It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reminder: Walmart destroying our economies

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I hate to be repetitive but that is what people get for allowing(or even wanting) uncontrolled capitalism. The right wingers want small government(no checks and balances) so it is only natural for companies to develop into natural monopolies, each monopolising a sector of business.


How do you assume that big government = checks and balances? Or that a small government would lack checks and balances? Do you mean c&b's on businesses and individuals? That's what voting is for, and it is more effective on a smaller, less intrusive, less power-hungry government.

Monopolies as you describe them are a myth. Microsoft is not a monopoly... go buy a Mac. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly... shop at Target, K-Mart, or local vendors (who, BTW, still are in business despite that Wal-Mart "monopoly.")

If a business sector or market is especially lucrative new competitors will be breaking down the barriers to get in. This is call competition and it refines business, improves products and service, lowers prices, etc. Capitalism is to be thanked for our high standard of living. It is in places like Africa where statist/tribal dictators restrict these freedoms do we see true poverty.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

If the commission says yes to this development -- which will transform the barren Ryerson steel site by adding retail, 800 homes, a hotel and a new recreation center -- the City Council Zoning Committee and the full council will weigh in over the next month. Without Wal-Mart, this project, known as Pullman Park, can't get off the ground. No other large retailer has stepped forward.


Chicago Sun-Times



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemesis0123
Walmart is coming to my town soon. It's one of those ones with the grocery section. I think it's going to put all the grocery stores out of business. Walmart will come in with low prices, put everyone out of business, and then jack the prices up to normal levels. I've been reading about this for years. We all know it's coming. All the grocery store workers are going to lose their jobs. Businesses that have been around since the 50's are going to go under. BTW, Walmart is the #1 ranked business in America. Did someone say they were going to go out of business? That's ridiculous. They're just going to keep spreading like a disease. I'll never step foot in that place when it comes here. I agree that Walmart is doing damage to this country. People who had grocery jobs are going to be unemployed or working for minimum wage at Walmart. Is it worth it? When people shop there, they will be spending money they made there or were given from the government. There are no other jobs for these people.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Nemesis0123]


Everyone always talks about the other grocery stores going out of business and small stores closing. Here in Gainesville we recently had a Wal-Mart Super Center open on the "bad" side of town. They tend to locate where there is not already a dense retail market, often filling in "food deserts."

None of the local grocers went out of business. Jobs were created. An area with an underdeveloped retail sector with an under-served population now has an inexpensive place to shop! None of you nice leftist organic-farm all-natural locally-grown folks wanted anything to do with that side of town.

Excuse me for failing to see the evil of Wal-Mart here.

I think leftists simply hate success, the successful, or those who have more than them; call it class envy. They have a childish view of how the world works based on preschool playground rules where everyone gets the same number of cookies regardless of merit: Egalitarianism.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Seriously, why is buying stuff at walmart different from buying it at another store? That tool set you get at walmart is the exact same one you would get anywhere else. Or the milk, eggs, toys, etc.

The little kids making all the products in China for 5 cents a day don,t only sell their product to walmart!

I just don,t get why people single out one store. Their all guilty of all the things walmart is. And no i'm not trying to justify any of it, yous just need to see the whole picture.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by theendisnear69]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Scarcer
 


im sorry i thought this was from the consumers point of view.


Consumers are not workers?


Originally posted by LurkerMan
not everybody works in a store. believe it or not some of us work in labs, fight fires, deliver mail etc.

retail jobs are but a fraction of "the economy" which is what the topic was.


Retailing and manufacturing go hand-in-hand. If something is cheaper to produce in mexico or china and they can produce it, you can feel assured 99% of the BIG companies will produce it there.

What does america produce now-a-days other than crappy fords, chevvies, gms, zippos, high end batteries and food? I am sorry but most high tech jobs and many low tech jobs have been exported a long time ago.

You buy a jacket its from bangladesh. You buy a nintendo its japanesse. Computers from taiwan and china, coffee machine from china, etc.


Originally posted by LurkerMan
SOME poeple might lose there job and end up a slave, but EVERYBODY saves money on their products. and the EVERYBODY group outweighs the SOME POEPLE group.


