Walmart Supercenters
J1Boss
the east coast I have seen. None in MD that I know of.
Wilkes-Barre, PA 1623 Supercenter
Norfolk, VA 1811 Supercenter
Janet Boss
Best Friends Dog Obedience
"Nice Manners for the Family Pet"
Voted "Best of Baltimore 2001" - Baltimore Magazine
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/bestfriendsobedience
J1Boss
1. Shrewsbury, PA 17361
2. Hanover, PA 17331
3. York, PA 17402
4. York (W), PA 17404
5. Seaford, DE 19973
6. Camden, DE 19934
7. Lancaster, PA 17602
8. Tappahannock, VA 22560
9. Milford, DE 19963
10. Salisbury, MD 21801
Cate
news:20040322112533...@mb-m03.aol.com:
> Of the Walmart Stores opening in March 2004, these are the farthest
> north on the east coast I have seen.
Don't count on using a check card as a credit card there. They recently
made a policy to accept check cards only as debit cards, even though most
banks now charge account holders a per transaction fee to use them in that
manner.
I should've stocked up on Orson's glucosamine during my last visit, because
I won't go back after my conversation about the new policy with the
manager.
Cate
Melinda Shore
Isn't York about an hour from you?
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would increase the budget
deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
J1Boss
>Isn't York about an hour from you?
yup - and I'll actually be there for flyball this weekend (anyone in the
area?).
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
>
>I should've stocked up on Orson's glucosamine during my last visit, because
>I won't go back after my conversation about the new policy with the
>manager.
>
>Cate
>
Indeed that is true. I was a bit shocked recently at that. I really
don't understand it
at all. What reason were you given? I can't recall the specifics of the
reasons
I was given. It seemed as though it didn't make much sense.
Gwen
CaptRon
"Cate" <notreally....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94B4758AC4...@130.133.1.4...
>
> Don't count on using a check card as a credit card there. They recently
> made a policy to accept check cards only as debit cards, even though most
> banks now charge account holders a per transaction fee to use them in that
> manner.
I know, I hate it that they did that. I was told that one of the reasons is
that, if used as a credit card, it will sometimes go through even if the
funds arent available. Then the store has the eq. of a bounced check.
dainerra
Melinda Shore
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Indeed that is true. I was a bit shocked recently at that. I really
>don't understand it
>at all. What reason were you given? I can't recall the specifics of the
>reasons
>I was given. It seemed as though it didn't make much sense.
Walmart's margins are so thin that they just don't have room
to do anything that you, know, costs them money (like treat
their employees like people). I know a lot of people are
having a hard time getting by these days and I'm completely
sympathetic to the need to spend carefully, but when I do
the arithmetic to figure out how much it's costing me to
spend $.50/can more by not buying mack at Walmart, it comes
to less than $8.00/month.
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> What reason were you given?
This was all the explanation I was given (in a defensive tone): 'It's not
just *this* store, it's every Wal-Mart in the country!' Me: 'Well then, I
won't be shopping at any *other* Wal-Mart again, either. Thanks for letting
me know!'
I can't recall the specifics of the
> reasons
> I was given. It seemed as though it didn't make much sense.
My neighbor had the same issue, but he was more aggressive and got an
answer: It costs Wal-Mart more money to process the transactions as credit
than as debit. I think the credit card companies are imposing a new fee, or
Wal-Mart suddenly doesn't like a fee it's been paying all along.
My neighbor also found out it's a policy (not an inability to take the
cards as credit, as I'd been told), and he refused to pay for anything or
leave the store until they took his card as credit.
Cate
Cate
@panix2.panix.com:
> Walmart's margins are so thin that they just don't have room
> to do anything that you, know, costs them money (like treat
> their employees like people). I know a lot of people are
> having a hard time getting by these days and I'm completely
> sympathetic to the need to spend carefully, but when I do
> the arithmetic to figure out how much it's costing me to
> spend $.50/can more by not buying mack at Walmart, it comes
> to less than $8.00/month.
Despite my better judgment I shopped there after moving here, even after
learning about their repeated labor, safety, and immigration violations,
because it's much more convenient than anything else. Time after time I'd
rack up new reasons not to go back, but when they tell me they can't take
my money anymore--well, that's like an engraved un-invitation.
