segnosaur

Just to remind you... Wal-mart does earn billions of dollars per year... however, its profit margins are only around 3.5% (which is actually pretty close to the industry average profit margin of 3.3%). The only reason it generates such tremendous revenue is due to the total number of stores/sales, not because they magically make huge profits on everything they sell.

Well, in particular my "complaint" is that your statement was totally irrelevant, and didn't address the issue that was raised. Once again... just so you understand: - It has been suggested (by anti-Walmart people) that wal-mart somehow "destroys small businesses" - It was pointed out that people who shop at grocery stores (for whatever reason) are also taking away from "small business", since they could be going to butcher shops/bakers/etc. instead of a grocery store So, anyone who complains about Wal-mart and their effect on business yet shops at Loblaws, Sobeys, etc. is basically being a giant hypocrite. If you don't have anything to address that issue, then fine. (Although I'd have to wonder why you'd even bother responding...) Talking about how cheap your local butcher shop is doesn't address the fact that the existence of your local super market takes customers away from your local shops. Ummm... just out of curiosity, when you make that particular comparison, are you actually comparing apples with apples, or apples with oranges? For example, if you try to buy fresh baked, high quality bread your local bakery may offer a good price. However, I doubt most 'local bakeries' offer the mass-produced breads (e.g. wonderbread, country harvest, etc.) that are available in your grocery stores.

The difference between that groceries from Superstore, Sobeys, Safeway, Loblaws, and IGA are way more expensive than buying your food from the baker, butcher, and farmers. First of all, you DO realize that the question that was asked by the previous poster was DO you shop at Safeway, Loblaws, etc. Even if there were cheaper options, people may still shop at grocery stores due to the convenience or selection of products available. So, we're still left with the question: to anyone who has criticized wal-mart, do you ever shop at "grocery stores", and do you do so with the knowledge that you might be putting your local butcher or baker out of business. Secondly, I find it rather ironic... this thread gets started over the issue of Wal-mart taking steps to prevent the unionization of its workforce. Now, here you're pointing out how 'cheap' you can get food from bakers, butchers, etc. I wonder just how many of those small bakeries, butcher shops, etc. actually employ unionized workers. Lastly, I do have to question your claim that grocery stores are "way more" expensive than small bakeries/butcher shops/etc. Some items may be cheaper, but other stuff is more expensive.

You don't get half the selection you would get at a video store. First of all, the issue that was raised was the quality of merchandise, not in the number of titles available. I used DVDs as just one example (I could have used Toothpaste, cat food, or any one of a number of items where the item you get at Wal-mart is identical to the one you get at Zellers, Loblaws, Shoppers Drug mart, etc.) Secondly, not sure why exactly you think video stores have a bigger selection of titles available for sale than Wal-Mart. Most video stores I've been in may rent a lot of different movies, but they only have a couple of racks of movies available for sale. Wal-Mart typically has 2 complete rows, plus the stand-up displays in front of their electronics section, plus their "bargin bins". You may not be able to get any movie you want, but you can get a whole lot. My local Blockbuster and Rogers' video do not stock X-rated stuff either. I'd rather pay a little more for something that is going to last me longer. I don't like buying an item and needing to replace it a year later because of it's cheapness. For me it's been about quality. That's perfectly fine, except go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said "Sometimes" people don't necessarily want/need/can afford the "most durable" goods. I think I mentioned this particular story before... a few years ago, I decided to try my hand at camping. I had no idea about whether I would enjoy it, or how often I would be able to. So, rather than buying a top quality tent from the local Mountain Equipment Co-op, I decided to buy a low-end tent from Wal-Mart. If I enjoyed camping, I could eventually buy better gear. If I didn't like it (or didn't get the chance to use it), I'd only be out $20. I think there's a place in our consumer society for a wide range of prices/quality. Criticizing Wal-mart for filling one of those ranges is silly, since other stores also provide stuff that fills that particular consumer niche. OR, you can go to a shopping mall to do all that? Or another department store? One does not go to walmart to buy quality items. Actually, go back and read my original post... My statement (about needing a car to do shopping) was made in response to the following statement: I don't find it convenient to have a 1,700-space parking lot near Lake Ontario, I find it repellent. It would be lovely to have picnic grounds or dog runs, restaurants, stores or something lively in an area where, magically, we can actually live well without owning cars So, the author wasn't discussing merchandise quality, they were complaining about "big shopping centers" and how they'd rather have pretty picnic grounds instead of big parking lots. In that case, suggesting they could go to a shopping mall or another department store doesn't negate the need for a "big ugly parking lot". Simple... we just paid more for stuff, leaving us with less disposable income. Well, good for you. On the other hand, some of us would rather spend our time, you know, expanding our horizons and enjoying life (by going to museums and concerts, reading books, etc.) rather than going from store to store in our quest to do our basic shopping. Whether a person has a car or not, they will probably always be able to complete their shopping faster if they have only one store to visit/shop at. That leaves more time to do things that are more productive.

