segnosaur

Do you have examples? I mean, I don't think there are any government executives that make millions like most large enterprise executives do. It certainly is true that top executives in private industry earn a lot more than executives in the public sector. However, those earning "top pay" make up only a small number of the total employees. 100 unionized/overpaid (compared to the private sector) file clerks working for the federal government could end up costing more than a single overpaid executive.

Admittedly, I'm not from Albreta, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may have been other factors at work here. - When the utilities were publically owned, were they turning a profit or were they subsidized? Were they maintaining the required infrastructure? (Its easy to have "low cost" utilities when half the cost is subsidized through the government, and you're not doing anything to upgrade or maintain a decaying infrastructure.) - How much of that price increase was related to increases in energy prices? (Alberta generates much of its electricity from fossil fuels. The last spike in oil prices may have had more to do with rising energy prices than any privatization.)

Hey, I agree... that does happen. I've even seen cases where a CEO does poorly, gets "fired", and still gets a "golden parachute" worth Millions. Sadly, overcompensation is not a problem restricted to Wal-Mart. (I suggest if you want to discuss wage disparity then you might want to start another thread. Wal-mart is not the only company paying execs top dollar, they all are. And criticising Wal-Mart when its a common practice doesn't seem very reasonable.) I'd be quite happy if each and every company decided to make their executive pay "performance-based". Until that happens, we're stuck with the current situation. That would only work if each and every company similarly cut executive pay by 90%. But, for better or worse, such collusion would likely be illegal. Even if an executive would be happy earning $100,000, if someone offers him $1,000,000 they'll likely take it. Heck, I work as a software developer. It pays very well. I would probably be happy doing my particular job if I got paid 50% less. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to seek out higher paying jobs. Yes... usually by people who have an anti-Wal Mart attitude. Not exactly an unbiased group to be making that assessment, is it. Tell me, whatever political party you support, do you put much stock in the opinions of competing political parties? Or do you recognize that those other parties are putting their own particular spin on things? Fact is, yes, poor people shop at Wal-mart. So do many middle-class people as well. And as I pointed out earlier, most sales at Wal-mart are made to people earning $40,000 or more. And as I asked before... where exactly do you think all those "white trash" people are supposed to shop? But at least I can be fairly confident my toothpaste didn't originate in China and doesn't have all sorts of "additives" not printed on the label! Well, then you'd be wrong. When you're talking about "name brands", problems with tainted products have affected many manufacturers (including some high-end ones), not just Wal-Mart. Remember the recent pet food recall by a company called Menu Foods? (They found their products were contaminated with things like rat poison). Well, their brands were sold in stores like PetSmart. This also affected the high-end brand "Science Diet" (which is actually sold by my vet...) http://www.hillspet.com/menu_foods/Menu_Foods_03272007_en_US.htm http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/05/31/menufoods.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_Foods (yes, a wikipedia reference; I put it in there because it has historical information, but the basic information is contained in the previous links.) Oh, and how about the recent recall of Mattel toys because there were concerns that they had lead paint? Again, those toys were sold in more stores than just Wal-Mart http://service.mattel.com/us/recall/default.asp?recall_id=52430 Yes, they sell low-end clothing. So does Zellers and K-mart. Oh, and by the way, while they do sell their low-end clothing brands, they also sell mid-range products as well. (In the men's wear, they sell: Levis, Hanes, and Dickie, which, wile they are not the most expensive brands around, are certainly not low-end either.) Just out of curiosity, if you go there, is there a particular reason you feel you have to buy clothing there? (I don't remember any store rules indicating it was a requirement.) If I go in to Wal-Mart to buy (for example) toothpaste, DVDs, or M&Ms, I can somehow pick up those items (name brand items by the way, identical to what I'd get at more expensive stores) and head to the cashier without ever setting foot in the clothing section.

