Our City Online

Messageboard - Shopping

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

WalMart is "Going Urban" with New Stores

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Shopping WalMart is “Going Urban” with New Stores

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 269 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #385039

    kit444
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    Well, if we got rid of Medicaid, then fewer Wal-Mart employees in Ohio would be using Medicaid, wouldn’t they?

    Yes – just let them get sick and die. Don’t worry, you got a get deal on _____.

    It is not my place to “let” them do anything. It is, however (or at least should be), their responsibility to provide for their own health care.

    What do you think will happen to them when there is no Medicaid or food stamps? I understand why you oppose those programs. You’ve been quite verbose on the subject. What do you think the end result will be on the current recipients if those programs ended? If you’ve specified that elsewhere I apologize because I missed it.

    #385040

    gramarye
    Participant

    kit444 wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    Well, if we got rid of Medicaid, then fewer Wal-Mart employees in Ohio would be using Medicaid, wouldn’t they?

    Yes – just let them get sick and die. Don’t worry, you got a get deal on _____.

    It is not my place to “let” them do anything. It is, however (or at least should be), their responsibility to provide for their own health care.

    What do you think will happen to them when there is no Medicaid or food stamps? I understand why you oppose those programs. You’ve been quite verbose on the subject. What do you think the end result will be on the current recipients if those programs ended? If you’ve specified that elsewhere I apologize because I missed it.

    I think the end “result” would actually be a mix of results. Some people would lose out entirely, but I cannot believe that that would be as many people as the critics of that incredibly wasteful program say. Most would have to give up other things, which our consumerist culture has come to define as “necessities” but which aren’t necessities by any sane definition of the term (cable TV, new car, etc.), in order to pay for routine care–and they would have increased incentives to take care of their health because of the likely lack of the ability to pay for $20k treatments. In addition, many providers would have to lower their prices in order to preserve their markets (or else would have to compete in other ways for higher-paying customers, who in turn would gain bargaining power and could therefore also expect lower prices, leading to lower health care costs across the board for everyone, not just the government). This has already begun to happen in spite of the federal subsidy of high health care costs: MinuteClinics, the $4 prescription programs many retailers are running now for generics, etc. I think the financial pressure of taking a giant pot of free money with poor oversight out of the equation would also make the medical profession more realistic about which procedures require real M.D.’s and D.O.’s to do and which could be very realistically performed by much less expensive N.P.’s and R.N.’s.

    Most importantly, though, what I think the “end result” would be would be a federal budget much closer to balance. This is starting to become a winning political issue, at least in some quarters, which gives me a ray of hope for the future of the country–the UK actually just announced a budget with sharper public spending cuts that Thatcher ever enacted (at least at once), with substantial savings on welfare, public employee payrolls, and other sacred cows of the pro-spending crowd. The measure enjoys substantial popularity; the only individual part of the budget-balancing measures proposed with less than 50% support is the increase in the value-added tax.

    #385041

    Core_Models
    Member

    Too long, didn’t read

    That’s OK, you could have read it the first time it was written…by someone else…before he cut and pasted it here like it was his own ideas.

    http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=803

    #385042

    Klablut
    Member

    Snarf wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Snarf wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Twixlen wrote >>
    I “get” what both sides of this arguement are saying…. because I’ve felt both things. I mean, if someone is willing and able to sell something at a cheaper price than other folks in town with the same items, why on earth wouldn’t I take advantage of that? That’s the free market. Also, why do I care what WalMart does or doesn’t carry – what their own corporate culture deems as vulgar or appropriate – since I can find whatever I want in other stores or on the internet?
    And yet, I have a problem with it. I remember when WalMart came to the nearest town when I was a kid – how excited we were. It was a tiny store by today’s standards (this is mid/late 1970’s), and it was a big deal to get hired by WalMart. They had tough standards for their employees, and rewarded them in kind. It was a store that had brought many different stores under one roof – but it wasn’t necessarily cheaper. It was just a convenience thing.
    Compare that to modern WalMart. Now, stores are deliberately built within miles of one another to drive out local competition. Once that competition is gone, one store is usually the clear favorite, and the other store is mothballed – to sit empty, since WalMart will not sell their former stores to anyone deemed competition. In some cases, these stores have gotten so blighted, they’ve ended up being torn down with taxpayer money. We’ve seen this happen here in town (not necessarily the taxpayer tear-down, but the empty space) – I know I’ve seen it happen in other towns.
    WalMart DOES censor – they’ve admitted to that censorship, in the guise of creating a more “family friendly” environment. It makes me uncomfortable when a corporation wants to be my parent, or to parent. Because they are so very huge, record labels, magazines, books and such have either changed their cover/content entirely, or create a separate “WalMart” version. So, in all those small towns, where WalMart has driven out competition, and the vast majority of folks do all their shopping there – do they realize their choices are limited? Pema Chodron has some of the bestselling religion/spirituality books on Amazon – has anyone ever seen one of her books in a WalMart, the largest box store in the world? I’ve never seen a book there on anything but conventional Christianity, or generally very conservative values. And yup, it’s WalMart’s choice to limit selection in any way they please, but it makes me very uncomfortable to have them make those kinds of choices. Especially considering that they deliberately limit the choices of shopping locations in smaller towns.
    It’s taking me too long to articulate this – I’m sure ya’ll’ve moved on to discussing why it is so many folks feel like pajama bottoms and slippers are acceptible attire in some stores, blah blah blah.
    For me, there are problems with WalMart – they’ve had class action problems with how they’ve treated women in the workplace (deliberately limiting advancement, less pay, etc), they play games with hours of employees to keep them from qualifying for insurance (this was NY, not sure of OH rules), they censor (remember the Brokeback Mountain debacle?)… and when they are the largest private employer, the largest retailer, they ARE making choices for people.