Cate
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>Walmart's margins are so thin that they just don't have room
>to do anything that you, know, costs them money (like treat
>their employees like people).
>
I have certainly heard this complaint in the past.
>I know a lot of people are
>having a hard time getting by these days and I'm completely
>sympathetic to the need to spend carefully,
>
Indeed, I definitely need to be in that camp right now.
> but when I do
>the arithmetic to figure out how much it's costing me to
>spend $.50/can more by not buying mack at Walmart, it comes
>to less than $8.00/month.
>
Well actually HEBs has better prices for food and such then Walmart does
around
here. I don't buy food there often if at all. I buy gardening supplies,
mostly. Sometimes
bathroom stuff or rugs for the dogs. I like those woven cheapo rugs and
Walmart
seems to be the only place that carries them. I hate any rug with that
nasty rubber
bottom. For one my eldest kitty thinks those are to be peed on and once she
has done one single time they are then trash.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
>
>My neighbor also found out it's a policy (not an inability to take the
>cards as credit, as I'd been told), and he refused to pay for anything or
>leave the store until they took his card as credit.
>
>Cate
>
>
Really? Yes that all seems to come to mind. But isn't it rather peculiar
that they will take CC? Or I am quite certain they do, if not they
won't be in business very long.
And heck I like Walmart to a degree. Not for doggie stuff but more
for gardening stuff. And an occassional pair of cheap shorts or
whatever.
Gwen
Melinda Shore
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Melinda Shore wrote:
>>Walmart's margins are so thin that they just don't have room
>>to do anything that you, know, costs them money (like treat
>>their employees like people).
>I have certainly heard this complaint in the past.
It's not just them - their pricing strategies force their
suppliers to cut their costs, as well, which pushes down
manufacturing wages and even pushes manufacturing jobs out
of the country. It's pretty depressing that the country's
largest employer used to be GM and now it's Walmart.
The Puppy Wizard
that's been of any value at all.
"J1Boss" <j1b...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040322112533...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> Yes that all seems to come to mind. But isn't it rather peculiar
> that they will take CC? Or I am quite certain they do, if not they
> won't be in business very long.
They continue to take regular credit cards, just not check cards as credit
cards. Considering the the smaller size of the (regular) credit card-using
population that shops in their stores, a *lot* of people are going to get
hosed by bank fees if they don't pay attention.
Cate
Cate
@panix2.panix.com:
> It's not just them - their pricing strategies force their
> suppliers to cut their costs, as well, which pushes down
> manufacturing wages and even pushes manufacturing jobs out
> of the country.
PBS addressed this in an excellent program called Store Wars, which
detailed Ashland VA's fight to keep a super Wal-Mart from coming to town.
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores.html
Cate
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
Indeed, though I will just use my checkbook at Walmart from now on.
Too bad they don't care more for their customers.
Gwen
Melinda Shore
Cate <notreally....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>PBS addressed this in an excellent program called Store Wars, which
>detailed Ashland VA's fight to keep a super Wal-Mart from coming to town.
>http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores.html
Cool! I went to Ashland a few times for high school band
stuff. It looks like Ithaca's going to get a Walmart after
all. I don't know why we need one now that there's one in
Cortland and one in Watkins Glen.
Cate
@panix2.panix.com:
> Cool! I went to Ashland a few times for high school band
> stuff.
Ashland is wonderful. As the PBS site says, it's the only town in the US
where Amtrak still lets off passengers right onto Main St.
It looks like Ithaca's going to get a Walmart after
> all.
I heard. I frankly don't understand how the area can support all those
stores. And as if the traffic on 13 isn't bad enough.
I don't know why we need one now that there's one in
> Cortland and one in Watkins Glen.
That's part of the subject of the PBS program as well: Ashland (pop. 8000)
is 15 miles from Richmond, and the suburbs of Richmond are nearly to the
city's border. There are two other Wal-Marts (and Targets, and malls, and
nearly everything consumers need) within 10 miles of the one they
eventually built (yes, they lost) in Ashland. IIRC, the residents who
organized the protest investigated and found that, like Starbucks, this is
part of Wal-Mart's plan: to open more stores than an area can support, and
then close the one(s) with the poorer bottom line. And of course, empty
500,000 sf warehouses are *so* marketable in towns of 10,000-30,000 people!
Cate
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> Indeed, though I will just use my checkbook at Walmart from now on.