I would agree with that but if we are complicating things like that we also have too look at government services which must be provided. If in the future who ever buys Canada post can't deliver to Grise Fjord and the government has to subsidize it what is the point in the end? First of all, your initial argument (at least the one I responded to) had nothing to do about "service". You were dealing simply with the revenue that the government-run business generates. (I should point out that I do think its questionable for any 'services' to actually turn a profit, since any profits may be due to a monopoly position rather than the ability of the people running the business. In that situation, the 'monopoly' is nothing more than a tax.) Secondly, as others have pointed out, if Canada post was not around, we would still get service to remote communities through private companies; its just that the prices would better reflect the actual costs. Some may not consider that such a bad thing.

Actually, yes it is... From Wikipedia (not always a definitive source, but they have a decent definition).... In the broadest sense, the term private corporation refers to any business not owned by the state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company) And yes, you are right in that there are also valid definitions that classify wal-mart as a "public" company. I was using the definition to differentiate it from government-owned "public ownership". (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership) By all means feel free to do so. Of course, what exactly does that do to your "moral code"? If you really believe Wal-mart is "evil", then you would still be benefiting from the suffering of Wal-mart employees, at least part of the reason they offer low cost is their low pay. Your knowledge here may also be flawed... http://industry.bnet.com/retail/1000211/taking-a-look-at-the-wal-mart-shopper/ Who’s the fastest-growing Wal-Mart demographic? Shoppers making more than $70,000 a year, up 12 percent from 2007. (The article also mentions that approximately 58% of sales go to shoppers making more than $40,000). It is true that they do have a larger portion of low-income shoppers (since they often can't afford to shop elsewhere) but that doesn't mean that they're the only people who shop there. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would be proud to spend more money on something just because they don't like the stigma of shopping "where poor people shop". Sounds to me like a rather foolish thing to do. "Hey ! I paid twice the price for this tube of toothpaste! Aren't I superior?" Oh, and by the way, that "specialty shop" that you seem to want to frequent? You do realize that many of those also pay their employees minimum wage (as well as not offering health and other benefits)? And not only that, while you seem to contemn Wal-mart for not promoting women to management roles, such "specialty shops" also lack the ability for employee advancement (as well as very limited ability for employee recourse). I've known people who have worked at such stores.... they had low pay, inconvenient hours, and had to contend with a bad store manager. Maybe before you shop anywhere you should give all the employees in the store a job satisfaction questionaire to see just how happy they are. Oh boy, where to begin? How about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? You seem to not understand that idea. (Considering you seem to refer to the recent wal-mart lawsuit as definitive proof of their guilt.) Oh, and how about being ignorant of similar problems at other large corporations? (You must be ignorant of that... after all, you keep criticising wal-mart while ignoring problems at Costco, Abercromby&Finch, Toyota, etc.) Oh, and how about your earlier suggestion that "walmart destroys small business" even though I referred to a study that shows the number of small businesses have been stable while wal-mart has expanded? Oh, and how about your ignorance of how Forbes pointed out differences in the way that Wal-mart defines managerial positions? You must be ignorant about it... after all, I've referred to it, and you've never responded to that particular issue. As opposed to specialty shops? Oh, but wait! The person that I know that worked at one spent a good portion of her day returning stock on the shelves after they had been left in the wrong location. Maybe they realize you're a flaming idiot who doesn't deserve respect. Or maybe, because you think you are 'superior' to the people who shop there, you appear smug. Or maybe, because Wal-mart gets more business than most stores, they get more rude people just because they get more total shoppers. Or maybe what you are giving is an anecdote, which is, in and of itself, worthless. Oh, and just wondering... if you got your wish and wal-mart went away, just where do you think all those "low income, rude shoppers" will go?