I can't speak for others, but I am not out to get walmart! Walmart is out to get the american economy as are other big chain outlets. Walmart is the biggest so naturally they get more attention/publicity from everyone, regardless if its positive or negative.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I hate to be repetitive but that is what people get for allowing(or even wanting) uncontrolled capitalism. The right wingers want small government(no checks and balances) so it is only natural for companies to develop into natural monopolies, each monopolising a sector of business.


How do you assume that big government = checks and balances? Or that a small government would lack checks and balances? Do you mean c&b's on businesses and individuals? That's what voting is for, and it is more effective on a smaller, less intrusive, less power-hungry government.


I use BIG VS SMALL government because conservatives like to seperate/distinguish and make all kinds of erroneous assumptions as to what each is. They fail to realise, or pretend to not understand, that government is either pro-business or pro-worker.

I don't care about birth control, religious fanatics, gay rights or any other of that nonsense, I care primarily about my pocket and my well being.

Unless your an MBA CEO making upwards of $300,000 a year it should be important to you.


Originally posted by spaznational
Monopolies as you describe them are a myth. Microsoft is not a monopoly... go buy a Mac. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly... shop at Target, K-Mart, or local vendors (who, BTW, still are in business despite that Wal-Mart "monopoly.")


Ok my bad sherlock holmes, I should have said each has upwards of 60% of the market leaving a few crumbs to the runner up and third place horse. Give me a break!


Originally posted by spaznational
If a business sector or market is especially lucrative new competitors will be breaking down the barriers to get in. This is call competition and it refines business, improves products and service, lowers prices, etc. Capitalism is to be thanked for our high standard of living. It is in places like Africa where statist/tribal dictators restrict these freedoms do we see true poverty.


It would be nice if we had REAL competition instead of oligarchy capitalism. I do NOT hate capitalism because it can work under certain circumstances, but unrestrained corporatism suported by right-wingers should go to hell and never come back.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
I think leftists simply hate success, the successful, or those who have more than them; call it class envy. They have a childish view of how the world works based on preschool playground rules where everyone gets the same number of cookies regardless of merit: Egalitarianism.


Leftists hate success? No we don't hate success, we simply want EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Perhaps your thinking of communism where even the hot dog vendor is a government employ? Haha that is NOT socialism pal, just because mr stalin said so, in fact even hitler claimed himself a socialist despite the fact he was AN ARYAN SUPREMECIST and wanted germany to rule europe and eventually the world.

Racists and imperialists are ALWAYS right wingers, with very few exceptions at the far left end of the spectrum. I suggest you learn politics from the beginning......



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Leftists don't hate success to a point.


Lets say you are a small buisness employee. The lefties love you. Then you find yourself able to expand, they still love you. Then you find yourself able to become this super company and that is when they hate you.

Its okay for you to have success as long as you stay the little man. As soon as you start becoming something huge, such as wal mart, they will turn their backs on you.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by spaznational
I think leftists simply hate success, the successful, or those who have more than them; call it class envy. They have a childish view of how the world works based on preschool playground rules where everyone gets the same number of cookies regardless of merit: Egalitarianism.


Leftists hate success? No we don't hate success, we simply want EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Perhaps your thinking of communism where even the hot dog vendor is a government employ? Haha that is NOT socialism pal, just because mr stalin said so, in fact even hitler claimed himself a socialist despite the fact he was AN ARYAN SUPREMECIST and wanted germany to rule europe and eventually the world.

Racists and imperialists are ALWAYS right wingers, with very few exceptions at the far left end of the spectrum. I suggest you learn politics from the beginning......


Let's not forget it was the progressives in America that originally embraced Hitler--until he became toxically unpopular--because he was one of them, a leftist. Post-WWII there was a concerted effort to paint Hitler and Stalin as extreme rightists, which is quite contradictory to the societal ideals of both dictators.

When I refer to leftists I am referring to those individuals who are interested in collectivism and statism. I consider myself on the right because I am anti-collectivist (individualist) and anti-egalitarianism, and even anti-altruistic to an extent.

Leftist policies in post-WWII America have been almost exclusively the drivers for racial disparities, even moreso than racism itself. It has been the nonstop assault of altruistic entitlement programs that has literally formed a dependency subculture. Generations have been stuck in this trap of modern serfdom.

BTW, I didn't bring up socialism in my last post. You brought it up. I suppose that's in your Leftist Action Plan Guidebook and you were expecting me to be screaming SOCIALIST PIG! or some kind of racist remarks....