Well, hell, let's start qualifying. We can dilute every post to relativist meaninglessness, if we so choose. However, I searched your posts on this topic in vain for any qualifications of your own opinions on the matter. Actually, I've been quite vocal. I've been quite willing to point out the faults of wal-mart, as well as pointing out the areas where criticism is unjustified. The issues that I brought up in relation to your post (even if its related to what other posters have said) IS relevant. This thread seems to have been started with the sole intent to "bash wal-mart". I'm putting the actions of wal-mart into context. If I bring up stuff that other posters have said, its because the responses are all pretty much the same: Wal-mart is not a great company, but then pretty much every other company has its faults too. I can't say what they have or have not done illegally Actually, I should have qualified that... I should have said have they done anything illegal in their dealings with you. Fine... why don't you go and start a store. Offer every employee who works at your store $50/hour to work there, 4 weeks vacation, let them set their own schedules, etc. Be the most amazing, generous boss you can be. Do everything you can to assist the employees in joining a union. Then, see exactly how long your business lasts. Would you rather have a jerk for a boss and have a job, or hold out for the "perfect" boss and end up unemployeed? Nope, not obedient here. You see, I didn't like working low paying/crappy jobs with bosses I didn't respect. So I got the necessary skills that made myself more marketable, and was able to find better employment. Sorry, I meant treating employees badly (e.g. minimum wage only, less than ideal hours of work, etc.) could be detrimental to the company. Wal-mart, fast food places, your local corner store, etc. might be able to get away with it because working there doesn't necessarily require any special skills. On the other hand, if my company (I work in IT) decided to do the same thing, most employees would leave, taking their knowlege/skills with them.

Still waiting to hear your opinion on shopping at Loblaws. If you shop at loblaws, does that mean you support giving potentially fatal diseases to consumers? Come on, you can answer that. Its a simple question. So, how about it? Thank you for illustrating your lack of intelligence. Never said they had "top quality". Only a complete moron would assume that. Strtangely enough, there are more than 2 levels of quality. You must be pretty brain damaged if you assume there is only low quality and high quality. So, you going to tell us whether you support giving potentially fatal diseases to consumers?

Didn't say it was. But you said they get their fat pay because they were worth it and I merely pointed out - well, not necessarily so. Can you point to any wal-mart execs that have been fired for incompetence after receiving multi-million dollar payouts? As has been explained to you... if you want a good CEO, you often have to pay a lot. You may not think they're worth it. But if they don't pay them the high salary, a potential star-quality CEO may end up working for some other company (even the competition). Yes, anyone who gets their stuff from China. And more than 90% of Wal-Mart merchandise comes from China. You know, that 90% number was tossed out rather casually. Do you have any proof that A: 90% of their merchandise actually does come from china, and: B: whatever the actual percentage is (whether its 90% or something different), that the percentage is substantially higher than the merchandise available from Zellers, K-mart or other low-end retailers? Got any proof of that? How are you measuring "quality"? Are you taking any cost differences into your calculations? (Stating it is "half the quality" seems like a rather specific claim... Got anything to back that up? Or is this just your own personal anecdote?)

That's fine. If you think that all retailers have problems my apologies... but even though this thread was specifically about wal-mart, you could have qualified your statements, saying something like "Wal-mart was bad to me...but the same situation might exist at other retailers" Sarcasm noted. But, as I've said before, I am not posting with the sole purpose of defending wal-mart. I am posting because I believe in dealing with facts, and with applying some critical thinking to the situation. Pointing out where other posters have said things that were out-and-out wrong (e.g. wal-mart kills small business), or engaging in double standards/hypocricy (pointing out wal-mart's problems and ignoring similar issues with other retailers) is of no benefit to society. Well, did Wal-mart do anything illegal? I find running a company as an "assh*le" is neither acceptable, nor unacceptable. It just is. In the long run, it may be detrimental (depending on the company). Pssssst... poor people can be assh*les too.

Yes I had heard of various products that can test for pot in the system. Keep in mind though that the reference you pointed to says that they are nearly ready. (Your reference is a couple of years old though, so perhaps its gotten out of the prototype stage.) There are a couple of additional issues though... from what I understand, there is a lot more variation in how particular levels of pot affect people. In addition, traces can stay in your body long after you've last used. I'd want to know if that brethilizer won't give false positives based on something you did last week.

You know, I didn't bother replying to this part of the post earlier because I thought it was pointless... the person Mr.Canada quoted was basically expressing a personal opinion. But, after a little consideration, I realized that there were some really retarded things that were stated in it... Of course, this ignores the fact that while they have "cheap" merchendise, they also have stuff which is identical to what is found in other stores. How exactly is the DVD I bought at Wal-mart different than the one I might by at the video store? You know, I took a couple of minutes to do some research. The author claims that Gap sells "cheap clothes". The cheapest pair of men's jeans I could find on their web site was rougly $40. (actually $39.99). On the other hand, the cheapest pair of jeans I can find on the Wal-Mart web site was $10. So, this idiot author was trying to compare a wal-mart item with one that was several times the price. Yes, and sometimes people don't necessarily want/need/can afford the "most durable" goods. Ummm... just wondering.... if you don't have a single location to do your shopping in for your major purposes/staple items, wouldn't that actually mean you'd have to do more travelling in order to actually buy the items you need, this increasing the need for a car? Ummm... how about because we live in a country where we have winder 11 out of 12 months and we'd rather limit the amount we have go to outside in bad weather while we do our shopping? How about because if you forced people to go to individual stores to do their shopping, they may end up needing cars more to get to the various places they need to go?

For the record, I would have no problem opening up discussion on legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) pot. However, I can see some differences between marijuana and alcohol/tobacco. Pot does have the ability to affect brain function in a way that's a lot more pronounced than tobacco. Now, this may not affect your average stoner sitting at home on their couch, it might be an issue should such people decide to use pot and drive. Now, like alcohol likewise has the ability to affect brain functionality. However, unlike pot, we have an easy way for the police to detect if someone is driving drunk (i.e. a breathilizer), not to mention the fact that you can often tell (just by smelling) when someone has been drinking. Here's the problem with that concept.... Marijuana is relatively easy to cultivate (at least easier than alcohol), and the quantities that people would use would be less than tobacoo. This means that even if you decided to legalize and then tax it, you would still have a large number of people producing it illegally. Remember what happened a few years ago with all the cigarette smugling at the boarder... it took a drastic cut in tobacco taxes to stop that activity. I can't see the taxation and regulation of pot being any easier. (Of course, it would reduce the expenses associated with enforcement of drug laws; it just might not be a big "money maker")

