are just more expensive variations on the Walmart approach.
Whole Foods is especially annoying with their produce approach of pricing conventional produce almost the same as the organic, making it pointless to shop for everyday produce there unless you want to quadruple or quintuple your fresh produce bill. Whole Foods is successful for applying the WalMart system to organic foods and turning it into a booming business. Whole Foods is advantageous for informing us where the heck our meat comes from and what it ate (free range pastured beef from new Zealand, I feel safe about eating liver from those beasts, can't say the same for the local wal-mart or latino-mart mystery beef, both of which are especially unappetizing choices after reading Fast Food Nation).
Target is an imitation walmart but the prices are higher so people don't think it is as evil (I've never quite understood this logic). I guess just add one rung up to the bourgeousie status ladder means a lot to many people, but it makes me feel like Anse Bundren and his family (see if I throw in an As I Lay Dying reference it shows how clever and sophisticated and elite I am, much better than a mere Dickens reference. )
On the other hand I could argue Wal Mart is great, I can get real fermented kimchi, LIVING FOOD, at any walmart in america, that wasn't true even a few years ago, and I might add their kimchi costs a third of the gouged price whole foods charges. I can get a huge selection of any movie from the past twenty years. I can get art supplies, clothing, fishing and hunting supplies while my car is serviced and shop for toys, toiletries, pet sundries and if in a supercenter do my grocery shopping too. WalMart is very intelligent, it is convenience it saves the individual money in the short run (which is as far as the average individual thinks).
If you really wanted to affect a revolution in american commerce that would benefit local communities long term as well as improve the health of the nation (hopefully) it would be to reduce the amount of distance our food and sundries travel to get to us. Europe is experimenting with this right now to some success. Historically many communities subsisted on their own, thank god we don't have to do that anymore, but do we really need all our food to travel 3000 miles to get to us (and the expense in oil and energy that incurs) when 30 or 300 may suffice?
I think more could be accomplished by assembling a community behind an inititive to provide locally (and safely) raised dairy, cattle, chicken, fruits and vegetable into public school cafeterias than a misplaced community outrage against WalMart. REAL FOOD rather than shoveling exclusively processed crap down their throats that is nutritionally empty (oh it fits the guidelines which were bought and paid for by lobbyists, science and nutrition be damned). This would benefit small farmers, the children's health, the local community, there are really no downsides to supplementing a large part of school meals with real and local food. But since those companies manufacturing the crud we feed our kids make lots of money off schools you can be sure we'll never see such a sensible solution come to fruition.
My biggest problem with Wal Mart is not the many egregious issues brought up here, but the fact that a herd of cattle meant for Wal Mart that grazes outside my hometown will be shipped halfway across the country and back before some small percentage of it arrives at our WalMart, probably in the form of ground beef. That's frustrating.
[ October 26, 2005, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: jd2cly60 ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Minimum wage was a living wage, back in 1968 when it was equivalent to 40hours of work at $7.18 per hour in 2003dollars. Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation in the cost of living since then, it's now equivalent to about $5.00 in 2003dollars. And there is a heavier tax load on minimum wage now, with the greatly increased SocialSecurity and Medicare deductions from the paycheck being used to cover general fund spending.
Add that Wal*Mart doesn't pay 40hours of wages to most of its workers; preferring to keep them in the status of "part time" workers while essentially expecting them to be on standby for the entire time that the employees' own store is open.
CostCo's lowest paid worker receives $10 per hour, including those who work less than full time. After the evaluation period, they receive medical, dental, and retirement benefits.
Wal*Mart pays minimum wage to its lowest paid workers. With no benefits to those "part time" workers, which describes most of its employees. A full time Wal*Mart cashier makes $7 per hour to start, which is lower than CostCo's lowest paid employee. And Wal*Marts benefits package is worth significantly less than CostCo's.
A full-time Wal*Mart cashier earns $12 per hour after five years: a yearly income of $24thousand per year. $25thousand if the cashier takes no time off. A full-time CostCo cashier earns around $40thousand per year in wages and bonuses after 4&1/2 years.