...but that must be SO confusing! Uncle Adolph was a leftist but racist? How can that be? Only those rednecks on the right can be racist!



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I use BIG VS SMALL government because conservatives like to seperate/distinguish and make all kinds of erroneous assumptions as to what each is. They fail to realise, or pretend to not understand, that government is either pro-business or pro-worker.


That is a false dichotomy. Time to give up on Marx already.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I don't care about birth control, religious fanatics, gay rights or any other of that nonsense, I care primarily about my pocket and my well being.


At least we can agree on that much.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Ok my bad sherlock holmes, I should have said each has upwards of 60% of the market leaving a few crumbs to the runner up and third place horse. Give me a break!


Any of these companies are one iPod away from failure. The other guy comes up with the next big thing and there's a huge shift in market share. That's why the concept of monopolies is largely a myth. They generally only exist when unrestrained capitalism is disallowed through governmental interference, such as with regional utility companies.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It would be nice if we had REAL competition instead of oligarchy capitalism. I do NOT hate capitalism because it can work under certain circumstances, but unrestrained corporatism suported by right-wingers should go to hell and never come back.


I think you are talking about what I would call crony capitalism, which is certainly not true capitalism. In a more ideal America the government would obey its Constitutional limitations and a politician wouldn't be powerful enough to be worth buying. All throughout modern history this country has had a mixed economic system which is currently in the process of eating itself to death. Calling it an oligarchy is too respectful, so I'll go with the term cronyism.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Scarcer
 



This is not a matter of opinion, your seeing this "big picture" from a very narrow perspective.

the retail sector represents but a fraction of the overall economy, and all the variables you have pointed out only effect that sector. And to a lesser extent manufacturing and wholesale.

here is a quick google of a random US city's economic pie chart:





as you can see private/public services make up the vast majority with Government coming in 2nd. these 2 sectors have nothing to do with walmart, and the Walmarts effects on these sectors and the other smaller ones are minuscule, if existent at all. the only sectors i can see a walmart effecting negatively outside of retail are manufacturing and wholesale.

now given this chart could vary depending on the location, but the overall point is that walmart affects a minority percentage of an overall economy, so to say "Walmart destroys economys" i think is over exaggerated and over sensationalized.

plus you leave out the fact that to build all these walmarts inevitably sparks job growth in other sectors, like construction and insurance/real estate/financing.

the reason i speak for EVERYBODY is because ANYBODY can be a consumer.

however not EVERYBODY works at a damn store.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by LurkerMan]


Retail still has a very very large chunk of that pie dear sir. And as other forms of labor are streamlined and replaced, the service sector is forced to get bigger in order to make work which can only expand so much, every sector is dependent on the revenue spilled over from every other sector.

Small towns and cities usually depend on labor and retail for their economies. The service sector is mostly found in very large cities.

So by affecting one work sector, your causing a domino affect on every other sector. Retail, Wholesale, Manufacturing ALL go hand in hand.

Another issue is this Chart shows Employment by Industry, if you want this chart to be complete, you need to include the unemployed, including those not receiving unemployment.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by Nemesis0123
Walmart is coming to my town soon. It's one of those ones with the grocery section. I think it's going to put all the grocery stores out of business. Walmart will come in with low prices, put everyone out of business, and then jack the prices up to normal levels. I've been reading about this for years. We all know it's coming. All the grocery store workers are going to lose their jobs. Businesses that have been around since the 50's are going to go under. BTW, Walmart is the #1 ranked business in America. Did someone say they were going to go out of business? That's ridiculous. They're just going to keep spreading like a disease. I'll never step foot in that place when it comes here. I agree that Walmart is doing damage to this country. People who had grocery jobs are going to be unemployed or working for minimum wage at Walmart. Is it worth it? When people shop there, they will be spending money they made there or were given from the government. There are no other jobs for these people.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Nemesis0123]


Everyone always talks about the other grocery stores going out of business and small stores closing. Here in Gainesville we recently had a Wal-Mart Super Center open on the "bad" side of town. They tend to locate where there is not already a dense retail market, often filling in "food deserts."

None of the local grocers went out of business. Jobs were created. An area with an underdeveloped retail sector with an under-served population now has an inexpensive place to shop! None of you nice leftist organic-farm all-natural locally-grown folks wanted anything to do with that side of town.