    Thank you. There are a ton of issues with this company. Some just want to turn a blind eye because of the savings. It’s quite sad actually.

    And you, martyr of spending, are so SO much better than those people.

    I don’t think so but thanks for voting. Some people just don’t have much choice in the matter.
    Walmart’s increasing drive for profits and moving into other product markets caused huge food and business ‘deserts’ in the USA – especially in small towns. Arrivals of Wal-Mart stores are particularly scary because when local business is completely smashed and profits come down (when the incomes of local communities are lowered by the decline of competitive business) the company immediately removes its store to the nearest bigger town. Most of these cases involve removing stores from a couple of smaller towns to one bigger one, hence the name ‘strategy of consolidation’. Local business cannot come back to life immediately, so people in the smaller towns are still dependent on Wal-Mart and therefore have to cover much longer distances for their shopping trips. The process thus creates more traffic as well as social dislocation.
    While others may feel that they have to shop at WM due to budget constraints.
    The battle against Wal-Mart in U.S. is about maintaining quality community living standards. The true legacy of Wal-Mart isn’t lower prices. The true legacy of Wal-Mart is lower living standards for hard working Americans and those overseas. The fact is for every Wal-Mart store that opens, jobs are lost to the community, the tax base shrinks, the number of workers with health benefits declines, and the number of workers eligible for welfare increases.
    From a study conducted by Consumer Reports: surveyed 30,666 of its readers over a year’s time, asking them to rank experiences and products at 11 retailers, including Wal-Mart. Consumer Reports issued this brief disclaimer: “Results might not reflect experiences of the U.S. population.”
    Wal-Mart will not be reprinting the Consumer Report survey on its website. The results are not very flattering—and they’re not very different from a similar survey the magazine published eight years ago.
    For openers: “Last year shoppers spent $405 billion at Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer. But according to a new study by the Consumer Reports National Research Center, they might be better off if they switch stores.”
    Consumers shop at Wal-Mart for one reason only: presumed low prices. But CR readers said prices at the 10 other retailers (which included JCPenney, Sears, and Target) were “at least as good.”
    Almost 75% of Wal-Mart shoppers found at least one problem to complain about, and half had two or more complaints. In terms of overall store rating, Wal-Mart finished 10th out of 11 stores, barely nosing out Kmart at dead last.
    “Wal-Mart was near the bottom of the Ratings,” CR concludes. “The number of complaints about Wal-Mart’s lines and narrow aisles was above average. About 44% of its shoppers had a problem with the staff if they sought help. Quality of apparel, jewelry, kitchenware, and electronics was rated below average.”

    Too long, didn’t read.

    Of course not, why let facts get in the way when one can lazily take potshots? Some of you pop a boner over saving money and honestly believe that WM does great things because it employs so many people. Well Enron, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton etc also employ or have employed many people.

    There is a high cost to your savings and you could spend about the same amount of money or less at other stores by using coupons and stocking up on items you use while they are on sale. Stores that actually pay their workers more and offer solid benefits. But the choice is yours. I am just trying to be a better consumer. I am not perfect but trying to better educate myself on the practices of companies who advertise and invite us into their stores.

    #385043

    Core_Models
    Member

    why let facts get in the way when one can lazily take potshots?