[ October 26, 2005, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
wow, i would have never thought that a thread i started would get so many replies so quickly. i just saw that there were 43 replies. i definently dont have time to read them all before i leave for work in a few min, but it looks like a lot of ppl are in the same boat with me. We would like to go to nice smaller shops, its just that we are poor and walmart is all we can afford! im really enjoying reading these, especially the ones that are telling ppl to not shop at walmart; that is what im trying to justify and still cant.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Marlozhan thanks for the link to that article! My husband was so interested in this thread that he is now writing a paper for his English class about it. He was having trouble coming up with a topic for his persuasive paper since he later has to turn it into a research paper. Walmart is his second home.
Aspectre, I am not trying to be antagonistic or anything but, I am wondering where you are getting your information. It seems to me that working at Walmart is on par with working at McDonald's. It is a low-paying, part-time job. It is not a lifetime career that should offer full benefits and a pension after 30 days. Like, McD's there is likely a pretty high turnover, which accounts for the long wait before benefits are given. I know other "good" companies who do this for the same reason. Also Walmart is hiring unskilled workers with little job training because that is what the job requires. Generally people with job skills get better paying jobs (unless you are a professional athlete or an actor).
I agree that the minimum wage in this country is far from a living wage but that is not Walmart's fault. You say that workers at Costco make upwards of 40K a year and that Walmart employees should as well (and customers pay a premium to shop there; Walmart is free). Do you have any idea what teachers make a year? I am a teacher. I have a college degree. I would not be what one would call unskilled labor. Yet I make considerably less than a Costco employee and I have been teaching for eight years. I think it is outrageous to suggest that people who stand at a cash register and stock shelves should make more money that those who educate our children. The government, especially in Texas is doing little to increase teacher salary. The state minimum in Texas is $24,820, well below what most consider a living wage. So are you going to stop sending your children to school in protest of low teacher's wages? I don't think so.
Walmart offers low prices for decent products that I need anyway. I will take my pitiful paycheck and spend it there.
Sorry for my rant. I am not trying to start an argument or anything.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: It is not a lifetime career that should offer full benefits and a pension after 30 days.
That's where we disagree. I think a full-time worker at Walmart should be able to buy a little house and support his/her family.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Walmart isn't the same as McDonalds. I don't know why.
The thing that gets me, if they have one of the worlds most advanced sattelite networks, why can't they pay their employees better?!?!
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Heh, Mandy, see, the thing is, it's easy to say that Walmart is just a job for teenagers and college students who don't need to support a family. Because people who need decent wages so they can feed and clothe their kids, they shouldn't be working at Walmart! They should be working.... at..... like, a factory or something!
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Irami and Zeugma, do you think there should be some sort of upper limit on unskilled positions? I agree that someone who works as a cashier, stocker, etc. should be able to make a decent wage, but there is a limit to how good you can get at a job like that. At some point, it doesn't make sense to continue to raise someone's salary (beyond cost of living) when they are no longer providing additional benefit to the company.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That's a fine and standard issue, best negotiated through a Union. One of the reasons why we even have this thread is WalMart and Whole Foods have spent tens of millions of dollars busting union drives at their stores.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
zgator, that's a good point, and one that Irami and I will probably have differing opinions on... I'm not much of a liberal.
I think the point is that many other employers, like Costco, do feel that their employees deserve a certain level of wages and benefits, even if they could "get away" with paying them far less. Walmart could easily do the same and still satisfy their customer's desire for low prices, if they chose to make employees a higher priority than, as human2.0 points out, satellite networks.
What really pisses me off, though, is how many of the people working at crap jobs like Walmart DID have decent, secure, well-paying jobs at local factories, who now have nowhere else to turn for a paycheck. They WERE skilled at something, but that skill is no longer employable in the United States, so they're tossed in with the 16-year-olds and high-school dropouts and other "unskilled labor" and suddenly forced to take 2 or even 3 crap jobs at places like Walmart just to provide for their families.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Has everyone seen the new JibJab?
www.jibjab.com --> click on BigBoxMart
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
quote: it doesn't make sense to continue to raise someone's salary (beyond cost of living) when they are no longer providing additional benefit to the company.
Longevity is usually a huge benefit to the company.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay, the issue isn't best addressed through Unions. THe issue is best addressed through a change management priorities. like CostCo or In and Out. But a Union is a fine second best.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Longevity is usually a huge benefit to the company.
Benefit - yes. Huge - no, not for the type of work we're talking about.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Hehe. I love it how I read this stuff on Hatrack first, and then from whatever major news organization I read through. [/off topic]
Here's an Op-Ed from the Washington Post today about Wal Mart. It seems that the very opposition we're talking about has actually effected change in Wal Mart. I suppose the question now is whether the changes will be good enough. (Better than bad does not necessarily mean good.)