Excuse me for failing to see the evil of Wal-Mart here.

I think leftists simply hate success, the successful, or those who have more than them; call it class envy. They have a childish view of how the world works based on preschool playground rules where everyone gets the same number of cookies regardless of merit: Egalitarianism.


We'll that's GOOD they filled a void. And it's good if things stay that way.

My point is that not all local economies are as lucky when supercenters such as Walmart are introduced.

Though something I have realized though, some cities have seamed to developed around a few Walmart's I've seen though. There was maybe a Walmart, a coffee stand, a theater and maybe a gas station and that's it. I can't really complain other than it's sad not having anywhere but a Walmart to shop at. BUT I noticed that many towns near by only had Walmarts in the larger neighboring towns to shop at, and other towns had blocks full of empty stores, with a Walmart.

So. I will take a step back and say that, with a growing population and expanding cities, Walmart IS part of filling that expanding void. BUT in cases Walmart moves into already successful economies and takes all the revenue, there is great damage being done.

But you have to look again and pay attention. A store as large as Walmart can supply large populations on nearly everything they need, BUT remember just how small the created employment is. There is an off balance employment/goods ratio.

For hell of it I'll use that little Pie Chart Lurkerman brought up. For populations surrounding Walmart, the store must employ 11% of all dependent consumers, but Walmart doesn't require a huge staff. So unless the local economy has another large source of employment and economic income, then yes, it does damage local economies.

I'll leave that an open argument.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Consumers are not workers?


a consumer is a person who spends money at the store. a consumer does not have to work at that store, or any other store in the industry. i can be a walmart consumer and work for NASA. therefore utilizing the SAVINGS from shopping there, without having to worry about walmart stealing my job as an astronaut.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Retailing and manufacturing go hand-in-hand. If something is cheaper to produce in mexico or china and they can produce it, you can feel assured 99% of the BIG companies will produce it there.

What does america produce now-a-days other than crappy fords, chevvies, gms, zippos, high end batteries and food? I am sorry but most high tech jobs and many low tech jobs have been exported a long time ago.

You buy a jacket its from bangladesh. You buy a nintendo its japanesse. Computers from taiwan and china, coffee machine from china, etc.


i hate to break it to you but, retail sales and manufacture do not make up the entire economy, not even a majority of it. see my other post that you conveniently glossed over. mater of fact here ill just repost it


Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Scarcer
 



This is not a matter of opinion, your seeing this "big picture" from a very narrow perspective.

the retail sector represents but a fraction of the overall economy, and all the variables you have pointed out only effect that sector. And to a lesser extent manufacturing and wholesale.

here is a quick google of a random US city's economic pie chart:





as you can see private/public services make up the vast majority with Government coming in 2nd. these 2 sectors have nothing to do with walmart, and the Walmarts effects on these sectors and the other smaller ones are minuscule, if existent at all. the only sectors i can see a walmart effecting negatively outside of retail are manufacturing and wholesale.

now given this chart could vary depending on the location, but the overall point is that walmart affects a minority percentage of an overall economy, so to say "Walmart destroys economys" i think is over exaggerated and over sensationalized.

plus you leave out the fact that to build all these walmarts inevitably sparks job growth in other sectors, like construction and insurance/real estate/financing.

the reason i speak for EVERYBODY is because ANYBODY can be a consumer.

however not EVERYBODY works at a damn store.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by LurkerMan]






Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I can't speak for others, but I am not out to get walmart! Walmart is out to get the american economy as are other big chain outlets. Walmart is the biggest so naturally they get more attention/publicity from everyone, regardless if its positive or negative.


so please explain to me how a retailer is going to destroy the economy? i understand you think it will effect the manufacture and retail and wholesale markets, as ive already pointed out. but explain to me how that represents the entire economy?

how is a walmart moving into my city going to make the air traffic control guy lose his job? or the sewege treatment worker? surely walmart isnt thinking about diving into those services.

Hell even under the table work like painting and plumbing and handyman work represents its own slice of the economic pie, how is walmart going to take all those jobs?

how is walmart going to take all of the government jobs? i dont understand, your saying the ENTIRE economy, so surely walmart must have some master plan to take over BANKS, and INSURANCE, and CONSTRUCTION (oh wait...it takes that job to build walmarts...scratch that)


Meanwhile... the air traffic control guy, the painter, the sewege treatment worker, the stock analyst are all saving money from shopping at walmart as opposed to other stores, all that saved money gets shuffled back into the economy which HELPS it.

and before you go ranting about how the only place they will be spending the money is walmart, at least consider that there are far more things to spend your $$$ on than retail crap. some poeple spend their savings on vacations, some go to the dentist, some take dance lessons. some buy a car.

so until walmart even enters those sectors of the economy, which far outweigh retail, i wouldnt worry about them "ruining the economy"

if our economy was fueled solely off retail consumption, then this society would be even more frightning than it already is.

honestly i think its sad i even had to explain all that.

the worst they could do is destroy retail, and hurt manufacture and wholesale slightly. remember not everything manufactured...is sold at walmart...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Scarcer
 


Wal-mart like any other big monopoly will fall, that is what happen when mega stores become too big for their own good.

Yes they are lowering Americas working standards, they one of the biggest pushers for HCR with lobbyist all over congress their Chinese goods are marketed to the poor and welfare recipients and like the OP said they have killed many small businesses that can not compete with their cheap low quality goods, But then again that is whats happening all over America s we do not produce anything of value to the consumer anymore, everything comes from oversea.

But like I said I expect Wal-mart downfall in my lifetime. . .



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scarcer
My point is that not all local economies are as lucky when supercenters such as Walmart are introduced.

...

For hell of it I'll use that little Pie Chart Lurkerman brought up. For populations surrounding Walmart, the store must employ 11% of all dependent consumers, but Walmart doesn't require a huge staff. So unless the local economy has another large source of employment and economic income, then yes, it does damage local economies.

I'll leave that an open argument.


Where did you get that 11% figure and why must they do that?

By your logic the majority of the local economy would have to be employed in grocery/retail if your assumed Wal-Mart related job losses were real. A Wal-Mart opening could cause some (not all) of the existing local stores to close or scale back, but they employ a small fraction of the local workforce, and it is mostly minimum wage at that. Old failing business models will be closed by newer better ones like Wal-Mart's until something comes to kill Wal-Mart. People change careers (although I don't consider a minimum-wage cashier position a career really). That's the business cycle.

As someone else pointed out, a new Wal-Mart isn't going to make the mailman, dentist, firemen, police, plumbers, construction workers, contractors, consultants, accountants, teachers, restaurateurs, etc. lose their jobs. No, in fact these people will now be able to reduce their spending so that they can keep more of their disposable income to either save, invest, or, hell!, spend more.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Scarcer
 


retail, manufacture, and wholesale all go hand in hand, but are not the entire economy.

please explain how it spills over into government sectors, which include unemployment. please explain to me how it spills over into any other sector. services make up most of the pie, and i dont see how walmart does anything but increase growth in services. or growth in government (unemployment is still taxed)

it slightly effects other sectors, but not significantly enough to destroy the entire economy. you act like the only things manufactured are sold at walmart.

its just as insignificant as the rise in construction to build all the walmarts. sure it affects it, but not enough to effect the entire system. its compartmentalized to retail.

you say stop shopping at walmart.

i say stop applying.

if they hire illegals then work on solving that problem. this isnt a consumer issue its an employment issue. if you take away either the consumer OR the employee, the corporation dies. now why take away the consumer if the economy as a whole benefits from said consumption? take away the employees and walmart falls to its knees. seems more appropriate for the employee to take the hit instead of the consumer seeing as how the employees are the only ones complaining.

a union would solve the entire problem. and im aware the efforts they go to to prevent unions, which just goes to show you the threat they pose.

i would think it be alot easier in these "small towns" that are so vulnerable to evil walmart. everybody could temporarily work in a new sector until walmart caves in or closes down. even if that new sector is government welfare.

thats how it works in other industries. but other industries require alot more experience and skills. lets face it nobody is going to college to learn how to unload a pallet or ring up a candy bar.

but it doesnt make sense for me as a consumer to stop shopping at walmart just because somebody else somewhere lost a job and are unwilling to take the one offered or take a different career path, or go to the effort to start a union.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by Scarcer
My point is that not all local economies are as lucky when supercenters such as Walmart are introduced.

...

For hell of it I'll use that little Pie Chart Lurkerman brought up. For populations surrounding Walmart, the store must employ 11% of all dependent consumers, but Walmart doesn't require a huge staff. So unless the local economy has another large source of employment and economic income, then yes, it does damage local economies.

I'll leave that an open argument.


Where did you get that 11% figure and why must they do that?

By your logic the majority of the local economy would have to be employed in grocery/retail if your assumed Wal-Mart related job losses were real. A Wal-Mart opening could cause some (not all) of the existing local stores to close or scale back, but they employ a small fraction of the local workforce, and it is mostly minimum wage at that. Old failing business models will be closed by newer better ones like Wal-Mart's until something comes to kill Wal-Mart. People change careers (although I don't consider a minimum-wage cashier position a career really). That's the business cycle.

As someone else pointed out, a new Wal-Mart isn't going to make the mailman, dentist, firemen, police, plumbers, construction workers, contractors, consultants, accountants, teachers, restaurateurs, etc. lose their jobs. No, in fact these people will now be able to reduce their spending so that they can keep more of their disposable income to either save, invest, or, hell!, spend more.



That 11% is just a number taken from the Pie chart Lurkerman posted.

Where did i say that the majority would have to be employed by Walmart. It's not the majority or everybody, but it's still a number of people who a re affected in one form or another.

Possibly it's not just walmart, but fallowing logic, the fewer people that have jobs or money to spend and receive lower income as well, the less money that will be free to go around the local economy. Thus the mailman, dentist, firemen, police, plumbers, construction workers, contractors, consultants, accountants, teachers, restaurateurs, etc. are impacted by the domino affect of how the economy works. If one sector slows down, all other sectors will have to make cuts and accommodate.

A person with a low income or no income can not afford as many services. Money doesn't come out of thin air.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Scarcer
 


retail, manufacture, and wholesale all go hand in hand, but are not the entire economy.

please explain how it spills over into government sectors, which include unemployment. please explain to me how it spills over into any other sector. services make up most of the pie, and i dont see how walmart does anything but increase growth in services. or growth in government (unemployment is still taxed)

it slightly effects other sectors, but not significantly enough to destroy the entire economy. you act like the only things manufactured are sold at walmart.

its just as insignificant as the rise in construction to build all the walmarts. sure it affects it, but not enough to effect the entire system. its compartmentalized to retail.

you say stop shopping at walmart.

i say stop applying.

if they hire illegals then work on solving that problem. this isnt a consumer issue its an employment issue. if you take away either the consumer OR the employee, the corporation dies. now why take away the consumer if the economy as a whole benefits from said consumption? take away the employees and walmart falls to its knees. seems more appropriate for the employee to take the hit instead of the consumer seeing as how the employees are the only ones complaining.

a union would solve the entire problem. and im aware the efforts they go to to prevent unions, which just goes to show you the threat they pose.

i would think it be alot easier in these "small towns" that are so vulnerable to evil walmart. everybody could temporarily work in a new sector until walmart caves in or closes down. even if that new sector is government welfare.

thats how it works in other industries. but other industries require alot more experience and skills. lets face it nobody is going to college to learn how to unload a pallet or ring up a candy bar.

but it doesnt make sense for me as a consumer to stop shopping at walmart just because somebody else somewhere lost a job and are unwilling to take the one offered or take a different career path, or go to the effort to start a union.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by LurkerMan]


I don't know how else to explain it further, so here is this, it's all connected:



[edit on 19-4-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I just wanted to remind everyone that
Terrorists shop at Wal-Mart!



Terry Nichols told the FBI he had not had any contact with Timothy McVeigh for one to two months prior to Easter Sunday, April 16, 1995. However, a Wal-Mart receipt dated April 13, 1995, was found in Terry Nichols' wallet. The receipt was for 4 quarts of oil and an oil filter. The filter fit Timothy McVeigh's Pontiac, J-2000, but not Terry Nichols' pick-up, a 1984 GMC. On April 15, 1995, Terry Nichols used the April 13, 1995, receipt in the Manhattan, Kansas, WalMart to return the oil filter. Timothy McVeigh had left his Pontiac at the Firestone Store in Junction City, Kansas, on April 14, 1995, when he purchased the 1977 Mercury. Both Terry Nichols' and Timothy McVeigh's fingerprints were found on the April 13, 1995, Wal-Mart receipt.
Wal-Mart Wal-Mart

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Gmoneycricket]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join