>
> Too bad they don't care more for their customers.
Or their employees, or the communities where they're located.
I won't be using anything in Wal-Mart again. Losing the cheap gas and
shopping at Sam's Club are major inconveniences, but I feel it's worth it
not to support their brand of bad corporate citizenship.
</soapbox>
Cate
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
But Cate they are the only ones that have certain things I need. It does
suck, though,
especially what you just pointed out about them erecting stores on every
other street
corner(exaggerated of course).
Gwen
who had planned to get new above ground pool soon
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
>
>then close the one(s) with the poorer bottom line. And of course, empty
>500,000 sf warehouses are *so* marketable in towns of 10,000-30,000 people!
>
>Cate
>
>
GRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that gets to me. Our area did
succeed in preventing
a Super Walmart thank goodness. We got a "Target" which makes more sense
for the type of
community.
But I really hate it when businesses destroy land, put "up a parking
lot" (as Joni Mitchell song")
and then evacuate several years down the road. Movie theaters seem to be
one of the worse at doing just that. But I have seen fair share of the
Walmart/Home Depot/ etc which seem to do that.
Gwen
TO...@dog-play.com
Its really useful to remember these driving motivations when doing things
like trying to persuade people not to buy from puppy mills or BYB. Its
hard to get people who are so altruistic that they sacrafice their own
needs/desires. So our most persuasive approach ends up being to figure
out what's in it for the buyer. Whether its dogs or people its hard to
drum up concern for things we haven't experienced or that are hidden from
us.
--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html
sionnach
"Cate" wrote:
> IIRC, the residents who
> organized the protest investigated and found that, like Starbucks, this is
> part of Wal-Mart's plan: to open more stores than an area can support, and
> then close the one(s) with the poorer bottom line.
That's not a strategy unique to Wal-Mart or Starbucks; one of the "super"
bookstore chains (IIRC, Borders) has been using that strategy for years to
deliberately drive competitors out of business. I believe it was in Chicago,
about 10 years ago, that they opened up 10 stores - one in the city, 9
surrounding - took the losses for the year or so it took the large
independents in the city to go out of business, then closed all but that
one central store.
sionnach
"Cate" wrote:
> I think the credit card companies are imposing a new fee, or
> Wal-Mart suddenly doesn't like a fee it's been paying all along.
I can't remember the details, but there was some sort of lawsuit recently
about Visa/MC forcing businesses to accept the cards that go directly to
checking accounts, and extra fees for those transactions.
Any way you look at it, it sucks for the customer; I very much prefer
using the card to writing a paper check.
Gwen Watson
sionnach wrote:
>
>in the city to go out of business, then closed all but that
>one central store.
>
>
:((((((( I think these places should be fined for killing trees and
putting up
unwanted buildings and cement parking lots. It wouldn't be so bad
if these businesses could be occupied again by another business but
often enough that is not what occurs.
On the good side at least Starbucks are small. Though I have never set
foot in one and don't plan to.
And one big culprit of this sort of tactic is McDonalds and I haven't eaten
or set foot in a McDonalds in 8.5 years and I don't plan on it either.
Gwen
>
>
>
Bethgsd
>Of the Walmart Stores opening in March 2004, these are the farthest north on
>the east coast I have seen. None in MD that I know of.
>
>
> Wilkes-Barre, PA 1623 Supercenter
>
>Norfolk, VA 1811 Supercenter
Janet,
There are 5 Wal-mart super centers in the Richmond area. The one that is the
farthest north is the nastiest.
Beth
Bethgsd
>I won't be using anything in Wal-Mart again. Losing the cheap gas and
>shopping at Sam's Club are major inconveniences, but I feel it's worth it
>not to support their brand of bad corporate citizenship.
I still occasionally go to Wal-Mart, but lately it seems like the things I get
there are no longer carried. I'm finding it better for my peace of mind to
shop for groceries at a GOOD local chain, even though more expensive, and the
stuff I can't get there at Target and Costco.
Beth
Cate
news:c3nf9o$29otht$1...@ID-80796.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Whether its dogs or people its hard to
> drum up concern for things we haven't experienced or that are hidden
> from us.
How true.
Cate
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> But Cate they are the only ones that have certain things I need.
Me too, but I have found/will find substitutes.