Don't forget... they also don't carry Playboy. And many albums must get censored before Wal-Mart will carry them. Frankly, I think most of those decisions are rather foolish. But, Wal-mart is a private company, and as such they should have the right to carry whatever products they want, and if they think that they can earn more profit by making their stores more "family friendly" they have that right. (If most people preferred to buy their stuff at a store than stocks Maxim, Playboy, and "dirty" rap lyrics, either Wal-mart would start carrying them, or people would start shopping at stores that did.) The "morning after pill" is a slightly different matter... Wal-Mart should never have been allowed not to stock the pill. (But then, I'm not sure if most states required all pharmacies to stock all possible medications...) Hey, I'm an atheist. I think society will be a lot better off once we cast off this childish belief in an invisible sky-daddy. If I thought the religious views of the Wal-mart owners were interfering with my shopping habits I would stop shopping there. But since the stuff Wal-mart does not sell are items that I either don't buy myself, or can't get at other major retailers, I'm not really affected. You really want to stick it to Wal-mart? Here's a suggestion... buy stuff wherever you can get it cheapest. (Sometimes that will be Wal-mart, sometimes it will be at other stores.) Take the money you save, and donate it to an atheist or skeptics group. Edited to add: One thing to note: you are of course making the assumption that the decision to stock the "morning after pill" was based on the religious beliefs of Wal-mart owners/executives. But, the fact is, Wal-mart was not alone in its decision not to stock the medication. Other pharmacies similarly did not stock it. This suggests that there is at least a chance that their decision not to stock it was based on business (e.g. expected low demand) rather than religious/moral belief. See: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/get-EC.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143016418.html

What, now you're responding to me? And you said you were done. I guess another lie from Mr.Canada. But then we should be used to that by now. Basically, all he has are lies, ad hominem attacks, straw men, and other flawed tactics. Yup, quite typical of someone who's basic ability to think and reason logically is flawed. Rather than deal with the issues I have raised, he attempts to make it personal. Lets look at the issues I have raised that you seem to ignore: - Wal-Mart is innocent until proven guilty. Why do you keep pointing to the lawsuit as if simply having the lawsuit at all makes them guilty? Why won't you deal with that? - Many (probably even the majority) of large corporations have had similar lawsuits. Why do you feel the need to single out Wal-Mart when other companies have similar problems? - You've made the claim a while ago that somehow wal-mart destroys jobs. Yet I've posted a study that shows the number of small businesses has not changed in the time that wal-mart has experienced its signifcant growth in the past few decades. So, are you going to admit you were wrong? Of course, rather than deal with those issues, let me make a couple of predictions: - You will continue to ignore those issues - You will once again point to the same tired information about the lawsuit (ignoring the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and ignoring the fact that other companies have had similar problems) - You will once again attempt to engage in ad hominem attacks. Once again, let me explain... A site like wakeupwalmart should not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a reputable site. Furthermore, even if they do have references to material from "independent news agencies", the tendency is for them to cherry-pick their information. Secondly, it is not my job to follow through on your demented rantings in order to try to figure out the truth. If you are to idiotic or lazy to post the references yourself then you bring nothing of value to any debate. (And, a little tip, ad hominem attacks are of no value...) Yeah, and you know what else I understand? You orginally claimed that "90% of all managers at Wal-mart were men"... a figure which is actually contradicted by the sources that you yourself referred to. Know what else I understand? Another independent source (Forbes magazine) pointed out that even the figures quoted in that article may be incorrect because of the way Wal-mart classifies its postions. Know what else I understand? That at no point have you ever addressed the fact that other retailers are subject to similar lawsuits, and that the references that you yourself gave contained comments that suggested that the lawsuits may be pointless, a fact that you seem to be ignoring. (I wonder why?) I am aware of many things Wal Mart has done wrong. I have admitted this on several occasions. Need me to go back and point out the posts where I've admitted that? Are you aware that many other companies, even ones that are highly regarded have also been subject to lawsuits? How come you don't address that issue? Do you magically think that only Wal-mart is ever subject to these things?

As I pointed out before, there is a flaw in your argument. While privatizing a profitable government-run business does decrease revenue, the money that the government earns from the privatization must be considered. If that money is used to pay down the debt (or at least prevent adding to it), it will cut down the amount of money the government needs to spend to service the debt in the future. So, in a decade they will have less revenue, but they will also have fewer expenses. (As a result, the government wouldn't need the "100 million to run"; they can get by on a lot less.)

You know, here's what I find ironic.... I use (as reference material) mainstream material published from business magazines and academic institutions. I have specifically avoided referring to anything on the Wal-mart corporate website. On the other hand, YOU have posted most of your material from either anti-wal-mart sites, or from sources directly involved in the law suit itself. Yet You are suggesting that I am somehow a "lobbyist" for them. Oooohhh.... an article from the new york times. Wow, amazing.... except basically the only thing that the article said is that there is a lawsuit going on, something that was not in doubt. Except, as the FORBES article I referred to pointed out (You know Forbes, a well respected business magazine that isn't published by Wal-mart) indicted that those "hard numbers" provided in the law suit are flawed. All the links to the lawsuit show is that there is indeed a lawsuit going on. It does not actually validate the claims of the lawsuit. I want you to be less of an idiot. Guess that's asking too much. You never really 'played the game'. Basically, all you did was make false accusations, post information that was either irrelevant or downright wrong, and avoid addressing issues I brought up. Oh, and you engaged in ad hominems. Which, of course, is pretty much an ad hominem attack. What, you mean that we'll never hear you explain why the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply when we're talking about lawsuits against Wal-mart? We'll never hear why Wal-mart deserves to be condemned but other large companies who have exhibited similar behavior remain untouched? We'll never hear you address the issue about why Forbe's pointed out the numbers quoted in the lawsuit are flawed? We'll never hear you try to justify why Wal-mart is somehow wrong for its number of top-level female executives, when there are very few female executives in all industries? I've been bringing these issues up for a long long time. Thought you might actually want to address them. Guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. I guess that should be expected... you've been exposed as being ignorant. You've shown that you're unable to actually address information and issues raised in other posts. So now, you run away. Biased site. Biased site. Hmmm... site with the name "feminazi". Think it might be biased? Yes, an article that says that they're a lawsuit going on. But guess what? Ever hear of the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty"? I've mentioned it enough. Need me to explain it to you? Oh, and by the way, from your very own article it has the following statement: Clearly, the numbers alone don't prove discrimination. Pre-Wal-Mart job histories and the preferences of women, for instance, could factor into the case. ... But spokeswoman Mona Williams says the plaintiffs "manipulated" the numbers and that Wal-Mart is promoting women into management "at rates consistent with the qualified and interested pool of candidates" at the company. So, this is your reference, and it has parts that indicate that the law suit may be without merit. Hmmm.... how come you don't seem to be mentioning that in any of your posts? Again.... innocent until proven guilty. And it was prepared on behalf of the paintiffs in the court case!!!!! Hmmmm, really think an article written by someone paid for by paintiffs in a court case is going to give a completely fair and unbiased account? Actually, yes it can. For example: - It doesn't take into account that Wal-mart classifies positions differently than other retailers - Does not address the situation at other retailers. (Sorry, but there is a shortage of top female execs across all industries. Pointing out the lack of top women at Wal-mart isn't really valid if the shortage systemic to society as a whole.)

Make sure its valid criticism, something that Wal-mart is actually doing wrong, and which other similar companies are not making the same mistakes. Quite possibly. But then, so was the corner store and restaurant that I worked in when I was in high school. And so was the small clothing store a friend of mine worked in. You're talkig about unskilled, entry-level jobs. Why exactly do you think Wal-mart should be held to a different standard? Strangely enough, I've never seen a law that says a company is required to sell to wal-mart. Perhaps you can point me to such a law. Depends on the store. I've seen Wal-marts that have narrow isles, I've seen Wal-mart with fairly wide open isles. I've also seen Zellers stores with the same issues. Why aren't you criticising Zellers for too? Happens at other stores I've been to (Zellers, Loblaws, etc.) Why hold Wal-mart to a different standard? (I've also been at Wal-mart when there were no lines. Guess what? Stores can get unexpectedly busy.) Again, compared to what? I've always found they as many people "on the floor" as any other similar retailer (and their greeters can be of assistance too, even if their real job is for security.) I've also found that Wal-mart has an excellent return policy (especially compared with many smaller companies.) First of all, while Wal-mart usually doesn't bother with high-end merchandise, much of their stock is identical to what you would get at any other retailer. (Do you really think that a tube of Crest toothpaste is somehow worse if you get it at Wal-mart as opposed to your local drug store? That the bag of M&Ms they sell is different than the bag of M&Ms you'd get at the grocery story? That the DVD and video games they sell don't work the same as the ones you'd get from the video store?) Secondly, even when there are differences in some of the brands that they stock, so what? Sometimes, all people want/need are the basic models, and spending extra money for the "high end" models is a waste. Here's an anecdote... I used to go camping as a kid, but I stopped going when I grew up. A couple of years ago, I decided to try camping again. So, I needed a tent. I could have gone and bought a top-of-the-line tent from the local camping supply store; however, I had no idea A: if I would enjoy camping, and B: how often I'd actually get to go. So, I went to Wal-mart, bought a low-end tent with the minimum of features. Result: it cost me a fraction of the money, and I've been completely happy for what I use it for. I've already pointed out (and given a reference to a report!) that as the number of Wal-mart stores has increased in the past few years, the number of small businesses has remained relatively stable. Furthermore, there appears to be no co-relation between the number of wal-marts in a particular state and the number of people employed by small business. You could claim that, but then you'd be just as wrong as when you suggested that Wal-mart eliminates jobs. Edited to add: No there isn't. But in the real world, we don't have the ability to transport CEOs through time. Companies can only hire and pay people compared to what similar people are earning today. Your average football/baseball/hockey player is not significantly better than they were 2 decades ago either. They still earn a heck of a lot more money. Why? Because teams have to compete in their hiring practices with other teams for a limited number of skilled players.

Quote possibly. But then, so are pretty much every other company. Guess what... in the business world, being "charitable" is a good way to find yourself out of business. Because most "insults" are either totally baseless (the whole "walmart eliminates small business", which ignores the fact that there are roughly as many small businesses today as there were 2 decades ago), or ignore the fact that the types of problems wal-mart has are not unique to Wal-mart. I have no problems with people having valid criticisms of wal-mart, but any criticsm should be fair. Condemming wal-mart and wal-mart only when similar problems exist elsewhere is, in my opinion, dirty pool. If you want to criticize Wal-mart, fine... but where is your criticism of Costco and Ambricrombie & Finch (subject to multiple lawsuits over unpaid overtime and gender discrimination)? Where is your criticism of toyota (subject to a sexual harrasement lawsuit)? Women executives typically earn less than male executives across virtually all industries. Why is Wal-mart being singled out? (edited for typos)

Already pointed out that Wal Mart is neither a perfect company, nor one that deserves undue criticism. Guess its easier to engage in ad hominem attacks by suggesting that I consider Wal Mart "god" than actually deal with the issues. (Face it, its a sign that you've lost.) Well, where to begin. You've shown so many flaws in your arguments that its not easy to pick the best ones. First of all, remember what I told you about selecting unbiased sources? One of your sources is from a site called 'feminazi'... the other is from the lawyers who launched the lawsuit. Why exactly should we consider those reputable sources? Think they may have a reason to, I don't know, spin the information in their own favour? Secondly, you said that 90% of "upper management" is male... But in your initial claims, you never singled out upper management. Your exact statement was: Wal Mart's lack of women is management positions is seen a good thing? 90% are men (See: Post 370 at http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=2872&st=360&p=490127entry490127). What you characterize as "upper management" consists of only a small fraction of "managers" (only around 3% of the total). In fact, your own sources show that women make up around 35% of all management postions. Thirdly, you still have not addressed a point that was raised in Forbes... that the classification of "manager" used at Wal-mart differs from other retail stores, and when similar criteria are used, then the number of women in management is roughly comparable. So? That's typical of most corporations. Top executives earn large salaries for the same reason that top sports figures earn large salaries... because the set of skills they possess is not a common entity. No, you haven't. You've produced cherry-picked data from biased websites supporting moving goalposts. Not exactly the same thing.