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
hmm, wow, everyone has some good points. i see good reason from everyone for both sides of this thread. for my personal opinion, i think having a place to get the exact same thing cheaper is a good thing. the problem with paying someone too little is solved simply, that person should quit. if people are unsatisfied with their job, they wont do it well and customer satisfaction will lower. i forget who it was, but someone said that there is a limit as to how much u should pay someone to run a cashier, or stock shelves. i agree with this completely. if i were to finish college this semester and go get a decent career, i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It is a crazy world that produced both me and the person who wrote krynn's last post.
[ October 26, 2005, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:if i were to finish college this semester and go get a decent career, i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
Of course, that too can be solved simply by quitting college and working at Wal-Mart. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: i dont want to know that someone who dropped out of highschool and working at Walmart will be making more money than me.
I would like to know that someone who was willing to hold down the best job they could get made enought money to afford a decent place to live and food for their family.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
the whole argument about having someone support a family i disagree with. I dont see how Walmart is the best job someone can get who is trying to raise a family. Werent people earlier in the thread saying that one of the bad things about walmart is that they pay employees less than other larger and similar companies. also mentioned was that very few people working for walmart are given benefits. so if u are trying to raise or provide for a family, and u are a cashier at walmart, i think that person should start looking for a different job. I guess what im saying is that i could see this being put into an arguement for almost any company, not specifically walmart. in other people's defense tho, i have been known to be completely nuts/crazy at times when attempting to make a strong conversational point.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You do realize that the people making Walmart's goods live in third world countries and don't actually have the option to quit, right?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I dont see how Walmart is the best job someone can get who is trying to raise a family
Not the best job, but sometimes the only available job, in which case it would be nice if it could provide enough of a living to survive on.
I guess my biggest problem with Wal-Mart is how they use some pretty anti-competitive tactics in dealing with competitors and manufacturers. It's pretty hard to fight a monopoly. And it doesn't help their case that the owners are beyond wealthy and they still can't find the money to pay their employees a little better.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I happen to think that it's more important to spend ones time and energy in raising the family rather than securing the "best" job, and that the two aims coincide less frequently than is popularly stated. I also don't think that it's a shame for a person with a college degree to work at Walmart. (Secretly, I think that if more workers were so educated, WalMart would be Unionized, which makes me wonder if WalMart, in a very indirect manner, is taking advantage of the education gap in America.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
krynn, what these people are saying is that because walmart sells shoddy merchandise produced overseas American factories that used to provide people with a place to work that paid a living wage to support a family have shut down. Because those jobs are no longer available, the job market is pretty tight. This causes some people to only be able to find jobs at walmart. So if they quit, there's no where else for them to work.
Going by that argument, shopping at walmart causes more American jobs to be lost, and more people to slide into poverty and low paying part-time jobs with bad benefits.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, to whoever said Target was a poor imitator of Walmart, both companies opened their first store in 1962. (Well, the company that is now Target opened it's first store in 1902, but it's first discount store in 1962. There have been Targets in my neck of the woods far, far longer than there have been Walmarts. Walmart is bigger now and spread faster, but neither can accurately be said to be an imitator of the other.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
pH - the reason you don't see Walmart now that you're up here is because the City of Chicago is strictly a union town. Wal-Mart is strongly anti-union. As long as Wal-Mart forbids union involvement, Chicago will forbid the existence of a Wal-Mart within its borders. You'll have to hop on the El (or get a ride from someone) and get out to the burbs if you want to shop at one.
I dislike Wal-Mart because every single one I've shopped at is dirty, disorganized, understocked, understaffed, and generally a royal pain in the patella. Certainly not worth what money I would save shopping there. I'll gladly pay the little bit extra and go to Target, which is closer to my home anyway, to actually be able to find what I want. And in my opinion, the clothing and shoes I've bought at Target are of a better quality and hold up longer than those bought at Wal-Mart. Plus Target employees actually pay attention to customers walking around!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
<--- Another teacher with a college degree and 11 years of experience who apparently makes less than a Costco cashier with 4.5 years of experience.
:-\
um, interesting thread . . . carry on . . .
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:<--- Another teacher with a college degree and 11 years of experience who apparently makes less than a Costco cashier with 4.5 years of experience.
:-\
Now now, this isn't about how much the Costco employee makes, it's about how much you are underpaid. That you make less than 40,000 dollars is a mark on how much we value education, not a comment on the worth of Costco Employees.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Werent people earlier in the thread saying that one of the bad things about walmart is that they pay employees less than other larger and similar companies. also mentioned was that very few people working for walmart are given benefits. so if u are trying to raise or provide for a family, and u are a cashier at walmart, i think that person should start looking for a different job.
That's a luxury reserved for people who have enough time to research new jobs and conduct interviews, local employers who are hiring, and enough financial cushion to make the commute/relocation feasible. Wal-Mart jobs are rarely synonymous with any of the above.
That Wal-Mart forbids their buyers from accepting anything from a potential vendor, I think certain politicians should take lessons.
That Wal-Mart busts unions, uses external financial clout to underprice local competition, and has a history of practices like winking and nodding at managers who make employees work off the clock and refusing to report workman's comp claims when they might have to foot the bill... Do I smell brimstone?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ironically, I find myself agreeing with Irami, who I've oppossed before. Such is politics. Here is a previous link: walmart thread. One important fact I gleaned from the documentary:Walmart can be cheap in the end-caps, but just average price-wise in their other prices along the aisles. The cheap prices in the end-caps creates an illusion of low prices through out the store!! This perception is not true, lots of regular prices are equivilent or higher than other local merchant prices. Watch for this!!
Herends the lecture.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
quote:Now now, this isn't about how much the Costco employee makes, it's about how much you are underpaid. That you make less than 40,000 dollars is a mark on how much we value education, not a comment on the worth of Costco Employees.
I didn't say otherwise. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
pfft...you live in Celebration. You must be rich. Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:I happen to think that it's more important to spend ones time and energy in raising the family rather than securing the "best" job, and that the two aims coincide less frequently than is popularly stated.
I agree. That is the case with almost any job regardless of education or pay.
quote: I also don't think that it's a shame for a person with a college degree to work at Walmart. (Secretly, I think that if more workers were so educated, WalMart would be Unionized, which makes me wonder if WalMart, in a very indirect manner, is taking advantage of the education gap in America.)
Paranoid much? I think you are giving Walmart too much credit. They are not responsible for the decline in American society. Are they taking advantage of it? Sure, as are many many many other companies nationwide. But they are also offering products at a price most Americans can afford, which is something this country desperately needs as well. Which is worse: the company who laid (layed? some grammar kings can correct me, I'm sure) off my husband knowing we were having a baby the next month, the school districts who pay nothing over the pitiful state minimum (mine does but I am still making peanuts), or Walmart who has some shading business practices but generally offers a wide variety of products in one location at a low price. There are cartainly worse things in the world.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Since Wal-Mart came to Canada, our own chains of this type (Zellers, Eaton's, the Hudson's Bay Company) have mostly collapsed because they can't compete with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is so huge that they can simply enter a market, undercut all of their competitors, and wait until the other stores close and they're the only game in town.
I once bought a box of condoms and a box of granola bars from a Wal-Mart, and when I was looking for the Firefly DVDs back when they first came out my search took me to Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart didn't have them, and neither did anyone else until I found them at a Future Shop several weeks later). Since then I haven't set foot in one, and I plan to keep it that way. I shop at domestic retailers wherever possible -- the exception to this rule is video games, because there are no domestic retailers in this town. I have an EB Games (American chain) and a Future Shop (Canadian chain until it was bought out by Best Buy a couple of years ago), and no other options as far as I can tell. I prefer the Future Shop, but shop at both.
Added: There was an interesting article in Harper's a while back that drew an analogy between the franchise and the virus. I found it thought-provoking.
Added 2: I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
The Market will, over time, even things out. Sometimes we lose patence and try to fix things quicker,as with a union or legislation. Those interventions usually cause other problems that then irritate until they resolve. What we in the US need to remember is that the Market is world wide, and any attempt to change that is artificial and temporary.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Your capitalization of the word "market" disturbs me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should.
I am glad this works for you, but I don't think it is appropriate to tell people where to spend their money, especially when it comes to something like supporting domestic stores. What if they consider themselves a citizen of the world? What if they spend less at the grocery store and therefore more on trips to the Canadian frontier, supporting bush pilots and tour guides along the way? What if shopping at Wal-Mart means more candy to give out? That's balancing overpaying at the grocery store against building community among the neighbors.
Maybe it just bothers me because I dislike it when other people have great ideas for how I should spend my budget.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*shrug*
Shopping at Wal-Mart means what it means. If you're okay with that, go ahead and shop there. Lots of people do.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Your capitalization of the word "market" disturbs me.
It was done intentionally. "The Market" is an economic term that roughly means the effects of most persons usually doing what is best for themselves in the long run.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
All have been used in this thread. I would say Walmart (my preference) needs to make the correct spelling of their name a little better known.
Edit: Apparently "Wal-Mart" is correct. I actually went and checked at their website, something I've never bothered to do before. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: The Market will, over time, even things out. Sometimes we lose patence and try to fix things quicker,as with a union or legislation. Those interventions usually cause other problems that then irritate until they resolve. What we in the US need to remember is that the Market is world wide, and any attempt to change that is artificial and temporary.
True. But "the Market" doesn't care how many people suffer "over time". We should.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:True. But "the Market" doesn't care how many people suffer "over time". We should
Sure we should. In fact sometimes things like pure food and drug legislation (which adds credibility to the Market) or environmental laws (which attach the real cost to the environment of goods and services)appear to work well. But, in the long run , international barriers to trade or artificial prices for goods or services do not.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Egads. Another laissez-faire fanatic.
Economic Christian Science
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Ah, not as fanatical as I thought, evidently. Okay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Shopping at Wal-Mart means what it means. If you're okay with that, go ahead and shop there. Lots of people do.
That's just it - it can mean many different things. You do not get to pick your favorite meaning and apply it to everyone.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It only means one thing to Wal-Mart. But if you find my statement so intolerable, I can make the implied "I think" in front of "those who can" explicit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sorry, twinky. I think this touched on something else that was bugging me. Something was proposed, I said I couldn't because I didn't have the money for it, and the person proposing told me that it wasn't that much and I certainly could. That just bugged me - I could have, but I am choosing to spend it on other things. I don't like the idea that where we shop is the ultimate expression of civic pride.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Well, then you'll love how Cor's principal specifically suggested shopping at Wal-Mart to the faculty when she changed the dress code.
("Don't tell me you can't afford to go out a buy a bunch of new clothes. There are plenty of nice things at Wal-Mart.")
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: I'm quite happy to pay significantly more for my consumer goods if it means supporting domestic stores. There are people who can't afford that, but those who can, should. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am glad this works for you, but I don't think it is appropriate to tell people where to spend their money, especially when it comes to something like supporting domestic stores
I know people have taken offense at this before but I do agree. I won't speak for anyone else but for *me* the "should" indicates a kind of moral imperative. Knowing the conditions WalMart factory workers labor under and still buying their goods would be, in my eyes, saying I approve of those conditions.
(FWIW, I don't speak from a place of privelege. We hovor pretty close to the poverty line.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People do it all the time. I have come to the conclusion that people have their own agendas for their discretionary income. I spend mine on travel and haircuts and books. My dad spends it on music and remodeling the house. Other friends spend theirs on expensive food and cooking things. One friend, unfortunately and involuntarily, spends hers on the dentist.
There are many ways to be a good citizen. I find it interesting that in many places, it has come to mean what happens with your wallet as opposed to the other ways to strengthen your community.
For instance, outfitting a Boy Scout troop for camp. Much cheaper when done at Wal-Mart. Considering that's what makes it possible for many people to go to camp, and they could go less often or for less long if they shopped somewhere more expensive, I think it's morally a wash. Which means it's up to the individuals, and it's nice to have choices.
romany: That works only if everything Wal-Mart sold was evil and everything sold everywhere else was made by happy workers with a 401(k) and health insurance. I don't think it is nearly so clean cut.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That just bugged me - I could have, but I am choosing to spend it on other things. I don't like the idea that where we shop is the ultimate expression of civic pride.
Well, when it comes to frivolous expenditures, I'm the poster child in some respects. Heck, in the last couple of weeks I've spent more than CDN$200 on video games. I make charitable donations -- some regularly, others one-time things -- but I could certainly afford to donate more to charity than I do, were I to forgo some of my "hobby" purchases. I'm in a position of relative privilege as a result of my chosen career path, which is something I'm still having a bit of trouble coming to grips with... so something that might be a big sacrifice for someone else, like paying 10% more for a wide variety of products because I don't buy them at Wal-Mart, has a net impact on my life of approximately nil.
Therefore, I view not shopping at Wal-Mart as one of the many small things I can do -- sort of like turning unnecessary lights off, or minimizing my use of my air conditioner -- that have a negligble impact on my life but are, in my view, worthwhile. Another example is that I fly with Canada's national carrier wherever possible (which translates to almost all the time) because I think it's a valuable symbol for my country to have and it deserves my support. And to tie this back to the frivolous purchases thing, I go out of my way to pay more for innovative video games from small to mid-size studios by buying them shortly after they're released even though I don't have a hope of playing them in the next month or two.
Essentially I'm saying that I think people who can afford to do so should support things they think are worthwhile, even if that means going a bit out of their way. I like to support domestic retailers and that means not supporting Wal-Mart. Tack on the fact that I don't like the way they do business, and that's why I don't shop there at all now, even when no other store has what I want.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then I'm glad it works for you, and by all means, keep doing that.
It seems like your ultimate goal is not the destruction of Wal-Mart, but promoting your country and working to make life better for everyone.
What I'm saying is that boycotting Wal-Mart is not the only way to do that. Doing so is not a moral act in itself, but a method of achieving a moral end.
I have also (I am not saying that this is why you do it) found more than a little classism in the eschewing of Wal-Mart - like the Slate article where the sophisticated shop at Costco and the laughable schlubs shop at Sam's Warehouse. I don't like it.
I prefer to think myself better than other people for entirely different reasons. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:made by happy workers with a 401(k) and health insurance
Well, happy is up to the indiviual, but yes, I think every one is entitles to health insurance and 401K. Starbucks provides health insurance to all it's workers, no matter how many hours they work. If they can, WallMart can.
(Yeah, I know there are lots of issues with Starbucks. I waffle on them and will go to an independent place first, if I'm in my home area. Then again, they're local to me.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If they can, WallMart can.
I think everyone who makes pronouncements of what businesses can and cannot afford should have the experience of owning one for a while and being responsible for the continuance of it. In France, everyone who is employed DOES have a low hourly work week, ample compensation, and a secure retirement. They also have a 10% unemployment rate and stagnant economic growth.
In other words, it's not that simple.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Interestingly enough, though, that shorter work week is not correlated with lower employee productivity.
-------
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What I'm saying is that boycotting Wal-Mart is not the only way to do that. Doing so is not a moral act in itself, but a method of achieving a moral end.
Sure. I don't believe I said otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have also (I am not saying that this is why you do it) found more than a little classism in the eschewing of Wal-Mart - like the Slate article where the sophisticated shop at Costco and the laughable schlubs shop at Sam's Warehouse. I don't like it.
Ah. No, I don't dig that at all. On the subject of socioeconomic status, though, I do make a value judgment when someone who is quite well-off raves about saving fifty cents on a five-dollar item at Wal-Mart because they spent an afternoon driving around bargain-hunting.
...and I make that value judgment without even bothering to calculate how much gasoline that wastes, because I've been known to drive around for no reason at times myself.
quote:I prefer to think myself better than other people for entirely different reasons.
As do I. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I do make a value judgment when someone who is quite well-off raves about saving fifty cents on a five-dollar item at Wal-Mart because they spent an afternoon driving around bargain-hunting.
What about five dollars on ten five-dollar items? Every week?
I recently bought two pairs of exercise pants - one at Target, and one at Wal-Mart. The same general pants were $20 at Target and $11 at Wal-Mart. It's possible the Target ones were better made, but I'm not sure and considering they are exercise pants, don't really care.
How much of a price difference is enough to make it worth it to you?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hey Katie, just 'cause I'm curious, will you try to wear them the same amount and wash them the same number of times and see which hold up longer? I'm not saying be fanatical about it, but if you happen to notice the stiching coming undone on one pair first, or if one of them rips, let us know. Obviously the Target ones would have to last almost twice as long as the Wal-Mart ones to justify the price difference, which I don't imagine will happen. . . but I bought a pair of jeans at Wal-Mart once when I was in a town with no other shopping options and I had come for a party with an incredibly wrong expectation of the appropriate level of dress. The jeans fit great, and I loved them, much to my chagrin. They also dissolved before the end of the summer, and I'm curious if it was a typical experience or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, but this will probably be a longitudanal study. I bought to replace my last two pairs of exercise pants, which have just worn out after three years. Granted, I didn't wear them every day for those three years, but still. I'll try to keep track.
Added:
I have noticed about the things I pay money for. For clothes, some things are worth extra, and some aren't. I tend to buy work pants at relatively (for me) expensive places like Banana Republic because I wear them almost every day and need them to last. I buy jeans at Wal-Mart and Target because I own several pairs and only wear them a couple of times a week. Basic, solid color work clothes I'll pay more for, but anything with a pattern I won't because I'll get tired of it before it wears out. Same for accessories - I tend to buy them cheap, because I change them out. The exceptions are the brown and black belts, because I only one or two of each color and wear them all the time.
I just looked down at what I'm wearing, and it breaks down to the following:
Shirt: Wal-Mart This one, in white. I love it. I'm thinking about getting more, except I don't really like the other colors - it fits perfectly, looks nice, and is very, very comfy.
Bra: Victoria Secret. The expensive bras are worth it - I wear them every day.
Pants: The Limited, basic gray
Belt: Target, silver chain with bright green ribbon. Very flashy and memorable, so I rarely wear it.
Shoes: Mervyns. I love Mervyns shoes - cute, last forever, and cheap.
Basically, the things I wear every day are worth paying more for. For the things I don't wear very often, I'm glad there is a place to get them cheaply. The alternate option is not to buy them at more expensive places, but to not get them at all.
The point of this is that buying decisions are often complicated, and it's nice to have options.
[ October 27, 2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Well, I figured you won't have an answer next week or anything. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: How much of a price difference is enough to make it worth it to you?
To make it worth it to me to buy the item(s) at Wal-Mart, the price difference would have to be nothing short of incredible for an item of the same quality and durability. Wal-Mart's margins are thin, but not that thin. I don't believe that such an item exists.
...but then, as I've said, I have multiple reasons for not shopping there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. *thinks* How much price difference is enough that you stop judging people negatively for shopping there?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I haven't said that I do in the general case, only in the specific case of a hypothetical middle-or-upper class spendthrift who gloats about his or her "bargain-hunted" savings.
Added: To be clear, I don't make this judgment in the general case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Accepting that premise, how much of a savings is enough that the theoretical middle or upper class budgeter can be glad of it without being less of a person in your eyes?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This is about more than short term savings, kat. We don’t shop at Wal-Mart so someday our kids won’t have to. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Accepting that premise, how much of a savings is enough that the theoretical middle or upper class budgeter can be glad of it without being less of a person in your eyes?
It would have to be a fairly significant savings to counter the investment of time required to hunt the bargains.
In other words, I'm saying that beyond a fairly low threshold, I don't see bargain-hunting as a worthwhile investment of time if you don't need the money.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm a little confused by the bargain-hunting part. What if the Wal-Mart is just down the street? The Wal-Mart I'm thinking of is the closest store to a fairly large middle/upper class neighborhood. For the people who shop there, it is convenient, cheap, and comprehensible, meaning only one trip. Not only is it cheaper, it is easier and faster to shop there. Does that change things?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I don't shop at Walmart so that someday my kids don't have to work there.
I see their prices as irrelevant... they could be giving away their products for free, and I'd still have the same problems with their business and its effect on our society.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, of course it does, kat. That makes it okay. I'm basically down on bargain-hunting as a hobby.
Added: To clarify, if I lived in that neighbourhood, I wouldn't shop at the Wal-Mart, but I wouldn't look down my nose at people who did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Yes, of course it does. That makes it okay.
Then I have completely misunderstood your objections to it. My apologies.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But bargain-hunting as a hobby is fun! I do it all the time. I never pay full price for clothing, accessories, bubble bath, anything but food, really. Basically, any frivolities. In fact, I would consider bargain shopping for frivolities a hobby. (I don't, however, consider 50 cents off a jug of laundry detergent a "bargain.")
kat: Do you still have Mervyns where you live??? All of ours closed, and I love their shoes. My favorite pair of shoes came from there, and I've never been able to find anything like them again, and I wore them into the ground.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*shrug*
I never said it was wrong, I simply said that I don't think much of it. Also,
quote:...50 cents off a jug of laundry detergent...
This is what I was talking about. But in the general case, my shopping technique is basically as follows:
1) Go to store 2) Look for desired item 3) If store has desired item, purchase it 4) Else return to step 1 with a new store
If I hit two or three stores and don't get what I want, I give up and go home. But I invariably buy the first one that I find because the value I place on my time outweighs any potential savings unless it's a big-ticket item (in which case I do research before going anywhere).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I invariably buy the first one that I find because the value I place on my time outweighs any potential savings unless it's a big-ticket item (in which case I do research before going anywhere).
My dad does that. It made him an absolute joy to shop with, back when he would buy me stuff. Once he's promised to go, he wants so badly to get out of there that he'd buy anything I loved without questioning the price.
ElJay: I have a pair of strappy low black heels from Mervyn's that I've worn steadily for four years now, and I still occasionally get compliments on them.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin* Whereas I use certain types of shopping as a form of relaxation, particularly when I'm stressed. But yeah, if I'm out of tissues, I go to the closest store and buy tissues. It's not worth my time to comparison shop for that sort of item, and I, also, am lucky enough to be in a financial position where I don't need to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Whereas I use certain types of shopping as a form of relaxation, particularly when I'm stressed.
I do this as well, but it's more the buying than the shopping. I don't mind browsing in the video games store, but I generally only go there when I intend to buy something. Now, sometimes I pick up a few other somethings, y'know, while I'm there...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Maybe I'll check for a website when I get home and see if I can find a similar shoe. I know they won't have the same one anymore, but they might have something close.
Also, my Dad and I used to go Christmas shopping together. We'd pick out my present from him and his present from me. He'd pay for them both, and we'd go home and I'd wrap them both, and put them under the tree. He was of the opinion you should get what you want for Christmas, and the best way to do that is to pick it out yourself. Mom thought it was awful. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't shop at Walmart so that someday my kids don't have to work there.
I see their prices as irrelevant... they could be giving away their products for free, and I'd still have the same problems with their business and its effect on our society. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I buy all my pants from Wal-Mart. Slacks and Jeans.
I'm sorry, but there's are the only pants that fit my body type, and believe me, I've looked elsewhere.
(It's also easy. I know precisely what size of Wranglers to buy, and precisely how they will fit. Or I could spend an entire day at the mall.)
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:I'm basically down on bargain-hunting as a hobby.
My mother is well off enough that she does not have to bargain hunt. Yet every Saturday morning, she is out a garage sales at the crack of dawn. She buys useless irrelevant junk for herself and our entire family and has a blast doing it. My father will drive halfway across the city to top off his tank at a station whose gas is 3 cents cheaper. They will also on occasion shop at a Walmart. So I guess they are those kind of people you take issue with.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Well, I wouldn't take issue with the garage saling. You don't tend to think your neighbors are running a sweat shop.( although, if you ask my kids.....) In fact, yard sales are one reason I manage to avoid WalMart.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: I don't shop at Walmart so that someday my kids don't have to work there.
I see their prices as irrelevant... they could be giving away their products for free, and I'd still have the same problems with their business and its effect on our society.
I concur. I tend to think of buying things as voting with my dollars. I strongly disaprove of Walmart, so I try to vote for them as little as possible.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM:
quote:I'm basically down on bargain-hunting as a hobby.
My mother is well off enough that she does not have to bargain hunt. Yet every Saturday morning, she is out a garage sales at the crack of dawn. She buys useless irrelevant junk for herself and our entire family and has a blast doing it. My father will drive halfway across the city to top off his tank at a station whose gas is 3 cents cheaper. They will also on occasion shop at a Walmart. So I guess they are those kind of people you take issue with.
Garage sales are different, though, because that isn't comparison shopping. You aren't likely to find the same item at two garage sales. The gas station example is good, though.
Also, "take issue" isn't quite right. I make a value judgment. There are plenty of people -- my mum, for instance -- who make a value judgment about how much time I spend playing video games. Everybody makes these judgments about different things.
Added: In other words, you won't catch me lecturing your parents on the wickedness of their ways.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Voting with dollars is part of what I have a problem with. Instead of writing congressmen or lobbying for better conditions or working to imporove things otherwise, you just enrich Target instead of Wal-Mart. I don't think it's doing nearly as much as you think it is. $500 at Target instead of Wal-Mart will accomplish expotentially less than a single letter to a congressman.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)