    The minute you post some, I’ll read them.

    #385044

    gramarye
    Participant

    Klablut wrote >>
    There is a high cost to your savings and you could spend about the same amount of money or less at other stores by using coupons and stocking up on items you use while they are on sale. Stores that actually pay their workers more and offer solid benefits. But the choice is yours. I am just trying to be a better consumer. I am not perfect but trying to better educate myself on the practices of companies who advertise and invite us into their stores.

    Wal-Mart accepts coupons, too, you know.

    Also, how much more do Target, Sears, and JC Penney pay than Wal-Mart?

    As for myself, I’m content being a “bad” consumer if shopping at Wal-Mart makes one a “bad” consumer. Of course, some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a little local Italian market that carries Jeni’s, and some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a small, independent fresh produce grocer and deli that exists quite happily and successfully right around the corner from a Wal-Mart. And yes, some goes into my IRA and saving up for a down payment on a house someday (or maybe just a big payoff of my student loans). You won’t catch me apologizing for any of the above–the judgment of people who are that reflexively judgmental against Wal-Mart isn’t a judgment that deserves attention.

    #385045

    Klablut
    Member

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>
    There is a high cost to your savings and you could spend about the same amount of money or less at other stores by using coupons and stocking up on items you use while they are on sale. Stores that actually pay their workers more and offer solid benefits. But the choice is yours. I am just trying to be a better consumer. I am not perfect but trying to better educate myself on the practices of companies who advertise and invite us into their stores.

    Wal-Mart accepts coupons, too, you know.
    Also, how much more do Target, Sears, and JC Penney pay than Wal-Mart?
    As for myself, I’m content being a “bad” consumer if shopping at Wal-Mart makes one a “bad” consumer. Of course, some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a little local Italian market that carries Jeni’s, and some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a small, independent fresh produce grocer and deli that exists quite happily and successfully right around the corner from a Wal-Mart. And yes, some goes into my IRA and saving up for a down payment on a house someday (or maybe just a big payoff of my student loans). You won’t catch me apologizing for any of the above–the judgment of people who are that reflexively judgmental against Wal-Mart isn’t a judgment that deserves attention.

    There is no reflex about it. Its based on overwhelming facts.

    #385046
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Core_Models wrote >>

    Too long, didn’t read

    That’s OK, you could have read it the first time it was written…by someone else…before he cut and pasted it here like it was his own ideas.
    http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=803

    Ya know, pilsner used to do that too…

    #385047

    gramarye
    Participant

    Klablut wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>
    There is a high cost to your savings and you could spend about the same amount of money or less at other stores by using coupons and stocking up on items you use while they are on sale. Stores that actually pay their workers more and offer solid benefits. But the choice is yours. I am just trying to be a better consumer. I am not perfect but trying to better educate myself on the practices of companies who advertise and invite us into their stores.

    Wal-Mart accepts coupons, too, you know.
    Also, how much more do Target, Sears, and JC Penney pay than Wal-Mart?
    As for myself, I’m content being a “bad” consumer if shopping at Wal-Mart makes one a “bad” consumer. Of course, some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a little local Italian market that carries Jeni’s, and some of what I save at Wal-Mart goes to a small, independent fresh produce grocer and deli that exists quite happily and successfully right around the corner from a Wal-Mart. And yes, some goes into my IRA and saving up for a down payment on a house someday (or maybe just a big payoff of my student loans). You won’t catch me apologizing for any of the above–the judgment of people who are that reflexively judgmental against Wal-Mart isn’t a judgment that deserves attention.

    There is no reflex about it. Its based on overwhelming facts.

    It is based on your personal aesthetics and prejudices and a great deal of union-backed anti-corporate propaganda, devoid of both context and nuance. It is also based on a number of articles that are clearly not your own words and also not cited, which is a major faux pas on this board and an underhanded debating tactic anywhere. I’m not going to just cut and paste a defense of Wal-Mart from National Review or TCS or what have you and pretend like I wrote it–or hide the source to shield it from scrutiny.