Already pointed out that the number of small businesses has remained stable throughout the past few decades as wal-mart has expanded. Also pointed out how there is no co-relation between the number of Wal-marts in a particular state and the number of small businesses. This was all pointed out to you in post 358 of this thread. (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=2872&view=findpost&p=489686) Sorry, you fail again. Regardless of the number of times you try repeating that particular claim, it doesn't make it any truer. Know what a hypocrite is? - Someone who suggests that I might be a wal-mart lobbyist while they themselves have family members who work for other retail outfits. - Someone who compains about wal-mart practices, but says nothing when the company their wife works for gets sued for giving potentially fatal diseases to their customers! - Someone who compains aboout wal-mart practices, but ignores it when those same practices occur in other companies

You know, I do recognize that Mr.Canada might be a troll. On the other hand, there are people who do end up believing the type of cr*p he's spewing. So, even if he is a troll, there may still be some intellectual advantage in pointing out his multitude of flaws, even if its to cause one person who might otherwise believe that junk to engage in a little critical thinking and recognize that, indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

Nope, lover of facts, and of critical thinking. Just so happens that in this case, the use of critical thinking supports the position that Wal-mart is not some inherently evil entity that must be destroyed. Nope, I'll only criticize anything you say which is moronic, incorrect, or pointless. Unfortunately, that seems to be just about everything on this thread. Never claimed you would. Again, another example of a straw-man. I did however, point out your hypocricy when you suggested you could go to another retailer with evidence of Wal-mart's prices and get them to match the price. After all, in that situation, you'd still be benefiting indirectly from the business practices at wal-mart (even if Wal-mart did not profit from the sale). Never sure why you bothered posting at all. Not like you've actually brought any intelligent debate to the thread. (An no, ad homeniem attacks, straw men, outright lies, and the repetition of irrelevant information is not "bringing intelligent debate".) Depends.... do you think when you shop at Loblaws, that you're supporting the infection of shoppers with potentially lethal diseases (as Loblaws has been found guilty of? Why won't you deal with that issue? Oh, that's right... because not only are you ignorant, you're a hypocrite.

I'm not a socialist either. Yet I had one of the earlier posts in this thread pushing for nuclear power. If your suggest that "they" (socialists) are finally accepting nuclear power after the first post or 2 praising the advantages of it, then who exactly do you expect us to think you were referring to?

Possibly. Nuclear fusion might eventually become feasible too. (More energy content than Uranium, fewer problems with waste management.) Of course, it always seems like fusion energy is always "just around the corner". Biofuels may be an option too. (Not necessarily ethanol-from-corn, but something along the lines of genetically engineered algae producing hydrocarbons.)

The objections are starting to drop off. True. The U.S. hadn't started any new plants in the U.S. in the decades following 3 Mile Island. But they're now looking at constructing several reactors. (Should be noted that other countries, did continue to build new plants in that time period.) You're right.... probably only about 200 years supply. (Of course, that's not including unconventional extraction techniques, such uranium from sea water, which might be feasible in a few decades.)

Well, for one, it will probably take decades for a significant portion of the U.S. to adopt electric cars. Secondly, you're assuming that there are enough "clean sources" around. What do you suggest? - Hydro-electric? We've already taped most of the available sources - Wind/Solar/Geothermal? They may be viable in the future, but at least in the next decade or so they won't be able to compete with fossil fuel sources - Nuclear? Well, actually, Nuclear makes a lot of sense. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, its not exactly a very popular decision from a political sense. Actually, most forms of energy probably get some sort of subsidy somewhere along the line, including sources like wind and solar. Here's a study showing that the actual cost of generating electricity (including plant construction, maintenance, and fuel) is much cheaper for nuclear (including decommissioning the reactor!) and fossil fuel than it is for wind/wave power. http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_Commentary.pdf

First of all, another poster has given an actual link comparing the income of some Wal-mart workers to Loblaws workers. Hint: Loblaws workers do not come out on top. (Doesn't apply to all employees, but still its an interesting comparison.) Secondly, I already pointed out how Loblaw was forced to lay off hundreds of people (as well as close some stores). How exactly does that figure into your pay calculations? Great... you can get a big wage! Ooops, just got laid off. Tough luck. Too bad.

Maybe you do. But then, you were probably one of the people who avoided the huge number of layoffs from a couple of years ago. (I have previously reported on several rounds of job cuts from Loblaws.) What would you rather have? A low-paying job, or no job? Keep in mind that there have always been low paying retail jobs. Having unionized (and higher paying) jobs in the grocery retail sector to me, seemed rather out-of-place given the fact that department stores, corner stores, etc. seemed to pay minimum (or close to minimum) even before Wal-mart started its growth. Its only since stores have been diversifying the merchandise they sell that grocery stores have had to deal with real competition.

You know, all these have been dealt with before. None of these have been denied. Yet you still seem to harp on them, while ignoring the fact that I've pointed out similar lawsuits at other retailers. At this point, I think we can safely assume you're a troll. For some strange reason though I will address these issues (just in case there is someone else who might get the wrong impression...) Those "illegal aliens" were actually hired by a subcontractor. Wal-mart didn't have the proper checks in place to prevent companies it dealt with to have proper hiring practices, but somewhere along the line you can't exactly be responsible for micromanaging everything. The most notable case of "child labour" laws that were violated involved less than 100 minors and 25 stores. This works out to less than 1% of its stores, and 0.004% of its workforce. The charges involve people under 18 doing things like operating forklifts. While technically that is illegal, it is a far cry from forcing 9 year olds to toil 18 hours a day in a sweat shop. Oh, and by the way.. cost of that particular case? Under $200,000. Far less than the "millions" claimed. http://www.hrmguide.com/relations/wal-mart-child-labor.htm Yeah, and as I pointed out, other stores have had identical lawsuits. In addition to Costco that I had previously mentioned, you can also find lawsuits for unpaid overtime launched against: AT&T, Scotiabank, CIBC, CN, etc. http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/12/14/daily48.html http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/12/10/unpaidotsuit.html http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/cnw/article.jsp?content=20080325_110502_4_cnw_cnw Looks like you seem to be ignoring that. The most important word in that above statement is impression. Once again, since you seem to be rather dense in understanding this... when you are dealing with any large organization, it is quite likely that you will get at least a few cases of mismanagement. Oh, by the way.... once again, you've ignored the fact: - Loblaws has been hit by multiple lawsuits (involving more than 1 incidence) involving exposing people to Hepatitis A. Does that mean that its corporate policy for Loblaws to expose their customers to a potentially lethal disease? Here's a question.. why won't you deal with the above issue?

I see.. Are you also reporting the time that you insinuated I was "unemployed" or "underage", or a lobbyist for Wal-Mart (all incorrect accusations, and in some cases a little insulting)? Oh, and did you report the time that you lied and falsely claimed that I thought certain dishonest business practices were "fine" when, in effect I did no such thing?

Hmmmm. I am not so certain that it is that simple. For one, executive salaries aren't measured by numbers of executives, but in percentage of salary/bonus cost. I agree. But that doesn't necessarily change my point... that the cost of pay and benefits may only make up a small portion of the total cost of all employees and worrying about "executive" salary would have less effect than dealing with the pay of the many other employees who get paid less than the execs, but are still over paid compared to similar jobs in the private sector. Again, I agree.. we need to compare employees with similar skill sets. But that still doesn't change my argument. Well, keep in mind that my "100 employee example" was only a rough statement in order to illustrate my point. If you want something a little more concrete: consider the biggest company (by revenue) in Canada is the Royal Bank of Canada. It has roughly 80 thousand employees. Lets assume that they have a group of executives (CEO, CFO, VPs, etc.) earning roughly the average. That might mean that total compensation for their top guys is around 100million. On the other hand, the salary for a bank teller is around 30k a year. (I'm being conservative here...there are a lot of jobs that are a lot higher paid.) If every employee (other than the top executives) earned that much it would mean they pay rougly 2.4 billion. So, by my admittedly very rough calculations, executive pay makes up less than 5% of the pay structure. Now, lets say each of those bank employees demanded (and received) a $10,000 raise (because they became government/got unionized) that would increase costs by roughly 800 million. That increase in pay is still greater than total executive compensation. Again, these are only rough back-of-an-envelope type calculations. I'm sure the total executive compensation is not exactly $100 million at RBC, and there's no guarantee that unionizing employees would result in exactly a $10,000 pay increase. But there would be at least some increase in labor costs (after all, supposedly the point of a union is to improve wages/benefits for the members), and when you consider the total number of employees in a "big" company (or government department) any pay increase could outstrip the cost of the "expensive" executives.

On the other hand, the clerk at my local corner store earns $10/hour. The question is, does the clerk at the LCBO have a job that requires twice the effort or skill that the clerk at the corner store requires? Or did the LCBO clerk just "get lucky" by falling in to a postion where he gets over-inflated wages? By the way, it is true that Mr.Canada is an idiot... however, there is at least some truth to a few of the issues he's raised. Even if he's wrong about the exact wages paid to LCBO clerks (and others), they still often earn more than people doing nearly-identical work in non-unionized/private sector jobs.

So, are you also going to demand they unionize every job in Zellers, Giant Tiger, etc.? Every small boutique? Every gas station? What about your local corner store that has only a couple of employees and is getting by on a shoe-string budget paying their employees minimum wage? You going to expect that they unionize as well? Or is it just Wal-Mart that you think should be unionized? Yeah well, I just like pointing out how much of an idiot you are, and how devoid of content your posts are. Still waiting to hear you respond about why: - Wal-mart is condemned for having lawsuits yet other large companies with similar lawsuits get a free pass - Forbes pointed out the calculations for "management staff are wrong" - Why you lied about the "90% of wal-mart managers are men" Well, DUH! Who exactly claimed that they were? Or is this some famous red herring that you like to throw up? Ahhh.... I SEE. So, that certainly could explain your, ahem, vitriol against Wal-mart. If Wal-Mart is too successful, they could end up putting your wife out of work. I think you wrote that incorrectly. I think you mean to say "you get a biased perspective on the inner workings of large retail." Wait a second... wouldn't happen to be Loblaws, was it? Oh, but wait! Loblaws has had lawsuits launched against it! I thought it was only evil Wal-mart that has had lawsuits launched against it! http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/09/06/HepAsuit_020906.html My prediction.... you will ignore this lawsuit, pretending like it never existed (even though it cost Loblaws), yet still harping on Wal-mart's problems.) Which is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Oh, and by the way, Loblaws (if that is the company your wife works for) isn't exactly always friendly. Here are some of the job cuts they've recently gone through: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/173690 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3c0508c0-1e81-4378-b405-7fa14f023c9b&k=52697 If Loblaws wasn't interested in profits, then why exactly did they feel the need to cut all those jobs? Actually, no it doesn't. Some money spent at loblaws goes to the corporate owners in the U.S. (through profits) this however only reflects a tiny amount of the total. Other money goes to suppliers (some will be in Canada, some in Asia, some in the U.S.) Some money stays in Canada (through wages paid to employees). Thing is, when someone spends money at any store, at least part of the money will find its way outside Canada. I'm sure many products available at Loblaws are similarly produced (or have components produced) outside of the country. (Just out of curioity, when I buy a bag of oranges at Loblaws, where eactly do you you think the supplier's company is stationed?) Oh, and since you seem to want to turn this into a "Canada vs. US" thing.... - More than 70% of Sears is owned by the U.S. (http://argent.canoe.ca/lca/infos/canada/archives/2009/04/20090407-165033.html) - What about Zellers and The Bay? Also are largely owned by U.S. interests Strange though... I don't see you complaining about people shopping at Zellers, Sears or The Bay, only Wal-mart. Strange thing that... Edited to add: You know, if you really want to promote Canada, why don't you shop where you can buy stuff cheapest (which will sometimes be Wal-Mart, sometimes be another store), take the money you save, and spend it on something uniquely Canadian?