If you make the claim, it is up for you to provide the proof. It is not my job to try to track down your sources. (Besides, its a fools errand... You're simply wrong on your facts, and I see no need to look for information that doesn't exist.) So, are you against Wal-mart specificially, or are you against all large corporations? Nope, wrong again. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-ceo-pay-package-exceeds-23-million (You know, I'd be willing to accept you mis-typed 'billion' instead of 'million'. But given the total ignorance you've displayed in this thread, I'm not so sure...) Most companies pay their executives a lot. Of course, many executives have a rather exclusive skill set. Nope... already pointed out that those things are wrong, but they are not systemic to Wal-mart. They were isolated cases and have been dealt with appropriately.

You know what else you've missed? Proof that 90% of all Wal-mart managers are male. Know what else you've missed? Proof that the situation at Wal-mart is significantly different than at any other major retailer. That's because you can also find tons of lawsuits against almost any company. You seem to be employing a double standard: Lawsuits against Wal-mart -> They are an evil company and should be destroyed Lawsuits against other companies -> Insert fingers in ears, shout 'la la la' Please point to any post where I denied a lawsuit existed. Is it as imaginary as your '90% of Wal-mart managers are men' statistic? What you have here is known as a 'straw man'. Your claims have been completely debunked, so the only way you fight back is to try to address claims that haven't actually been made.

Once again.. this is not exactly a source where you can expect to find unbiased facts. At no point have I ever referred to the Wal-mart corporate web site in order to prove my point... so why do you find it necessary to go to various anti-wal-mart sites to try to justify your claims? (The answer is... when you actually look at the facts, your claims tend to crumble. So you're forced to look at such anti-corporate sites.) And you know? All of these have happened. In some cases, Wal-mart has been punished (through settlements, fines, etc.) But as I said before, Wal-mart is a huge organization. When you have that many stores, managers, executives, etc. you are going to get at least some problems. How about Costco? Here's a lawsuit for unpaid overtime: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/costco-50-million-overtime-class-action.html Also happened with Ambercrombie and Finsh: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200601/ai_n16012591/?tag=content-inner;col1 How about Toyota? Here's a sexual harrasement lawsuit: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_21/b3985078.htm How about McDonalds, one of the biggest food retailers in the world. Here's the result of a lawsuit brought forward by one of their employees who was strip searched: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071006/mc_lawsuit_071006?s_name=&no_ads= So, pick a big company, you'll find some problems. Should those problems be dealt with? Most definitely. Do those problems mean that the offending company is somehow "evil"? No, just that in many cases it becomes impossible to micromanage each and every store. Again... innocent until proven guilty. You could...unfortunately, it seems like its impossible for you to actually provide facts to back up your assertions. Nope. They're a big corporation, and like any corporation they will make mistakes. Doesn't mean the company as a whole should be condemned.

And once again... at this point Wal-Mart has not been found guilty of anything. You do understand the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', do you not? I'm not calling the judges anything. They're allowing a court case to proceed, but that does not mean that Wal-mart is actually guilty. What I am doing is calling you ignorant (as in: lacking knowledge). You made very specific claims that Wal-mart's management was "90% male". That claim is wrong. I've posted refreences to it. I've provided proof. The fact that there's a class action lawsuit does not justify you making up numbers almost at random. I believe that most Wal-mart stores are fair in their hiring and promotion practices. I do recognize that, in any large organization, there will be bad apples. However, there is a difference between a store or two being run by incompetent idiots who screwed up (something that does need to be dealt with), and a system of systemic abuse. http://www.walmartcl...ublic_home.html Read. Happy now? Ah, where to begin.... First of all, keep in mind that that link is to a website put up by lawyers involved in the class action lawsuit... These are hardly people that you can expect to report without bias. (Compare that to the references I gave... one to Forbes magazine, a fairly well respected mainstream magazine not owned by Wal-Mart, and an independent university study.) You want us to accept your claims? You should come up with a more reputable source. Secondly, that article only points out that there is a class action lawsuit in progress, something nobody here ever denied. Once again though, the fact that a lawsuit is in progress does not mean that Wal-mart is actually guilty. On the other hand, you made very specific claims that 90% of the managers were men... nowhere on that page does it validate your statement. Thirdly, did you actually read your own reference? At the very bottom of the page, they have a link to a Costco Class action discrimination lawsuit! (And this isn't the first lawsuit Costco has had to contend with!) If Costco (a retail company that was previously praised by some people in this thread for paying their employees so well) can run into similar legal problems, then maybe the problem isn't with Wal-mart after all.

Not necessarily. If you're talking about the federal government (or even provincial governments that are currently running a deficit), then selling off profitable government-owned business can bring in revenue that will help pay down the debt. (The end result is that while the government may not have as much revenue coming in, they also won't have to pay out as much in interest servicing the debt.)

Nope, not at all. Wal-mart is a big f*cking company. They purchase and sell massive quantities of products and they drive a "hard bargin" with many of their suppliers. Nothing wrong with that. Now, repeat after me... co-relation does not imply causation. Got it? Good. Guess what? Many products (e.g. clothing) were already manufactured abroad long before Wal-mart became a significant retail outlet. And guess what? Even industries that wal-mart has nothing to do with (or who's influence is minimal at best) also manufacture products overseas. (Never heard of Wal-Mart selling cars, yet we still import large numbers of vehicles into this country.) Many tech support jobs have also gone overseas... is that Wal-mart's fault too?

Quite possible... but then, it would actually be nice to see some actual proof of this. The anti-Wal-Mart people here are real big on this... make some grand claim, but ignore something as simple as proof. In particular, I'm interested in context... are you comparing Wal-Mart with other retailers, or companies like automanufacturers? But lets say your claim is true... So what? There are plenty of other jobs available in the country. (You can't drive down any of the major streets here in Ottawa without seeing a "now hiring" sign.) If things really were bad at Wal-mart, then enough employees would leave and they'd have to improve the work situation to maintain a functional staff. Really? Gee... I know 2 different people who have worked in retail jobs (neither of which was Wal-Mart), both of whom were at least occasionally checked on their way out the door.

Very simple. Because I like watching people try to call me a liar then I can throw it in their faces. Really? You made the claim that Wal-mart causes small businesses to close. I posted a university study that showed that the number of small businesses has been unaffected over the past 2 decades as Wal-mart has expanded. You made the claim that 90% of all managers were men. I posted a reference to a Forbes magazine, showing that even the most pessimistic number is nowhere near that 90%. 2 big claims made, 2 claims illustrated to be wrong through mainstream sources. Personally, I don't think you're so much "lying" as basically ignorant of the facts, and willing to deal in rumor rather than fact. Still, the facts have been given to you. So, lets see your magnificent references....

Yes there is. And guess what? They have this little concept called "innocent until proven guilty". In the U.S., lawsuits are relatively easy to launch. (I could also point out the fact that there is a long history of frivilous lawsuits actually being successful... the McDonalds hot coffee case comes to mind...) Your 'facts' are wrong. I posted a reference to an article appearing in Forbes magazine showing that your figures are way, way off. Don't suppose you'd actually want to, you know, educate yourself so that you quit spreading idiotic nonsense? So, lets see... what's more believable... an article appearing in a mainstream media source like Forbes, written by professional journalists, or some random unsupported claim by an anonymous web poster who seems to have a history of making claims that are debunked when the actual facts come out....

And guess what? You also have big box stores build close to each other even when there's no Wal Mart around. Just around the block from me, there is a street that has a: Pet Smart, Rona, Adventure Electronics, Marks Work Wearhouse. All of these are rather large. And there's not a Wal-Mart within a mile. Yes. Its called Capitalism. Perhaps you might have heard of it. As does Zellers. As does McDonalds. As does most retail stores. I have worked 2 jobs in my life which paid minimum wage... one was in a corner store, one was in a restaurant. Neither of these had anything to do with Wal-Mart. (In fact, neither had anything to do with any sort of major chain.) And guess what, almost every store sells products that were made in foreign countries. Even small boutiques. Any company that doesn't try to get the best deal for products is likely to go out of business. Yes, I'm sure that does happen. But guess what? That's what people want. If people didn't like having Wal-Mart and other big box stores, they wouldn't shop there. Well, that 'big box sprawl' typically results in consumers having access to a wide range of products, available in close proximity, often giving them the ability to comparison-shop for the best deals. Sounds pretty good to me. Or perhaps you'd rather have a situation where people have to travel miles between different areas of town in order to obtain items they may need, increasing the time and effort needed to shop, and reduing the ability to find the best products/lowest prices. Here's a little news flash for you... there will always be jobs that pay minimum wage (or at least close to it). Even if Wal-mart were to totally disappear, corner stores, other department stores, fast food restaurants, mom-and-pop stores, etc. will still be paying low wages with no benefits. At least with Wal-mart around, those people who earn low wages will at least have an additional option for shopping that might help them stretch their already tight budgets even further. Or perhaps you think those people who have low paying jobs deserve to suffer? Except you've never shown how Walmart is causing the loss of jobs. First of all, you never gave a source for your figures, but I can guarantee you that they're most likely wrong. IN fact, men don't make up anywhere near 90% of management positions. It should also be noted that there is also a difference in the way the statistics are calculated... From: http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/27/0627walmart.html Richard Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, regards the use of gross statistical numbers as "a form of willful ignorance." Plaintiffs, he says, want to simply compare the percentage of employees who are women to the percentage who are managers, and simply assume that any unexplained variance is the result of discrimination....[Wal-Mart] classifies management positions differently from its competitors. For example, it says department "managers" are not included in the count of managers because they are not salaried positions. "If we included these, our overall percentage would probably be close to 50%," the company says. I'm sure there are cases where individual women have been discriminated against at Wal Mart. But given the size of the company, its not surprising that some problems exist (even if they're not a result of systemic discrimination). Who claimed they are the 'savior of Canada'? They are a retailer. They sell products, sometimes at a price cheaper than its competitors.

Once again... I am not "left wing". I voted for the conservatives in the last election. I support the lowering of taxes and government spending. And any company that doesn't attempt to save money will usually find themselves out of business. Ummm.... did you actually read the f*cking report that I referred to? It was actually done by a university (in case you try to claim it was just Wal-mart publishing false statistics), and it showed that there are just as many small businesses now than there were 2 decades ago. Furthermore, it showed that there is no co-relation between the number of Wal-Mart stores in an area and the number of small businesses. So, if Wal-Mart is driving all of these small companies out of business, then why do we see just as many small businesses around now as we did 20 years ago? Edited to add: In case you have trouble actually finding it, here is the post that I made that has a link to the study. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=2872&view=findpost&p=489686 So, you have my figures. Real ones. Not just anecdotes and rumors that you like to post about. I guess its just easier to get sympathy if you say "Wal-Mart put me out of Business" rather than "I'm an incompetent businessman" I think this cartoon says it all: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09082004.shtml I have never listened to CBC radio, and the only show that I've watched on CBC television in the past decade has been the CFL, NHL, or reruns of Arrested Development.

Eliminate or Privatize the CBC... In the past, the CBC had the mandate to provide content to remote communities and to provide an outlet for "Canadian Culture". At this point, it is no longer needed for those purposes. Remote communities can be served through a multitude of private options (satellite TV/radio, the internet, shortwave, etc.) And although the CBC does provide more Canadian Content on average than other Canadian networks, it usually has very low ratings (and is it really "Canadian Culture" if nobody actually watches it?) Heck, the CBC didn't even broadcast the CFL championship (one of the most historically significant, and very popular sporting events that we have.)

Different business models... - Costco sells a larger portion of their stuff "in bulk", reducing unit overhead - Costco often sells higher end brands than Wal-mart (meaning higher prices, and the ability to have higher markups) - Costco is not always consistent with the products it sells; many items that sell out are not restocked. I'm assuming that that makes it easier for their purchasing agents. Yet Walmart, when they sell out of an item, usually ends up restocking that same item.