    #385048

    kit444
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    I think the end “result” would actually be a mix of results. Some people would lose out entirely, but I cannot believe that that would be as many people as the critics of that incredibly wasteful program say. Most would have to give up other things, which our consumerist culture has come to define as “necessities” but which aren’t necessities by any sane definition of the term (cable TV, new car, etc.), in order to pay for routine care–and they would have increased incentives to take care of their health because of the likely lack of the ability to pay for $20k treatments. In addition, many providers would have to lower their prices in order to preserve their markets (or else would have to compete in other ways for higher-paying customers, who in turn would gain bargaining power and could therefore also expect lower prices, leading to lower health care costs across the board for everyone, not just the government). This has already begun to happen in spite of the federal subsidy of high health care costs: MinuteClinics, the $4 prescription programs many retailers are running now for generics, etc. I think the financial pressure of taking a giant pot of free money with poor oversight out of the equation would also make the medical profession more realistic about which procedures require real M.D.’s and D.O.’s to do and which could be very realistically performed by much less expensive N.P.’s and R.N.’s.
    Most importantly, though, what I think the “end result” would be would be a federal budget much closer to balance. This is starting to become a winning political issue, at least in some quarters, which gives me a ray of hope for the future of the country–the UK actually just announced a budget with sharper public spending cuts that Thatcher ever enacted (at least at once), with substantial savings on welfare, public employee payrolls, and other sacred cows of the pro-spending crowd. The measure enjoys substantial popularity; the only individual part of the budget-balancing measures proposed with less than 50% support is the increase in the value-added tax.

    Nice work to put “result” in quotes, not once but twice. Classy move. It’s a legitimate question, no matter how little you care about it.

    #385049

    Klablut
    Member

    Core_Models wrote >>

    why let facts get in the way when one can lazily take potshots?

    The minute you post some, I’ll read them.

    You should look into your anger problems and get to the root of the problem(s) on why you are such a miserable person. Your arguments are pathetic to say the least:

    WM is good because they employ people.

    You can’t have an opinion based on the breakfast item you ate and where you live.

    You don’t know a thing about me and what sacrifices I had to go through in order to finally purchase a home and what socio-economic status I came out of.
    You have offered nothing intelligent or thought provoking to this conversation. I hope that you have quality heath insur. so you can get some meds. My postings here have been in defense of blue collar workers and the sruggles they go trough. You can throw stones all you like – go ahead. Hope it makes you feel better. But it wont take away from what a prick you are.

    #385050

    gramarye
    Participant

    I have an interesting (or potentially mindnumbingly boring–no accounting for taste) question to bring Columbus back into this conversation:

    Where would this go?

    I used to think that if Wal-Mart were going to make a go of it in downtown Columbus, they’d just buy up a good part of City Center for a song and go to town on it. It doesn’t look like that’s an option anymore now that we have at least nebular plans in motion for doing something with all that space. I think there are some older buildings and parking lots closer to (but not quite to) CSCC and CCAD that might work for a midsized store (Wal-Mart or otherwise), but the ability of downtown to support a truly large-footprint store is shrinking. This is, of course, a good thing, because it means that downtown has been growing and the low-hanging fruit in terms of underused parcels are getting snapped up, but it does present a challenge for people trying to conceive of ways of getting a single large establishment onto the map downtown.

    #385051

    Core_Models
    Member

    Actually, your postings have been reprints from sites like Walmartwatch (without actually crediting them). Your complaints about Wal-mart are 100% clear to me. You think they should pay their employees more, should be kinder to their competition, carry different stuff, offer better benefits, etc. My opinion is a pretty simple one…start a company and do that yourself, because this company is doing what it feels best and is within federally regulated guidelines.

    ETA: Still amused by a borderline Communist bitching that Wal-mart buys stuff from China btw…thanks for that at least.

    #385052

    joev
    Participant

    This bickering is boring.

    I did some grocery shopping at Walmart last Monday, and I have to amend my prior statement – the produce quality isn’t as good as other stores. The peaches were an unbelievable 48 cents/pound, but in two days, half were rotten, and the other half remain stone hard and will never ripen. The sweet potatoes were 78 cents/pound, but they were fibrous and unflavorful. When something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

    #385053

    Klablut
    Member

    Core_Models wrote >>
    Actually, your postings have been reprints from sites like Walmartwatch (without actually crediting them). Your complaints about Wal-mart are 100% clear to me. You think they should pay their employees more, should be kinder to their competition, carry different stuff, offer better benefits, etc. My opinion is a pretty simple one…start a company and do that yourself, because this company is doing what it feels best and is within federally regulated guidelines.
    ETA: Still amused by a borderline Communist bitching that Wal-mart buys stuff from China btw…thanks for that at least.

    So effing what? They are facts. If I wanted to post all the controversies of WM – it would be a very, very long post.

    And what exactly do you contribute to society? A modeling agency that contributes to the ideal of what a women should look like? Anoxeria and bullimia and depression are not things that I would be proud of.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 269 total)

The forum ‘Shopping’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: