1 in 8 Americans receiving food stamps

[Stretch]

Over 36 million Americans are receiving receiving food stamps. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html)

Holy crap, is it really that high? I was more than a little skeptical at first, but I guess with unemployment past 10% it's not that absurd.

[phantasm]

Its easy to qualify for food stamps if thats your goal.

[Paradii]

Anyone else watch that documentary about Walmart that came out a few years ago. Something about the High Price of Low Cost.

Anyways, it went on a whole diatribe about how walmart was pushing all of its employees to go on food stamps, welfare, and other government run programs due to shit wages they were offering.

So, no. That number seems right. Full time at walmart pays something like 12-16k a year, which puts you well in the range to receive food stamps.

[Seran]

So many folks are on food stamps, that Costco is poised to start accepting them as payment.

[Sean of the Thread]

Not that I ever wanted to as a goal but I took $200 worth of food stamps from the Gov this past year... I only I could find a decent job here.

I was hungry. /shrug

[Daniel]

I love the moral justification by the Republicans in this article.

" He has noticed crowds of midnight shoppers once a month when benefits get renewed. While policy analysts, spotting similar crowds nationwide, have called them a sign of increased hunger, he sees idleness. “Generally, if you’re up at that hour and not working, what are you into?” he said."

I don't know, douche? Getting food? Maybe you shouldn't be judging people when you are on the program yourself.

[radamanthys]

I think food stamps can be a good program. It certainly helps plenty of people who need interim assistance feeding themselves. That said, I'd be in favor of restricting what kinds of food people can buy on food stamps. Soda, for example, would be verboten.

[Daniel]

You obviously hate freedom.

[Androidpk]

I think there are already limitations on what you can and cannot get.

[Paradii]

I think there are already limitations on what you can and cannot get.

Outside of liquor, tobacco, and "hot" or store-prepared foods, I am not sure of any other limitations.

[ThatDamnTep]

Outside of liquor, tobacco, and "hot" or store-prepared foods, I am not sure of any other limitations.

That's most of the limitations for the non-cash part of EBT. I think there are also limitations on some medicines and diapers, etc, but those things are generally covered under WIC. Now if you have an EBT cash allowance, you can buy anything. I've seen lottery tickets, booze, cigarettes, etc.

The big problem with EBT is how easy it is for students to get a card. I run a liquor store near a large campus and it's disgusting how many of our customers whip out the Bridge Card to pay for their mixers and then turn around and put down for a bottle of booze. Or when they'll use the EBT to pay for the bottle deposit on the 30 pack.

[Laccon]

i would just like to say, at least in Mass, if your not puertorican you don't get food stamps. A few years ago they wouldn't give my sister food stamps she was 23, had a 2 year old son, single mother living on her own, and trying to finish up her nursing degree and they denied her several times! Luckily though she made it through and is doing very well now despite all that. But really if your not puerorican in mass it is very hard to get it. And i also think that if you have food stamps you should not be able to buy junk food with it. I worked in a super market for several years and all i really see is people abusing the system and buying tons and tons of junk food, chips, soda, crackers etc. with it. This should not be aloud only real good should be aloud and you all know what i mean when i say real food.

[Ker_Thwap]

What an awesome country, even our poor are fat.

[Sean of the Thread]

I think food stamps can be a good program. It certainly helps plenty of people who need interim assistance feeding themselves. That said, I'd be in favor of restricting what kinds of food people can buy on food stamps. Soda, for example, would be verboten.


I think there are already limitations on what you can and cannot get.


Outside of liquor, tobacco, and "hot" or store-prepared foods, I am not sure of any other limitations.


At least here in FL Paradii summed it up. No prepared hot foods but other than that any food goes. Some stores will ring up a hot sub or such under cold just to get the sale as well.

I hate seeing carts full of lobster and crab legs on the day of distribution however. Something should be done to curb the needless spending.

When I "splurged" it was for a publix sub that would last me three days at $7.00.




***I've also been in line at a convenience store over in Largo aka Larghetto and witnessed the owner of said store allow a homeless man to purchase beer on his EBT/Foodstamp card at twice the cost of the beer.

[Androidpk]

I like to use my EBT card at Benihanas.

[g++]

The candy store I get cigarettes from on my corner takes food stamps. I was kind of suprised by that. Not as suprised as I was when I found out they sold knives and "oil vials" behind the corner.

[Graka]

I'm in the process of applying for food stamps. Didn't want to, but with my disability case taking so long (waiting on a hearing date with a judge - likely not 'til next year), I don't have much choice. What little budget there is has been stretched too far by medical obligations. Wouldn't even have a roof if not for my folks.

[BigWorm]

The candy store I get cigarettes from on my corner takes food stamps. I was kind of suprised by that. Not as suprised as I was when I found out they sold knives and "oil vials" behind the corner.

wtf is an "oil vial" ?

[g++]

Their crack vials, but their sold so you can store your "unused oil" i have no idea man.

[Celephais]

wtf is an "oil vial" ?
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af213/GuinnessKMF2/Shop.png

[radamanthys]

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af213/GuinnessKMF2/Shop.png

FUCKING WIN

I remember playing that at a Boomer's in South Florida when I was a young'in. Took me forever to remember what it was later. I assume it's Tower of Doom?

Also took me about 10000 rolls of quarters before I realized that you had to douse the troll with fire. Embarassing now, since EVERYBODY knows that trolls and fire don't mix.

[crb]

Anyone else watch that documentary about Walmart that came out a few years ago. Something about the High Price of Low Cost.

Anyways, it went on a whole diatribe about how walmart was pushing all of its employees to go on food stamps, welfare, and other government run programs due to shit wages they were offering.

So, no. That number seems right. Full time at walmart pays something like 12-16k a year, which puts you well in the range to receive food stamps.

Walmart actually helps communities in which it opens, by lowering the cost of living (cheaper food, cheaper clothing, etc) and providing jobs. Unions don't like it, so the political left doesn't like it, so they fund a bunch of anti-Walmart propaganda crap, but the unbiased looks out there, and they do exist, show Walmart to be a net benefit.

Now, I'll admit Walmart has a lot of part time labor, but you said full time.

Ya, sure, working at walmart isn't a great job, its no rent-seeking government bureaucrat position for sure, but it is a job. Better than not having a job, and of course if one wanted a better job one could get educated, or perhaps work harder, perhaps have less on their criminal background check, or perhaps indulge in less illicit substances, perhaps decide to have unprotected sex less often. We are the product of our choices.

So, apparently the food stamp program is a success. I know of no one who is against food stamps, no one is saying to stop it.

Suppose we get healthcare "reform" with a government option and 32 million people are on that. Would that then be a horrible problem we need to fix? Government safety net helps 32 million people, reforms needed?

I'm going to guess not. I'm going to guess it'd be lauded as a success by the same people who would laud food stamps as a problem.

Apparently, according to the article, the evil Bush administration is at fault for making it easier to get food stamps and trying to get more people enrolled. Fucking evil bastard, all his fault, should have restricted it. Then you could say "food stamp usage dropping, hope & change successful."

[AnticorRifling]

Wow if that wasn't a joke post that's some really, really dumb shit.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So I'm guessing today wasn't the best time in the world to just say fuck it and quit my job with no plan at all?

[Stretch]

I've quit my job almost as many times as I've quit Gemstone.

Usually I get lazy trying to find a new one and end up just transferring. Could try that.

[g++]

I have also changed jobs 3 times within the same corporation. Its pretty interesting when people call to find out about their frozen cancer research specimens and find out they are ringing the IT department of an outpatient rehabilitation center.

[g++]

Walmart actually helps communities in which it opens, by lowering the cost of living (cheaper food, cheaper clothing, etc) and providing jobs. Unions don't like it, so the political left doesn't like it, so they fund a bunch of anti-Walmart propaganda crap, but the unbiased looks out there, and they do exist, show Walmart to be a net benefit.

It also cuts prices on a range of products so diverse that any form of non-corprate sales avenue closes. Those same non-corporate shops generally offer better compensation for their workers and feed directly into the community instead of to a global entity. It vacuums the local economy up into a national conglomerate and leaves no local structure aside from a wal-mart that could close itself and leave for no reason what so ever.



Now, I'll admit Walmart has a lot of part time labor, but you said full time.

Ya, sure, working at walmart isn't a great job, its no rent-seeking government bureaucrat position for sure, but it is a job. Better than not having a job, and of course if one wanted a better job one could get educated, or perhaps work harder, perhaps have less on their criminal background check, or perhaps indulge in less illicit substances, perhaps decide to have unprotected sex less often. We are the product of our choices.

Its a terrible job and because most sales job that had decent wages were already destroyed by wal-marts low prices its likely the only job available. I see you still think every person who is disadvantaged did something to deserve it. Stay classy.



So, apparently the food stamp program is a success. I know of no one who is against food stamps, no one is saying to stop it.

Suppose we get healthcare "reform" with a government option and 32 million people are on that. Would that then be a horrible problem we need to fix? Government safety net helps 32 million people, reforms needed?

I'm going to guess not. I'm going to guess it'd be lauded as a success by the same people who would laud food stamps as a problem.

Apparently, according to the article, the evil Bush administration is at fault for making it easier to get food stamps and trying to get more people enrolled. Fucking evil bastard, all his fault, should have restricted it. Then you could say "food stamp usage dropping, hope & change successful."

The article was actually positive towards Bush's policy when I read it and seemed pretty bi-partisan. You are so polarized you cant even read properly anymore.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I've quit my job almost as many times as I've quit Gemstone.

Usually I get lazy trying to find a new one and end up just transferring. Could try that.

I literally tendered my resignation today though. As in, walked into VP's office, said I'm resigning, and went home. I'm having some second thoughts now to the whole I don't need 100k+ a year, bonus and benefits. Then again, I've had no stress today at all, other than telling her I quit. I imagine that'll change when I'm paying bills later.

[Jorddyn]

literally tendered my resignation today though. As in, walked into VP's office, said I'm resigning, and went home. I'm having some second thoughts now to the whole I don't need 100k+ a year, bonus and benefits. Then again, I've had no stress today at all, other than telling her I quit. I imagine that'll change when I'm paying bills later.

So, you're saying there's a job opening?

[Dwarven Empath]

I think the government should stop giving folks food stamps, and things like that. That would make folks find a freaking job.

[Jorddyn]

I think the government should stop giving folks food stamps, and things like that. That would make folks find a freaking job.


Which is incredibly easy for those with little experience or education and 10% unemployment.

Food stamps are meant to be temporary assistance - I have no problem with that.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So, you're saying there's a job opening?

Soon I'm sure ;p I imagine they will replace me with 2 50k a year folks though. Frankly I was overpaid.

[Clove]

Walmart actually helps communities in which it opens, by......"helping" their employees supplement their sub-par wages with local and federal welfare programs. Wal-mart, encourages their employees to apply for partial assistance and food stamps; that's really improving the community alright.

[Ravenstorm]

I think the government should stop giving folks food stamps, and things like that. That would make folks find a freaking job.

Yes, damn those senior citizens. Where are those death panels?

[radamanthys]

Yes, damn those senior citizens. Where are those death panels?

"...I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

[Latrinsorm]

Mee moo meeeee mee mee moo???

[crb]

It also cuts prices on a range of products so diverse that any form of non-corprate sales avenue closes. Those same non-corporate shops generally offer better compensation for their workers and feed directly into the community instead of to a global entity. It vacuums the local economy up into a national conglomerate and leaves no local structure aside from a wal-mart that could close itself and leave for no reason what so ever.


This is the nature of a free market, the best wins. If the mom & pop can't compete, they should die. Likewise, if the big corp gets too big and can't compete against new disrupters, it too should die. Microsoft killed IBM, Google is killing microsoft, maybe someday someone will kill Google.





Its a terrible job and because most sales job that had decent wages were already destroyed by wal-marts low prices its likely the only job available. I see you still think every person who is disadvantaged did something to deserve it. Stay classy.


We are a product of our choices. For every 1 person who really maybe didn't ever have a choice, there are 99 that did.




The article was actually positive towards Bush's policy when I read it and seemed pretty bi-partisan. You are so polarized you cant even read properly anymore.

It was, the jackass I was replying to wasn't though.

[AnticorRifling]

We are a product of our choices. For every 1 person who really maybe didn't ever have a choice, there are 99 that did.



Source?

[crb]

..."helping" their employees supplement their sub-par wages with local and federal welfare programs. Wal-mart, encourages their employees to apply for partial assistance and food stamps; that's really improving the community alright.

Vs no walmart, no job, and higher cost for food locally?

Don't buy into the anti-walmart propaganda pushed by the pro-union left. They provide jobs (at minimum wage, but still, they're jobs) and cheap food and goods for low income families.

I'm sure you'd rather force everyone to shop at whole foods? Some people cannot afford luxury, and depriving them of a low cost option is no different than taking food away.

Walmart is also the largest private purchaser of prescription drugs, and their negotiations with drug companies have helped those costs as well.

You could, of course, raise wages, force employers to offer benefits, make everyone join a union, whatever. But when the employer ends up having to fire people because their employees are now more expensive the guy who got laid off is going to feel pretty shitty.

Meanwhile Walmart could also raise prices to pay for those wages, but then the same poor people they employ would now have a higher cost of living because they also shop at Walmart so in the end what has been gained?

This is what they call basic economics, it isn't that complex.

And sure, maybe some walmart employees need government assistance, so what? That is why the programs exist.

Next time you think Walmart is evil and should be stopped, ask someone who is unemployed, ask someone homeless. Ask them if they think Walmart should open a new store in the area.

It may be all the rage for college kids living off Dad's hard work to decry the foul practices of Walmart, but the unemployed guy who just wants to feed his family would just assume get a job there if he could.

[Latrinsorm]

This is what they call basic economics, it isn't that complex.And if anything can paint a comprehensive and accurate picture of an extraordinarily complex situation, it's basic science.

[BigWorm]

It's disingenuous to think that anyone arrives at their place in life without a lot of luck (good and bad) and factors far outside their control.

[Paradii]

Vs no walmart, no job, and higher cost for food locally?

Don't buy into the anti-walmart propaganda pushed by the pro-union left. They provide jobs (at minimum wage, but still, they're jobs) and cheap food and goods for low income families.

I'm sure you'd rather force everyone to shop at whole foods? Some people cannot afford luxury, and depriving them of a low cost option is no different than taking food away.

Walmart is also the largest private purchaser of prescription drugs, and their negotiations with drug companies have helped those costs as well.

You could, of course, raise wages, force employers to offer benefits, make everyone join a union, whatever. But when the employer ends up having to fire people because their employees are now more expensive the guy who got laid off is going to feel pretty shitty.

Meanwhile Walmart could also raise prices to pay for those wages, but then the same poor people they employ would now have a higher cost of living because they also shop at Walmart so in the end what has been gained?

This is what they call basic economics, it isn't that complex.

And sure, maybe some walmart employees need government assistance, so what? That is why the programs exist.

Next time you think Walmart is evil and should be stopped, ask someone who is unemployed, ask someone homeless. Ask them if they think Walmart should open a new store in the area.

It may be all the rage for college kids living off Dad's hard work to decry the foul practices of Walmart, but the unemployed guy who just wants to feed his family would just assume get a job there if he could.


And ask someone who runs or works at a smaller grocery store, shoe store, hardware store, ect ect if they want to be unemployed when the wal-mart drives their store out of business.

[Danical]

Vs no walmart, no job, and higher cost for food locally?

Don't buy into the anti-walmart propaganda pushed by the pro-union left. They provide jobs (at minimum wage, but still, they're jobs) and cheap food and goods for low income families.

I'm sure you'd rather force everyone to shop at whole foods? Some people cannot afford luxury, and depriving them of a low cost option is no different than taking food away.

Walmart is also the largest private purchaser of prescription drugs, and their negotiations with drug companies have helped those costs as well.

You could, of course, raise wages, force employers to offer benefits, make everyone join a union, whatever. But when the employer ends up having to fire people because their employees are now more expensive the guy who got laid off is going to feel pretty shitty.

Meanwhile Walmart could also raise prices to pay for those wages, but then the same poor people they employ would now have a higher cost of living because they also shop at Walmart so in the end what has been gained?

This is what they call basic economics, it isn't that complex.

And sure, maybe some walmart employees need government assistance, so what? That is why the programs exist.

Next time you think Walmart is evil and should be stopped, ask someone who is unemployed, ask someone homeless. Ask them if they think Walmart should open a new store in the area.

It may be all the rage for college kids living off Dad's hard work to decry the foul practices of Walmart, but the unemployed guy who just wants to feed his family would just assume get a job there if he could.

I think you would benefit from reading Nelson Lichtenstein's The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created A Brave New World Of Business if you're actually interested in understanding Wal-Mart. He's a Labor Historian and one of the foremost researchers on Wal-Mart and Post-WWII Labor/Economics History.

[Androidpk]

Considering 4 out of 10 of the richest people in the US are Waltons, I find it very hard to believe that Walmart couldn't raise their wages without negatively effecting their prices. Just saying.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You guys make it sound like Wal-mart is evil.

Who here hasn't bought something from Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart figured out a business model that works for them. I wish I had thought of it! I don't see the linkage to unemployed or government assistance myself, but I guess wal-mart could come to a small town, take over, then run all the other business out of business, and then kill the town. Then have to sell their store and term everyone. Doesn't sound like a good business model, but hey if you guys say it's ruining America you must be right!

I personally like lower prices and convenience.

[Stretch]

Considering 4 out of 10 of the richest people in the US are Waltons, I find it very hard to believe that Walmart couldn't raise their wages without negatively effecting their prices. Just saying.

Really?

[Parkbandit]

Considering 4 out of 10 of the richest people in the US are Waltons, I find it very hard to believe that Walmart couldn't raise their wages without negatively effecting their prices. Just saying.

So, they should just artificially inflate employees wages because they are rich?

Even before the recession, Walmart has not had a problem filling their open employment opportunities. Wonder why that is? All I hear is they are evil people who force their employees on welfare, foodstamps and don't pay them well or offer health insurance.

[crb]

And ask someone who runs or works at a smaller grocery store, shoe store, hardware store, ect ect if they want to be unemployed when the wal-mart drives their store out of business.

They can't get a job at Walmart?

I get it, you're probably socialist, maybe you don't realize you are, but obviously you don't favor capitalism or a free market here.

I really don't care if a company that cannot innovate to compete fails, and I don't care when their employees lose their jobs.

I don't think our economy, our standard of living, or our civilization would be best served if we subsidized failure while punishing success.

That is basically what you're asking for, you want to subsidize failure and punish success.

You want to protect Tweak's Coffee, which tastes like shit, over Horbucks coffee, which tastes good. You want to take Rearden Metal from the inventor and give it to Orren Boyle.

As a society we have a responsibility to help those who are temporarily unemployed by economic progress to find new work, to help them train for other jobs if possible, but we do not, and should not, save the business that provides their jobs if it cannot compete on it's own.

[crb]

Considering 4 out of 10 of the richest people in the US are Waltons, I find it very hard to believe that Walmart couldn't raise their wages without negatively effecting their prices. Just saying.

The Walton's you refer to are that wealthy on paper through their holding of Walmart stock which they inherited. A few of them additionally made further investments in companies such as First Solar, and so made even more money.

The money you pay Walmart when you buy a loaf of bread does not go to them directly. It only helps them through a function of them being shareholders, along with all the other millions of shareholders, including large institutional pension funds, which make the Waltons look like beggars. Walmarts dividend yield is 2%, so, if they cut that, and stopped payment to all shareholders (of it's 200 billion market cap) they could, technically raise wages slightly. Of course their share price would suffer, dragging down their market cap, which would hinder their ability to raise capital, if necessary, in the future, through additional stock offerings. And any employee that had stock in the company (which is going to be a lot of employees) would of course suffer directly from the lower stock price.

Walmart pays approximately 1.0422 billion a year in dividends. With 2,100,000 employees they could pay each one just about an extra $9 a week. That isn't going to cover higher wages and benefits that you'd apparently want.

Valerie Jarrett is rich, couldn't she have lowered the rent on her Chicago slums?

[Apotheosis]

welcome to the bush-obama recession.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think our economy, our standard of living, or our civilization would be best served if we subsidized failure while punishing success.And you would think wrong. A civilization tramples its destitute at its own peril - it does not matter which companies achieve financial "success" or "failure", it matters how they achieve it. You're "basically asking" to roll back each blood-soaked inch of progress America has made in business and labor since The Jungle.

[radamanthys]

And you would think wrong. A civilization tramples its destitute at its own peril - it does not matter which companies achieve financial "success" or "failure", it matters how they achieve it. You're "basically asking" to roll back each blood-soaked inch of progress America has made in business and labor since The Jungle.

Ah. The magic words. Progress. Progress to where? Your 'idea' of business... where is it "progressing" to?

What's the goal?

[Danical]

Ah. The magic words. Progress. Progress to where? Your 'idea' of business... where is it "progressing" to?

What's the goal?

Did you not get The Jungle reference?

[Latrinsorm]

To put it explicitly, progress away from the system where a business and/or owner holds all the power. They simply cannot be trusted with it: slavery, child labor, exploitation of all kinds, discrimination of all kinds, unsafe or actively dangerous working conditions, monopolies, trusts, cartels, and so on. There are two other bodies that can be (and have been, in this country) empowered to reliably deal with such problems: the workers and the government.

As such, the "goal" is balance. Exactly like the judicial system, exactly like the federal government, human systems function most properly when at odds with other equally powered human systems. Whether this power comes through reasoned legislation, regulation, restriction, or on the bloody edge of a bayonet is fundamentally up to those with power.

This is a temporary solution, as all human solutions are. The long-term goal is a world without scarcity, but until science can provide that, we must pursue the least intolerable solution.

[Paradii]

They can't get a job at Walmart?

I get it, you're probably socialist, maybe you don't realize you are, but obviously you don't favor capitalism or a free market here.

I really don't care if a company that cannot innovate to compete fails, and I don't care when their employees lose their jobs.

I don't think our economy, our standard of living, or our civilization would be best served if we subsidized failure while punishing success.

That is basically what you're asking for, you want to subsidize failure and punish success.

You want to protect Tweak's Coffee, which tastes like shit, over Horbucks coffee, which tastes good. You want to take Rearden Metal from the inventor and give it to Orren Boyle.

As a society we have a responsibility to help those who are temporarily unemployed by economic progress to find new work, to help them train for other jobs if possible, but we do not, and should not, save the business that provides their jobs if it cannot compete on it's own.

CRB, Atlas Shrugged was a terrible book. Stop living your life by it.

Edit: I didn't even read the rearden comment before I posted that either.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't see the linkage to unemployed or government assistance myself, but I guess wal-mart could come to a small town, take over, then run all the other business out of business, and then kill the town. Then have to sell their store and term everyone. Doesn't sound like a good business model, but hey if you guys say it's ruining America you must be right!

Where have you been for like ... the last decade?


We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.2 million, or 1.3 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.

Here (http://ideas.repec.org/p/irv/wpaper/060711.html)

Biased, but utilizes government provided numbers .... here (http://walmartwatch.com/img/documents/brennan_center.pdf).

While Walmart's impact on unemployment rates remains negligible (meaning movement in a positive or negative direction is a wash or so small in either direction that the argument is irrelevant) the true impact is on wages.

Walmart likes to hourly wage numbers out to the media that are completely false. While the "averages" are true, the real numbers are not. True in that if you include the management salaries the "averages" reflect a number on par with retail industry standards. Remove those management salaries and you have the truth ... poverty level income.

At it's face, local impacts on unemployment rates are irrelevant. National impact is wholly relevant. You know, forcing suppliers to lower their costs by closing down US manufacturing facilities and moving them south or across the ocean.

In a nutshell, Walmart moves in with a global supply chain that is able to obtain, ship, and sell goods at a price far lower than the local retailers are able to compete with. While the employment initially rises on the local level (though average hourly pay drops), in time those numbers drop back down to pre-launch numbers as local retailers begin to go out of business ... because they don't have access to the same low cost supply network.

As for your inability to discern a link between Walmart and government assistance .... the same question is posed. Where have you been for the last decade?


Wal-Mart increases Medicaid expenditures by an average of $898 per employee


For the Medicaid study, economist Michael Hicks, a professor at the Air Force Institute of Technology, examined the impact of Wal-Mart on government aid programs. According to the study, Medicaid expenditures increase by 1.5% for every 1% that the market share of Wal-Mart increases in a state. The study also found government cash aid to families decreases by 3.3% for every 1% that the market share of Wal-Mart increases in a state. The studies also indicate that Wal-Mart decreases wages in the communities in which it operates

Here (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33206.php)

[Tsa`ah]

I love the moral justification by the Republicans in this article.

" He has noticed crowds of midnight shoppers once a month when benefits get renewed. While policy analysts, spotting similar crowds nationwide, have called them a sign of increased hunger, he sees idleness. “Generally, if you’re up at that hour and not working, what are you into?” he said."

I don't know, douche? Getting food? Maybe you shouldn't be judging people when you are on the program yourself.

I had the same thought ... what a fucking douche.

The wife and I had no choice but to attempt state aid for our first child as we were both still in college. We were denied of course, but we were eligible for the state's WIC program (vouchers for specific approved foods).

We were so ashamed by the necessity for any kind of government aid that we did our shopping at late hours when most people were sleeping. It was also not very logical to do our shopping whenever benefits were given out each month ... because the crowds on those days were unmanageable during the day.

[Parkbandit]

Where have you been for like ... the last decade?



Here (http://ideas.repec.org/p/irv/wpaper/060711.html)

Biased, but utilizes government provided numbers .... here (http://walmartwatch.com/img/documents/brennan_center.pdf).

While Walmart's impact on unemployment rates remains negligible (meaning movement in a positive or negative direction is a wash or so small in either direction that the argument is irrelevant) the true impact is on wages.

Walmart likes to hourly wage numbers out to the media that are completely false. While the "averages" are true, the real numbers are not. True in that if you include the management salaries the "averages" reflect a number on par with retail industry standards. Remove those management salaries and you have the truth ... poverty level income.

At it's face, local impacts on unemployment rates are irrelevant. National impact is wholly relevant. You know, forcing suppliers to lower their costs by closing down US manufacturing facilities and moving them south or across the ocean.

In a nutshell, Walmart moves in with a global supply chain that is able to obtain, ship, and sell goods at a price far lower than the local retailers are able to compete with. While the employment initially rises on the local level (though average hourly pay drops), in time those numbers drop back down to pre-launch numbers as local retailers begin to go out of business ... because they don't have access to the same low cost supply network.

As for your inability to discern a link between Walmart and government assistance .... the same question is posed. Where have you been for the last decade?





Here (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33206.php)

So wait.. when I go to a local shop to get a widget.. I spend say $50. Walmart moves in.. takes over the local shopping experience.. doesn't affect employment or unemployment (your link.. which was funny considering it's a site specifically created to destroy Walmart).. and now I pay $40 for that same widget.

And this is bad how again?

[Tsa`ah]

Did you not read my post?

[crb]

And you would think wrong. A civilization tramples its destitute at its own peril - it does not matter which companies achieve financial "success" or "failure", it matters how they achieve it. You're "basically asking" to roll back each blood-soaked inch of progress America has made in business and labor since The Jungle.

One thing you don't get is the business owner does not wish the employee to be destitute.

Who do you think the business owner's customers are?

You need people to be able to afford to buy your product. What the business owner really wants is the other business owners in his competitive space to be destitute, but the unwashed masses, he wants them to be flush with cash.

This whole class warfare argument is tired and really, quite old. Marx was wrong, get over it.

[Geshron]

I do not understand how else you expect me to feed my bastard kids. Do you know how much I will get made fun of at the unemployment office if I show up in OLD Jordans, for that matter? My cash only job is for things like weed, and dice. HELLO?!

[Tsa`ah]

One thing you don't get is the business owner does not wish the employee to be destitute.

Who do you think the business owner's customers are?

You need people to be able to afford to buy your product. What the business owner really wants is the other business owners in his competitive space to be destitute, but the unwashed masses, he wants them to be flush with cash.

This whole class warfare argument is tired and really, quite old. Marx was wrong, get over it.

The idea employer with an ounce of ethics sure ... but we're not talking about the idea employer, let alone an employer with any ethics other than what they are forced to observe (and often fail at that).

[Sean of the Thread]

My buddy gets $1600 a month in medical from the Corps. The most food stamps I've ever gotten was a one time $800 and I didn't even apply for it. I stretched that $800 out for a year.

The only complaint I have about the program is how people really fucking abuse it. They should limit what you're able to purchase more.

[crb]

The idea employer with an ounce of ethics sure ... but we're not talking about the idea employer, let alone an employer with any ethics other than what they are forced to observe (and often fail at that).

It isn't ethics, it is self interest.

The business owner wants more money, so he wants more customers, who will pay more money, for the goods he sells or the service he provides.

The business owner can achieve this in a few different ways.

1. A monopoly - bad capitalism, something I do not support, something no true capitalist should. The one area where government needs to be able to intervene.

2. Government meddling. Instead of competing in the marketplace get the government (ya lobbying & compaign donations) to pass laws or regulations to make it so you don't need to compete as much. AKA rent seeking behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking). Kinda still a monopoly, but one created because of, not in spite of, government regulation.

3. Compete and win in the free market by offering a better value. However, because the market is free and has choice, it requires that your customers have discretionary funds at their disposal.

It has nothing to do with ethics really, it is all profit motive. You can't sell a product if people can't afford to buy it.

Ask any business owner if they'd rather unemployment be high or low, household equity be high or low, consumer credit be available or stingy.

A successful middleclass is in the direct personal interest of a business owner. Any accusation that business owners want to keep the proles down is just backwards, at least, the capitalist free market business owners. The statist business owners mentioned in example 2 above, don't really care so much, though they pretend to.

[Parkbandit]

Did you not read my post?

To be honest.. I got to the walmartsucksass.com source you cited and pretty much lost interest in your stupidity.

[Tsa`ah]

It isn't ethics, it is self interest.

The business owner wants more money, so he wants more customers, who will pay more money, for the goods he sells or the service he provides.

The business owner can achieve this in a few different ways.

1. A monopoly - bad capitalism, something I do not support, something no true capitalist should. The one area where government needs to be able to intervene.



The post you composed, that I responded to, implied ethics. Sorry you missed that in your own post.

None the less, you should have stopped at 1, because that is exactly what Walmart brings to local economies ... a monopoly.


To be honest.. I got to the walmartsucksass.com source you cited and pretty much lost interest in your stupidity.

So you did not read the post ... and yet you still chose to respond to it with the usual inability to comprehend.

[Parkbandit]

The post you composed, that I responded to, implied ethics. Sorry you missed that in your own post.

None the less, you should have stopped at 1, because that is exactly what Walmart brings to local economies ... a monopoly.

I think Target, Ace, Home Depot, Publix, and a host of other stores on the same street as our local Walmart would disagree.

You know what the definition of a monopoly is... right? Let me know if I have to explain this to you.




So you did not read the post ... and yet you still chose to respond to it with the usual inability to comprehend.

Inability to comprehend doesn't equate to the general stupidity it would take to read and believe anything you post.

[Sean of the Thread]

Hey I like ACE because they have a post office in side with no wait.

[Tsa`ah]

I think Target, Ace, Home Depot, Publix, and a host of other stores on the same street as our local Walmart would disagree.

You know what the definition of a monopoly is... right? Let me know if I have to explain this to you.

The limited scope of your perception is at times nothing more than amazing.

Were all the world an urban area you would be correct. Walmart is incapable of completely destroying urban economies and setting up a monopoly by default.

However, all the world is not an urban area. Not even a quarter of the world is an urban area.

A domino effect occurs when Walmart moves into smaller rural communities. You know, those communities that don't have big box retailers on every corner.

When Walmart sets up shop in these communities, businesses directly in their path go under. The hardware store, the small auto shop that sells general parts and does light automotive servicing, the florist, the small grocer. These small businesses go under .... at the same time small businesses in surrounding communites start to go under. People that run to the walmart 20 miles away for the cheaper clothes and oil changes that they couldn't get in their town start to do all of their other shopping at walmart to conserve time and fuel. After all ... they had to go to Walmart anyway, because their usual stop in that trip went out of business. And hey, Walmart is also a grocery store .... it's a one stop shop of saving and time now.

No, your scope of perception is severely limited. The world is not Tampa, and neither are the thousands of small communities far removed from it.


Inability to comprehend doesn't equate to the general stupidity it would take to read and believe anything you post.

Your incessant need to respond to them denotes something else entirely.

[Sean of the Thread]

That's so not the case in Tampa Bay.

And yeah the Tampa Bay area is one of the largest metros in the country so go pick your corn and cry or something.

[Tsa`ah]

That's so not the case in Tampa Bay.

And yeah the Tampa Bay area is one of the largest metros in the country so go pick your corn and cry or something.

What's not the case in Tampa? That it's not a rural area?

If that's what you're attempting to point out ... I just have to add a "No shit" and it's December, there is no more corn to "pick".

[Sean of the Thread]

I actually misread your post. But yeah wally world ain't suffocating anything around here at any rate. Maybe it does in small town U.S.A.

I actually can't stand going to Walmart because all of the dipshit people especially in the parking lot. I prefer Khol's or Target.

[Parkbandit]

The limited scope of your perception is at times nothing more than amazing.

Were all the world an urban area you would be correct. Walmart is incapable of completely destroying urban economies and setting up a monopoly by default.

However, all the world is not an urban area. Not even a quarter of the world is an urban area.

A domino effect occurs when Walmart moves into smaller rural communities. You know, those communities that don't have big box retailers on every corner.

When Walmart sets up shop in these communities, businesses directly in their path go under. The hardware store, the small auto shop that sells general parts and does light automotive servicing, the florist, the small grocer. These small businesses go under .... at the same time small businesses in surrounding communites start to go under. People that run to the walmart 20 miles away for the cheaper clothes and oil changes that they couldn't get in their town start to do all of their other shopping at walmart to conserve time and fuel. After all ... they had to go to Walmart anyway, because their usual stop in that trip went out of business. And hey, Walmart is also a grocery store .... it's a one stop shop of saving and time now.

No, your scope of perception is severely limited. The world is not Tampa, and neither are the thousands of small communities far removed from it.

Your incessant need to respond to them denotes something else entirely.

I grew up in a town with less than 1500 people.. where the only place to shop was a town with 7000 people 15 miles away. They got a Walmart in town.. put some Mom and Pops out of business.. and they still had other stores there that you could choose to shop with.

So again I ask.. do you not understand what the term "Monopoly" is? Or is 7000 people in a town too big for your stupid point again?

[Sean of the Thread]

My town had a pub, an arcade, the largest sauerkraut factory in the world and a hardware store. One traffic light and a couple churches and one shitty grocery store.

People bitched when a K-MART opened within 25 miles.

So is K-mart the first fuckers of smalltown USA or was it Woolworth?

[Tsa`ah]

I grew up in a town with less than 1500 people.. where the only place to shop was a town with 7000 people 15 miles away. They got a Walmart in town.. put some Mom and Pops out of business.. and they still had other stores there that you could choose to shop with.

So again I ask.. do you not understand what the term "Monopoly" is? Or is 7000 people in a town too big for your stupid point again?

You're only reinforcing my assertion that your scope of perception is severely limited.

Your experience isn't necessarily indicative of the ongoing experiences in small town after small town.

I grew, in large, outside of a town of 4000. A Walmart opened up 15 minutes north, and then one opened up 15 minutes south. There were exactly 7 grocery stores in all of the surrounding communities excluding the larger communities where the Walmarts opened.

In addition there were several smaller businesses ranging from florists all the way to pharmacists.

The only businesses still open 20 years later, hell 2 years after Walmart, are those that don't sell goods.

This also is not indicative of every experience, but it is far more common.


People bitched when a K-MART opened within 25 miles.

So is K-mart the first fuckers of smalltown USA or was it Woolworth?

K-mart didn't get into the "superstore" game until recently. K-mart also didn't pose an immediate threat to smaller businesses simply because the scope of K-marts options were pretty limited.

K-mart also didn't cause that kraught factory to close up shop and move to China. K-mart also didn't destroy the wage base after destroying the local economy and those of surrounding communities.

We had the choice of K-mart or Pamida along with every other small town business. They were able to exist and compete with the box retailers.

[Sean of the Thread]

HEY they're still open and it's delicious!

http://www.greatlakeskraut.com/

However they're protesting trying to have it shut down because of the smell? Dumb.

It smells good anyways.

[radamanthys]

You're only reinforcing my assertion that your scope of perception is severely limited.

Your experience isn't necessarily indicative of the ongoing experiences in small town after small town.

I grew, in large, outside of a town of 4000. A Walmart opened up 15 minutes north, and then one opened up 15 minutes south. There were exactly 7 grocery stores in all of the surrounding communities excluding the larger communities where the Walmarts opened.

In addition there were several smaller businesses ranging from florists all the way to pharmacists.

The only businesses still open 20 years later, hell 2 years after Walmart, are those that don't sell goods.

This also is not indicative of every experience, but it is far more common.



K-mart didn't get into the "superstore" game until recently. K-mart also didn't pose an immediate threat to smaller businesses simply because the scope of K-marts options were pretty limited.

K-mart also didn't cause that kraught factory to close up shop and move to China. K-mart also didn't destroy the wage base after destroying the local economy and those of surrounding communities.

We had the choice of K-mart or Pamida along with every other small town business. They were able to exist and compete with the box retailers.

What do you propose as a solution?

[Tsa`ah]

I don't know ... what do you propose?

I wasn't aware that this was a solution session.

[Sean of the Thread]

Rad's got a point really.

What is the solution to a well run business that sells really affordable crap helping out millions and millions of middle to low income families that otherwise couldn't shop at the local shit store.

Tough shit for mom and pop. It's called free enterprise. Ma Bell was a monopoly. Walmart is not.

[Tsa`ah]

Rad's got a point really.

What is the solution to a well run business that sells really affordable crap helping out millions and millions of middle to low income families that otherwise couldn't shop at the local shit store.

Tough shit for mom and pop. It's called free enterprise. Ma Bell was a monopoly. Walmart is not.

Fair wages, fair business practices.

Unless of course you believe that sub standard wages and continued exporting of our manufacturing sector is at all advantageous to the domestic economy and general well being of the population as whole in the long term.

Ma Bell was a national monopoly that was busted up and is now well on the way of becoming another monopoly. That aside, you can't compare a built in proprietary monopoly to a local retail monopoly.

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't like walmart as stated previously I just think they're not really breaking any laws sadly. America right?

(other than illegal immigrants cleaning the floors and old people at the door that won't leave you the fuck alone.)

[Tsa`ah]

No one was breaking the law when mortgage backed derivatives were being traded like crack either, no one is breaking the law now that the practice is coming back into play full force either.

Doesn't really make it right does it? I mean just because something is legal does in no way imply that it is ethical.

Really, I could shoot your ass for walking across my lawn in some states if I have the required sign posted and could convince the local law enforcement that I felt your presence was threatening.

Just because the action would be legal if the law bought the explanation does in no way make it right.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't find it sad at all and frankly I think Tsa'ah is butt hurt over something rather than thinking rationally. Small towns are ALWAYS on the brink of "shutting down" because they don't have the economy of scale larger towns do by default.

Walmart isn't moving into an area like some evil machine, shutting down mom and pops, lowering wages and pouring salt on lawns. I guarantee they are looking at local economics well in advance of moving to a location, and understanding their profit and loss margins before a shovel is lifted for the first parking lot.

Those jobs Tsa'ah is looking at are entry level and minimum wage for a reason - putting shirts on hangers and cans on shelves isn't hard. Just like McDonald's pays low for the guy running the fry bin isn't exactly going to 2 years of college to do it. Why should Walmart, or any other company or store (even Mom and Pop) pay them more?

My folks own a dog kennel. We have a person who hoses shit out of the dog runs. That's his job. He is in that group of folks you call poverty level income. By your logic, my folks (Mom and Pop run business) should pay the shit hoser more because ethics demand it.

He's a good shit hoser, and my family have taken him in - he comes to our house for Christmas and Thanksgiving, he's a good guy. But his skill set is shit hoser - if he doesn't learn a new skill my folks are not going to pay him more simply because you think they should. If he graduates to shit hoser + weed puller, he may get more money. He may get more money if min wage laws dictate it. But shit hosers are pretty easy to find, as I imagine stockers, greeters, and cashiers are.

[Sean of the Thread]

Are they not for profit?

[crb]

You're only reinforcing my assertion that your scope of perception is severely limited.

Your experience isn't necessarily indicative of the ongoing experiences in small town after small town.

I grew, in large, outside of a town of 4000. A Walmart opened up 15 minutes north, and then one opened up 15 minutes south. There were exactly 7 grocery stores in all of the surrounding communities excluding the larger communities where the Walmarts opened.

In addition there were several smaller businesses ranging from florists all the way to pharmacists.

The only businesses still open 20 years later, hell 2 years after Walmart, are those that don't sell goods.

This also is not indicative of every experience, but it is far more common.



K-mart didn't get into the "superstore" game until recently. K-mart also didn't pose an immediate threat to smaller businesses simply because the scope of K-marts options were pretty limited.

K-mart also didn't cause that kraught factory to close up shop and move to China. K-mart also didn't destroy the wage base after destroying the local economy and those of surrounding communities.

We had the choice of K-mart or Pamida along with every other small town business. They were able to exist and compete with the box retailers.

Don't forget the Internet and those brown bastards at UPS... fuckers have put tons of moms and pops out of business. We gotta shut it down!

Seriously though, our national economy has progressively moved to be more service based through the years, this is not because of Walmart. This is because of increases in productivity, progress of civilization. The Internet has also killed more local businesses than Walmart ever could. Google killed the yellowpages. Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, how many have they killed?


Mom and pop shops can still compete against Walmart, they just need to offer better quality products (not hard) and better service (not hard) or a bigger selection (not hard). Walmart has a bunch of cheap, cheaply made, products, and typically limited selection.

I grew up in a small town too, when I was a kid it had 1 stoplight, now they have about 7 I think. Walmart moved in after I left, but everyone rejoiced. Prior to walmart, if you wanted to buy a lot of products, you had to drive an hour down the freeway to a bigger city, now you could buy them locally.

Did local businesses close? Ya sure, but they close all the time, most small businesses fail, especially first try retail outlets. Other ones have succeeded and thrived. The original grocery store in the town is a chain, though, not nearly as big as Walmart, a local guy built a garage-sized fruit & meat market across the street. Open air kinda deal. Higher quality produce, he has thrived, his building has quadrupled in size in the past 20 years, and when Walmart moved in the grocery store lost business, but this guy is still doing well.

The economy of the town has actually significantly improved since Walmart opened.

[Parkbandit]

You're only reinforcing my assertion that your scope of perception is severely limited.

Your experience isn't necessarily indicative of the ongoing experiences in small town after small town.

I grew, in large, outside of a town of 4000. A Walmart opened up 15 minutes north, and then one opened up 15 minutes south. There were exactly 7 grocery stores in all of the surrounding communities excluding the larger communities where the Walmarts opened.

In addition there were several smaller businesses ranging from florists all the way to pharmacists.

The only businesses still open 20 years later, hell 2 years after Walmart, are those that don't sell goods.

This also is not indicative of every experience, but it is far more common.

Gotcha. So your experience growing up in a small community of 4000 is more typical than me growing up in a similar community and seeing something different. Do you want to go ahead and give me the name of that community that Walmart has a monopoly in so I can point out the other stores there that makes you look stupid.. or do you want to just drop it?

Again, if you need help with the difficult term of "Monopoly", I'll be happy to help. Just let me know.


K-mart didn't get into the "superstore" game until recently. K-mart also didn't pose an immediate threat to smaller businesses simply because the scope of K-marts options were pretty limited.


So.. Kmart opening up a Superstore in 1991 is recent.. but Walmart opening up their first Supercenter in 1988 is not? Sounds to me like either you are ignorant on the history of the two companies.. or your Walmartrage is making you post stupid and false things. Which one is it?



K-mart also didn't cause that kraught factory to close up shop and move to China. K-mart also didn't destroy the wage base after destroying the local economy and those of surrounding communities.

We had the choice of K-mart or Pamida along with every other small town business. They were able to exist and compete with the box retailers.

Didn't K-Mart go bankrupt?

I know.. Walmart is bad and no matter what anyone says, they are evil.

You are funny.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are they not for profit?

We do work with several charities and rescue organizations, but it isn't free. For instance we might charge a regular client $20 a day for a kennel run, and we'd charge the rescue folks $2 and they provide the food. Water, heating, cooling and electricity ain't free.

They are a for profit company and do a lot for the local rescue orgs (even went to LA after Katrina and brought back dozens of dogs), but it is their living.

[Parkbandit]

I grew up in a small town too, when I was a kid it had 1 stoplight, now they have about 7 I think. Walmart moved in after I left, but everyone rejoiced. Prior to walmart, if you wanted to buy a lot of products, you had to drive an hour down the freeway to a bigger city, now you could buy them locally.

Did local businesses close? Ya sure, but they close all the time, most small businesses fail, especially first try retail outlets. Other ones have succeeded and thrived. The original grocery store in the town is a chain, though, not nearly as big as Walmart, a local guy built a garage-sized fruit & meat market across the street. Open air kinda deal. Higher quality produce, he has thrived, his building has quadrupled in size in the past 20 years, and when Walmart moved in the grocery store lost business, but this guy is still doing well.


You don't know what you are talking about. Tsa'ah has already stated that Walmart is a monopoly and if you don't agree, then your perception is severely limited because he knows.

There is a general consensus that Walmart is evil. Either get on board with this fact or you might just be a racist slave owner.

OR HITLER!

[Tsa`ah]

I don't find it sad at all and frankly I think Tsa'ah is butt hurt over something rather than thinking rationally. Small towns are ALWAYS on the brink of "shutting down" because they don't have the economy of scale larger towns do by default.

Family run businesses that have been in operation for decades that didn't shut down until a Walmart rolled into the are seem to indicate the opposite.


Walmart isn't moving into an area like some evil machine, shutting down mom and pops, lowering wages and pouring salt on lawns. I guarantee they are looking at local economics well in advance of moving to a location, and understanding their profit and loss margins before a shovel is lifted for the first parking lot.

Walmarts to do not roll into areas where the economy is on the "verge". They move into areas with established and sustainable businesses ... and shut them down.


Those jobs Tsa'ah is looking at are entry level and minimum wage for a reason - putting shirts on hangers and cans on shelves isn't hard. Just like McDonald's pays low for the guy running the fry bin isn't exactly going to 2 years of college to do it. Why should Walmart, or any other company or store (even Mom and Pop) pay them more?

You didn't bother following the links posted did you. The links that demonstrate Walmart paying wages far below the competition. Other stores and outlets do pay them more. That's what you're missing or refusing to accept.


My folks own a dog kennel. We have a person who hoses shit out of the dog runs. That's his job. He is in that group of folks you call poverty level income. By your logic, my folks (Mom and Pop run business) should pay the shit hoser more because ethics demand it.

Umm ... no. What you're missing here is that if Walmart offered a kennel service they would run your folks out of business because they would undercut your prices to the point that you couldn't compete, and in turn they would hire a bunch of guys, pay them less and help them get on medicaid.


He's a good shit hoser, and my family have taken him in - he comes to our house for Christmas and Thanksgiving, he's a good guy. But his skill set is shit hoser - if he doesn't learn a new skill my folks are not going to pay him more simply because you think they should. If he graduates to shit hoser + weed puller, he may get more money. He may get more money if min wage laws dictate it. But shit hosers are pretty easy to find, as I imagine stockers, greeters, and cashiers are.

Walmart would not only hire the guy after your folks went under, they would also pay him less, not give him the opportunity to pull weeds ... keep him as part time and he would have no other option. Certainly the managers aren't going to have him over for the holidays either.

[Tsa`ah]

Don't forget the Internet and those brown bastards at UPS... fuckers have put tons of moms and pops out of business. We gotta shut it down!

Fed ex and UPS pay on par with the postal service, so I fail to see the relevance in that comment.

The internet has been a boom for small businesses with a niche, and has created jobs and wealth. So again, failing to see the relevance with your line of response so far.


Seriously though, our national economy has progressively moved to be more service based through the years, this is not because of Walmart. This is because of increases in productivity, progress of civilization. The Internet has also killed more local businesses than Walmart ever could. Google killed the yellowpages. Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, how many have they killed?

Our economy has moved to add a larger sustainable service based industry due to improved technology, larger population, and at one time ... improved education.

The myth you are attempting to perpetuate is that the manufacturing/labor sector moving away is a natural phenomenon ... and it's not.

India had a nearly non-existent manufacturing sector, let alone a service sector. They seemed to have skipped a move in your proposed scenario.


Mom and pop shops can still compete against Walmart, they just need to offer better quality products (not hard) and better service (not hard) or a bigger selection (not hard). Walmart has a bunch of cheap, cheaply made, products, and typically limited selection.

This is also a falacy. In a price driven economy quality is a fleeting thought. I can buy these jeans for 50 bucks, or I can go to walmart and by another brand for 20 bucks. Never mind that in the long term I'll spend 10 more dollars, excluding the cost of time and travel, because in the time it takes me to wear out a 50 dollar pair of jeans I will have worn out 3 pair of 20 dollar jeans.

Walmart feeds on the short sighted and budget constricted. Walmart also, as pointed out, makes it impossible for the little guy to compete simply because the little guy does not have access to a comparable or even competitive supply chain. Let alone billions in capitol.

Right now if I wanted to open up a hardware store within driving distance of a Walmart, every bank in the country would laugh me out of the lobby. Imagine what they're doing to the Mom and Pops struggling under the shadow of a Walmart ... especially if they want to go with your advice. They already offer better service and product ... offering a wider selection of it isn't going to change things.


I grew up in a small town too, when I was a kid it had 1 stoplight, now they have about 7 I think. Walmart moved in after I left, but everyone rejoiced. Prior to walmart, if you wanted to buy a lot of products, you had to drive an hour down the freeway to a bigger city, now you could buy them locally.

Did local businesses close? Ya sure, but they close all the time, most small businesses fail, especially first try retail outlets. Other ones have succeeded and thrived. The original grocery store in the town is a chain, though, not nearly as big as Walmart, a local guy built a garage-sized fruit & meat market across the street. Open air kinda deal. Higher quality produce, he has thrived, his building has quadrupled in size in the past 20 years, and when Walmart moved in the grocery store lost business, but this guy is still doing well.

The economy of the town has actually significantly improved since Walmart opened.

I find it hard to believe, actually no, I don't believe your small town economy improved because of Walmart. Aside from that, it is obvious you didn't read any of my prior posts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done here. The links you posted, from the watchwalmart website that are bullet points and compare walmart nationally to new york exclusively on some elements and not on others, may be a little biased.

I read through your painful pawings at forming an argument and googling skilz at maximum warp speed - keep tell me and everyone else how we don't read your posts. Other than anti-walmart sites and your own anecdotal offerings, you've said nothing except Walmart r bad, beware big business.

My hometown of 1400 rural farmers and old farts has a walmart and they fucking love it. I just can't believe that cowboy boot store went under because of Walmart. Or the "Mason Jar" store. Or the old fashioned candy store.

I bet you 1) own a mac (cause Microsoft R BAD!), 2) own some sort of hemp clothing (it breaths so much better than capitalist cotton!) 3) own patchouli oil (so you don't have to smell the stench of capitalist pigs!) 4) own lots of flannel (I am rugged, FU society) 5) believe in socialism (Marx was the man!)

Now do everyone a favor, pull down your tin foil hat, load the 30-30 and get back in the cabin with the rest of your amish family.

[CrystalTears]

Hey hey HEY! Why lump him with Mac users? :(

By the way, flannel is awesome to sleep on in the winter. I don't like your bets at all.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done here. The links you posted, from the watchwalmart website that are bullet points and compare walmart nationally to new york exclusively on some elements and not on others, may be a little biased.

I read through your painful pawings at forming an argument and googling skilz at maximum warp speed - keep tell me and everyone else how we don't read your posts. Other than anti-walmart sites and your own anecdotal offerings, you've said nothing except Walmart r bad, beware big business.

My hometown of 1400 rural farmers and old farts has a walmart and they fucking love it. I just can't believe that cowboy boot store went under because of Walmart. Or the "Mason Jar" store. Or the old fashioned candy store.

I bet you 1) own a mac (cause Microsoft R BAD!), 2) own some sort of hemp clothing (it breaths so much better than capitalist cotton!) 3) own patchouli oil (so you don't have to smell the stench of capitalist pigs!) 4) own lots of flannel (I am rugged, FU society) 5) believe in socialism (Marx was the man!)

Now do everyone a favor, pull down your tin foil hat, load the 30-30 and get back in the cabin with the rest of your amish family.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t218/cowboybum/end.gif

[Latrinsorm]

One thing you don't get is the business owner does not wish the employee to be destitute.

Who do you think the business owner's customers are?

You need people to be able to afford to buy your product. What the business owner really wants is the other business owners in his competitive space to be destitute, but the unwashed masses, he wants them to be flush with cash.Resonate some understanding: the words I used were "a civilization", not "a business owner" or "a group of business owners".
This whole class warfare argument is tired and really, quite old. Marx was wrong, get over it.It has nothing to do with "class warfare" or Marx. We tried success by any means necessary in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It was a national catastrophe. Europe and its copycats had similar problems for similar reasons and enjoyed decades of bloody Marxist revolution - why do you think that was?

[Latrinsorm]

Mom and pop shops can still compete against Walmart, they just need to offer better quality products (not hard) and better service (not hard) or a bigger selection (not hard).I challenge you to find a single mom and pop shop that offers a bigger selection than walmart.com, which now offers site-to-store functionality. I'm also pretty sure the "better quality" claim is bunk, but I'm not sure how to address it quantitatively, so we'll stick with the "bigger selection" claim.

[Parkbandit]

I challenge you to find a single mom and pop shop that offers a bigger selection than walmart.com, which now offers site-to-store functionality. I'm also pretty sure the "better quality" claim is bunk, but I'm not sure how to address it quantitatively, so we'll stick with the "bigger selection" claim.

There are plenty of examples of bigger selections:

There is a wine store in Tampa that carries far more wine and beer than Walmart does.

There is a butcher shop in Tampa that carries far more cuts of meat than Walmart does. They also have homemade garlic rolls that kick ass.

There is a paintball supply store that offers a far greater selection of paintball gear than Walmart carries.

Those are 3 examples right off the top of my head.. I'm certain I can find more if you require such for your "challenge".

[radamanthys]

Yea, this thread has turned into "capitalism is bad".

[Cephalopod]

I used to love getting the fried chicken at Walmart when I lived in Florida. True story.

[Latrinsorm]

There are plenty of examples of bigger selections:

There is a wine store in Tampa that carries far more wine and beer than Walmart does.

There is a butcher shop in Tampa that carries far more cuts of meat than Walmart does. They also have homemade garlic rolls that kick ass.

There is a paintball supply store that offers a far greater selection of paintball gear than Walmart carries.

Those are 3 examples right off the top of my head.. I'm certain I can find more if you require such for your "challenge".And if I or crb had said "bigger only in regards to a more specific selection", that would be relevant.

[Parkbandit]

And if I or crb had said "bigger only in regards to a more specific selection", that would be relevant.

Actually, this was your post:


I challenge you to find a single mom and pop shop that offers a bigger selection than walmart.com, which now offers site-to-store functionality. I'm also pretty sure the "better quality" claim is bunk, but I'm not sure how to address it quantitatively, so we'll stick with the "bigger selection" claim.


Had you specified that you were talking about one store having more selections than everything Walmart carries, then you would have a point, albeit it a dumb one. But I live in the real world, Kid... I know that there are other stores where I can get better items and have a bigger selection of items. What makes Walmart so successful is that they offer a good selection of just about anything under one roof.

I know you are just spouting hatred for Walmart because that's the party line.. but let's be honest, it's a really stupid line to be toeing.

[Latrinsorm]

Pretty much everyone could stand a little more toeing up to the Bull Moose Party line, or at least a little more toeing the "read a history book" line.

[Tsa`ah]

Yeah, I'm pretty much done here. The links you posted, from the watchwalmart website that are bullet points and compare walmart nationally to new york exclusively on some elements and not on others, may be a little biased.

Of course you're done here ... you took one submitted source out of how many and cried about the one source ... neglecting to look into the others that were commissioned by Walmart of all entities and were damning of Walmart of all entities.


I read through your painful pawings at forming an argument and googling skilz at maximum warp speed - keep tell me and everyone else how we don't read your posts. Other than anti-walmart sites and your own anecdotal offerings, you've said nothing except Walmart r bad, beware big business.

It's nice to know that when you've got nothing ... you resort to the same tired insults that get rehashed and reused by 10 or so other people ... way to be classy guy. Let's also overlook that you have done exactly what you accuse me off.


My hometown of 1400 rural farmers and old farts has a walmart and they fucking love it. I just can't believe that cowboy boot store went under because of Walmart. Or the "Mason Jar" store. Or the old fashioned candy store.

See what I mean? The difference is that I point out that my observations are anecdotal ... I do however make the attempt to justify them with data.


I bet you 1) own a mac (cause Microsoft R BAD!),
Never have and hope I never will.

2) own some sort of hemp clothing (it breaths so much better than capitalist cotton)
Haven't touched anything hemp related since my wife's first pregnancy.

3) own patchouli oil (so you don't have to smell the stench of capitalist pigs!)
Not even sure what it is, so it's safe to say no.

4) own lots of flannel (I am rugged, FU society)
Now, just like most of your arguments and sources, you're not making any sense. If I were opposed to "capitalistic cotton" (which I'm fond of) why would I wear a material made from it? But no, The only time I have ever owned flannel was during a brief 3 month period in the early 90s when the Seattle/grunge sound was big (admittedly I still love it ... the music). I quickly realized that a guy who loves inclimate weather shouldn't wear flannel in the summer. I do happen to own quite a bit of denim and cotton t-shirts though.

5) believe in socialism (Marx was the man!)
I do happen to believe in socialism. Just as I believe in capitalism and democracy. The three are not immiscible by any means ... though a balance has to be attained. We have all three now, but instead of forming a healthy and mutually beneficial emulsion, we have extreme imbalances.

I do not believe in pure socialism (though there isn't really such a thing as pure socialism) nor do I believe in unfettered capitalism. Capitalism usually tosses ethics out the window and runs roughshod over the population ... and if unchecked will develop into micro and macro monopolies. See Walmart and pharmacuticals for micro and the insurance industry for macro.

No, you're just full of conflicting notions and sources ... much like your sources in the global warming threads. You'll cite experts who throw science out the window when it comes to things like evolution in favor of creationism (if that doesn't blow one's scientific credibility in your eyes ... well I'll leave that alone) while cashing checks from Exxon ... along with a few other deniers you cite. In the same post you'll cite numbers from those who are emphatic that anthropogenic warming is occuring.

This post is no different. You can't make up your mind and grab at anything you think is relevant to support your notion ... even though the things you grab at are conflicting in nature and are totally immiscible.


Now do everyone a favor, pull down your tin foil hat, load the 30-30 and get back in the cabin with the rest of your amish family.

I don't own a 30-30, let alone a tin foil hat. I'm also not Amish (which also makes no sense considering I'm utilizing technologies frowned upon by the Amish) and I don't live in a cabin.

I am Jewish (though agnostic), I do own firearms (just not a 30-30), I do farm (though it's with tractors and combines and not draft horses and scythes ... and it's my father's farm and not mine), and I do participate in capitalistic endeavors on a daily basis. Is there any other assumptions you'd like to attempt and fail at ?