Cate
Cate
45033.news.uni-berlin.de:
> I believe it was in Chicago,
> about 10 years ago, that they opened up 10 stores - one in the city, 9
> surrounding - took the losses for the year or so it took the large
> independents in the city to go out of business, then closed all but that
> one central store.
And when they do this, they almost always got huge local tax
breaks/deferments, amounting to loans, to build the infrastructure. And
when they shut down or move out of town, the taxes the city is owed don't
get paid, taking a bite out of the local economy and leaving empty,
sometimes unleasable real estate.
Cate
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
Mostly I do as well. It isn't like I go often. I go to Home Depot much
more often.
But I am going to get this above ground pool from there. I am not paying
double
to go to Toys R Us just to ban Walmart for its bad practices which I have
my doubts are much worse then many other majors around, including Target,
Academy. But I could be wrong.
Gwen
>
>
>
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
>
>leaving empty,
>sometimes unleasable real estate.
>
>Cate
>
Mostly leaving empty and unleasable real estate that has destroyed tons
of land,
trees and wild life if you consider my area. I find that the worst thing
of all. But
then I really don't care for useless habitat destruction.
The Walmart I go to has been around for quite a long time, possible 15 years
and maybe more.
I do know after this whole topic here I won't ever be entering a Starbucks.
And now I guess I should scratch Walmart from my list? But where am I gonna
get my outdoor swings and pools and such. I am not paying double just to try
to make some point to Walmart.
Gwen
>
>
TO...@dog-play.com
> But I am going to get this above ground pool from there. I am not paying
> double
> to go to Toys R Us just to ban Walmart for its bad practices which I have
> my doubts are much worse then many other majors around, including Target,
> Academy. But I could be wrong.
Business exist to serve customer demand. They behave as customers will
allow. There are few pet stores in my area because people objected.
With no customer base to support them the business changes or it dies.
If customers come the businesses correctly assume that no change is
required. At least with puppy mills puppies in pet shops we have the
advantage of pointing out that they aren't necessarily cheaper even up
front. Self interest is an effective persuasive tool. Its human nature
to look for "what's in it for me" and avoid the larger life philosophy.
J1Boss
>On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:35:00 -0600 Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> whittled
>these words:
>
>> But I am going to get this above ground pool from there. I am not paying
>> double
>> to go to Toys R Us just to ban Walmart for its bad practices which I have
>> my doubts are much worse then many other majors around, including Target,
>> Academy. But I could be wrong.
Do you actually shop around? Let your fingers do the walking - the internet is
a wonderful thing - finding low prices on common items is just soooooo easy
these days!
TO...@dog-play.com
> And now I guess I should scratch Walmart from my list? But where am I gonna
> get my outdoor swings and pools and such. I am not paying double just to try
> to make some point to Walmart.
And no one says you should. Whether it is dogs or consumer goods you
don't get lower prices without a sacrafice somewhere. If the market
demands low prices above all else then naturally that is what the market
will get. And Walmart excels at that. So far the consumer is not only
willing but eager to accept the trade-offs involved. If that changes, so
will their business practices. But if you are comfortable with a
businesses practices it isn't up to anyone else. The dollars spent at
Walmart are all Walmart cares about. As long as people buy WalMart will
be happy. The complaints of empty stores, ruined businesses and
off-shoring are meaningless to WalMart so long as people continue to buy.
Melinda Shore
Sure, but the classical market argument is premised on fair
competition, which arguably we don't have here. It's one of
the many big, big problems with Walmart. Unfortunately I
don't think there's much that consumers alone can do, and
equally unfortunately we've currently got a government that
privileges deregulation over competition - bad news for
consumers (the stuff that's going on with media
consolidation really pisses me off - 10 years ago we had
what I thought was the best radio in the world, and because
ours is becoming increasingly generic I think the honors now
go to Canada. Er, honours).
That said, I don't shop at Walmart, myself. Not because I
think that my decision not to buy stuff there puts a
palpable dent in their bottom line, but because I just plain
don't like them or how they do business. And the stores
smell funny.
TO...@dog-play.com
> In article <c3no01$2abv78$2...@ID-80796.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> <TO...@dog-play.com> wrote:
>>Business exist to serve customer demand.
> Sure, but the classical market argument is premised on fair
> competition, which arguably we don't have here. It's one of
> the many big, big problems with Walmart.
The premise in "unfair competition" is basically that by one means or
another the business is undercutting the prices of its competitors. Thus
the consumer is a necessary participant in the success of the strategy.
> Unfortunately I
> don't think there's much that consumers alone can do, and
> equally unfortunately we've currently got a government that
> privileges deregulation over competition - bad news for
> consumers (the stuff that's going on with media
> consolidation really pisses me off - 10 years ago we had
> what I thought was the best radio in the world, and because
> ours is becoming increasingly generic I think the honors now
> go to Canada. Er, honours).
Its natural and expected that consumers will act out of immediate self
interest. Thus the hope/expectation that some entity will take
responsiblity for a longer range view and impose controls. I don't have
a strong position as to whether I believe in regulation to protect
consumers from themselves, or let everything rot until people wake up.
Might depend upon which side of the bed I got out of, or maybe whether I
want to serve myself over the future. I ain't no saint on this issue. I
only note that consumers are not blameless and that if one is going to
cry about a business practice the first thing to look at might be buying
choices.
> That said, I don't shop at Walmart, myself. Not because I
> think that my decision not to buy stuff there puts a
> palpable dent in their bottom line, but because I just plain
> don't like them or how they do business. And the stores
> smell funny.
I have, but I've pretty much convinced myself not to. After all there is
abolutely nothing there I need. Want is a different issue but I can't
think of any item which can't be purchased with better quality and better
service elsewhere. I'm not rich but I can afford to live how I believe.
Judy
news:c3nqhg$29r3b0$1...@ID-80796.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm not rich but I can afford to live how I believe.
Perfect summary of my position. Thank you for the phrasing I'm too sleep
deprived to come up with.
--
~~Judy
"Dogs are not our whole life, but
they make our lives whole." -- Roger Caras
Melinda Shore
<TO...@dog-play.com> wrote:
>The premise in "unfair competition" is basically that by one means or
>another the business is undercutting the prices of its competitors. Thus
>the consumer is a necessary participant in the success of the strategy.
Unfair competition often means more than that. It's been
documented over and over and over again that Walmart has
coercive relationships with its suppliers because they buy
in such huge volume. They also compete unfairly by using
irresponsible (and in some cases illegal) labor practices.
By being able to purchase at lower prices than their
competition and by paying less for labor than their
competition they're able to drop their prices lower than
their competition, and for people who really are living on
the edge (and there's a growing number of them) there's
noplace else they can justify shopping. Being able to make
moral judgments about where to shop (and it's something that
I do all the time - I try to put my money where my great big
mouth is) is a luxury that a lot of people don't have.
Sometimes the market fails to deliver on the classic liberal
(economic liberalism, not political liberalism) promise of
optimal results, and this is a good example.
That said, I'm pretty unsympathetic to the argument that
you've got to buy a swimming pool there. You don't have to
buy a swimming pool at all.
Amy Dahl
as the lesser evil, for those of us who live in small rural places
where Wal-Mart is the only place to get a lot of stuff--buy
locally at Wal-Mart, or "outsource" by getting stuff mail-order?
Amy Dahl
Melinda Shore
I think that Walmart does a lot of economic damage to the
country through anti-competitive business practices and does
a lot of damage to the conditions of working people through
simply awful labor practices. They also do a certain amount
of economic damage to local communities. I'd personally
have a strong preference for mail order in that particular
case. But it is a very, very complex issue and I think that
clearly bad jobs are better than no jobs, or at least they
are when they're legit (Walmart's practice of using
contractors that hire illegal immigrants and then lock them
into the building, don't pay overtime, and crap like that is
obviously a lot worse than simply being a "bad job").
It's a big hairball of a problem, particularly in areas with
high unemployment. In the long run it's a lot better not to
reward terrible business practices, as Diane pointed out,
but when Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead" this
is pretty much the sort of situation he was talking about.
TO...@dog-play.com
> In article <c3nqhg$29r3b0$1...@ID-80796.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> <TO...@dog-play.com> wrote:
>>The premise in "unfair competition" is basically that by one means or
>>another the business is undercutting the prices of its competitors. Thus
>>the consumer is a necessary participant in the success of the strategy.
> Unfair competition often means more than that. It's been
> documented over and over and over again that Walmart has
> coercive relationships with its suppliers because they buy
> in such huge volume. They also compete unfairly by using
> irresponsible (and in some cases illegal) labor practices.
> By being able to purchase at lower prices than their
> competition and by paying less for labor than their
> competition they're able to drop their prices lower than
> their competition,
That is exactly what I said above. "by one means or another the business
is undercutting the prices of its competitors."
> and for people who really are living on
> the edge (and there's a growing number of them) there's
> noplace else they can justify shopping.
So we can force these people to pay the higher prices by governmental
intervention which prevents the price undercutting. This avoids them
needing to consider whether to pay the lower price and accept the
trade-off. They will have to pay the higher price because there will be
no lower one.
> Being able to make
> moral judgments about where to shop (and it's something that
> I do all the time - I try to put my money where my great big
> mouth is) is a luxury that a lot of people don't have.
Very true. So we can use government to ensure that they are not put in
that dilemma. There will be no lower choice based on unfair practices
and thus they must select the "fair" one regardless of ability to pay for
it. And if they can't afford it they will simply have to do without. I
have no position on whether this is good or bad because I have not looked
deeply at the degree to which this influences what people NEED vs what
people want. Need is a broad enough concept by itself since it
encompasses more than mere survival. I don't think there is an easy or
obvious solution. The main point is that consumer behavior does drive
business practice. The degree to which consumers can choose their
behavior doesn't change that. It only changes the degree to which the
business can rely on the continuation of the behavior. Governmental
(and other) intervention can change choice and in doing so can change
consumer behavior.
TO...@dog-play.com
I think, at least in part, that depends upon whether you are more local
or global in your world view. I'm not sure there is an ethical right or
wrong there. One of the things I love about the web is
how it has enabled very small businesses to thrive because they can draw
from a larger customer base. Jobs in rural areas have always been a
challenge. I think given a choice between a distant business I liked and
the local Walmart employer I'd choose the distant business I liked. And
I think I'd do so for similar reasons for not rescueing a puppy from a
pet shop or puppy mill. Yes you benefit and support that individual (or
in the case of shopping the local Walmart the employment of its
employees) put a problematic situation is continued to long term
detriment. The same factors that mean you can shop long distance for the
desired item applies equally to your own community. Meaning that given
creativity and marketing they too could survive or thrive by going
outside the community. There is very little that is entirely dependent
on the local community for success, although getting heard amidst the
larger players is a daunting challenge. Good market focus can be of some
aid in that regard.
Melinda Shore
<TO...@dog-play.com> wrote:
>So we can force these people to pay the higher prices by governmental
>intervention which prevents the price undercutting.
The pricing problem is real, but there's a strong argument
to be made that part of the reason that we're facing
depressed wages in the US (and we definitely are), as well
as offshoring of jobs, etc., is because companies like
Walmart are behaving very, very badly, and forcing them to
clean up their act can help mitigate the growing poverty
problem in the US.
The market's malfunctioning in the US right now. I think
part of the problem is too much government intervention
(insane agricultural subsidies, dumbassed protectionist
tariffs that actually destroyed jobs, bad trade policies
that have led to a record trade deficit, etc.) in some cases
and not enough government intervention in others (doing
something about monopolistic behaviors, getting serious
about corporate crime instead of treating it like a source
of election year photo ops). Wages are down and
unemployment is up and the middle class is shrinking.
That's why Walmart is thriving. What's been happening to
the economy is extremely disturbing.
Amy Dahl
TO...@dog-play.com wrote:I think, at least in part, that depends upon whether you are more
local
> or global in your world view. I'm not sure there is an ethical right or
> wrong there. One of the things I love about the web is
> how it has enabled very small businesses to thrive because they can draw
> from a larger customer base. Jobs in rural areas have always been a
> challenge. I think given a choice between a distant business I liked and
> the local Walmart employer I'd choose the distant business I liked.
H'm. I am in the dark about the business practices of most of the
catalog companies I deal with. I do choose J-B Wholesale for a
lot of my dog stuff because I have heard the owners are pro-animal-
owners' rights and do not donate to HSUS. But clothes in catalogs
are all "imported," with whatever that implies about working conditions,
ethics, etc.
> And
> I think I'd do so for similar reasons for not rescueing a puppy from a
> pet shop or puppy mill. Yes you benefit and support that individual (or
> in the case of shopping the local Walmart the employment of its
> employees) put a problematic situation is continued to long term
> detriment.
I got this part, but...
> The same factors that mean you can shop long distance for the
> desired item applies equally to your own community. Meaning that given
> creativity and marketing they too could survive or thrive by going
> outside the community. There is very little that is entirely dependent
> on the local community for success, although getting heard amidst the
> larger players is a daunting challenge. Good market focus can be of some
> aid in that regard.
I read this several times and find it confusing. Are you saying the locals
here can make a living by marketing their goods/services outside the
area? MHO is there are a lot of people who want the security of a
simple, wage-paying job and are too far from entrepreneurial
initiative to have a prayer.
Now, in this particular area there are some people with a lot of money. Golf
resorts and horse farms (including a wide variety of horse events) are the two
noticeable things around here. And there are a lot of really poor people, really
modest homes, etc. It seems the well-to-do might be a market for a variety of
things, if the right creative person came along and hired the locals and could
make it happen. We've thought of an art gallery, featuring regional artists
(the tourists could buy paintings of golf courses and horses to remember their
trip) but we're too busy training dogs. It takes a real knowledge of art not to
be schlocky, and my husband is the only person I know with experience
directing an art gallery.
Amy Dahl
TO...@dog-play.com
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:25:47 GMT Amy Dahl <a...@oakhillkennel.com> whittled these words:
> H'm. I am in the dark about the business practices of most of the
> catalog companies I deal with.
Yes, same here. Although with most of the dog stuff I'm dealing with small
enough concerns that at one time or another I've ended up talking to the
owner. That how it made my awareness of how small business could leverage
the web.
> I do choose J-B Wholesale for a
> lot of my dog stuff because I have heard the owners are pro-animal-
> owners' rights and do not donate to HSUS. But clothes in catalogs
> are all "imported," with whatever that implies about working conditions,
> ethics, etc.
I admit to ignorance about how most business fit into my world
view. I always think deliberate ignorance is worse than accidental
ignorance, yet I'm guilty of it. I'm aware of the issues, I have
opinions, yet I don't do anything to find out. OTOH once something makes
me start mulling it over in a specific case it does make a difference in
my decision making.
>> The same factors that mean you can shop long distance for the
>> desired item applies equally to your own community. Meaning that given
>> creativity and marketing they too could survive or thrive by going
>> outside the community. There is very little that is entirely dependent
>> on the local community for success, although getting heard amidst the
>> larger players is a daunting challenge. Good market focus can be of some
>> aid in that regard.
> I read this several times and find it confusing. Are you saying the locals
> here can make a living by marketing their goods/services outside the
> area? MHO is there are a lot of people who want the security of a
> simple, wage-paying job and are too far from entrepreneurial
> initiative to have a prayer.
Yes, I sympathize. Its tough. But not hopeless because when something
like the "Dog and Cat Book Catalog" ends up growing they need customer
service people. So far its mostly big business that is sending such
overseas. And in mid level skills they need web development, marketing,
etc. Like small rural business has ever been its a dozen people or so.
(Oh, not speaking specifically of that business as its been a while since
I talked with them personally, commenting as to a business of that type)
But they don't need the geographic location of a brick and mortar store.
So yes, local businesses can hire and employ clerical and service
employees to support successful web based businesses.
Also take, for example, my latest hobby with CafePress. It has LOTS of
room for hourly type employees. As long as good delivery is available its
physical location is pretty much irrelevant. The source of its goods is
still an issue I haven't followed up on. But they are involved in their
local community, which just so happens to be my local community. My point
isn't to promote a particular business, just point to one that provides an
example of what is possible in web based business in rural communities.
> Now, in this particular area there are some people with a lot of money. Golf
> resorts and horse farms (including a wide variety of horse events) are the two
> noticeable things around here. And there are a lot of really poor people, really
> modest homes, etc. It seems the well-to-do might be a market for a variety of
> things, if the right creative person came along and hired the locals and could
> make it happen. We've thought of an art gallery, featuring regional artists
> (the tourists could buy paintings of golf courses and horses to remember their
> trip) but we're too busy training dogs. It takes a real knowledge of art not to
> be schlocky, and my husband is the only person I know with experience
> directing an art gallery.
People can and do make a living selling art over the internet. Take one
person with a good eye for art and knowledge of the target market, add one
skilled web designer, add one organizer/marketer and who knows. There is
no inherent reason it couldn't be successful, especially working both
markets (internet and local). Giving the transient wealthy a way to view
the art work after they've returned to the workday pressures could be part
of the marketing strategy "Don't you wish you were here again?"
According to my reading in misc.rural there is a growing market for local
specialty meats and produce which is perfect for that resort community.
And you know that there is a huge potential market for BARF type foods all
pre-prepared for the doting free spending pet owner. None of this is ever
going to be marketed by Walmart because the whole reason people seek these
things is that they are NOT mass market.
I don't have the answers and I'm not making light of the problems, and I'm
not claiming to make the "right" choices any more often than some of the
time, but its growing on me.
Gwen Watson
J1Boss wrote:
Oh yes indeed. In fact I did end up finding somewhat cheaper but the
shipping cost
was over the roof. And if for some reason parts were damaged like say
the pump
then of course I would have to pay for the shipping costs again. So all
in all there
are certain items like that I really don't feel comfortable with buying
over the internet.
Gwen
>
>
>
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> And the stores
>smell funny.
>
That sure is true.
Well all that you said was true. And fair enough.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Amy Dahl wrote:
Pricely and it may be coming from countries in which US employees have
lost their jobs.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>That said, I'm pretty unsympathetic to the argument that
>you've got to buy a swimming pool there. You don't have to
>buy a swimming pool at all.
>
I pretty unsympathetic about those that feel they have to eat at McDonalds
and equally of IMO more distasteful then WalMart will ever be.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
>
> The complaints of empty stores, ruined businesses and
>off-shoring are meaningless to WalMart so long as people continue to buy.
>
>
And that is an excellent point. When can we start banning Haliburton? Whoops
wait a minute my husband works for the outfit. :(
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>That said, I'm pretty unsympathetic to the argument that
>you've got to buy a swimming pool there. You don't have to
>buy a swimming pool at all.
>
Well I wasn't looking for sympathy. And no I don't have to buy anything
really
but I do want it just like I am sure there are things you want.
Gwen
Amy Dahl
TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
> I don't have the answers and I'm not making light of the problems, and I'm
> not claiming to make the "right" choices any more often than some of the
> time, but its growing on me.
>
Fully-worked-out or not, I appreciate your thoughts.
Amy Dahl
Gwen Watson
Amy Dahl wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MHO is there are a lot of people who want the security of a
>simple, wage-paying job and are too far from entrepreneurial
>initiative to have a prayer.
>
>
>
Absolutely this is true in my area. Not to mention many people want what
they
feel is security, like health insurance, dental, life as well as
vacation time and sick
time. Something you won't get as an entrepreneurial.
Sure you can buy the above for about 3 x's a much a month. You can take
time off of your business and lose money etc.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
>
>from a larger customer base. Jobs in rural areas have always been a
>challenge. I think given a choice between a distant business I liked and
>the local Walmart employer I'd choose the distant business I liked.
>
But then WalMart is employeeing a big number of people in that small
rural community
who wouldn't have jobs otherwise. Or more then likely wouldn't have jobs
otherwise.
I really don't know that much about all this until this topic came up
here. So I do have
to contemplate my position more in this regards.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Amy Dahl wrote:
I will second that as I certainly hadn't thought of all the negative
implications
of WalMart and purchasing from them.
Gwen
Melinda Shore
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I pretty unsympathetic about those that feel they have to eat at McDonalds
>and equally of IMO more distasteful then WalMart will ever be.
It's not an either-or situation - you can do business with
either, neither, or both.
But look, the situation with whether or not to shop at
places you have a problem with really is pretty complex,
particularly when it comes to buying necessities (mail order
toilet paper and dishwasher detergent? I don't think so).
I think that Walmart is a particularly awful retailer and
don't shop there. You may think that they're kind of an
awful retailer but not quite bad enough to keep you from
shopping there. If you do decide to buy something there
that's a fairly expensive recreational item, though, own the
decision - it's a choice you made, not one that was thrust
upon you.
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>f you do decide to buy something there
>that's a fairly expensive recreational item, though, own the
>decision - it's a choice you made, not one that was thrust
>upon you.
>
It isn't expensive recreational item. But you are correct it will be a
choice I make.
I can go to Toys R Us and spend more and they don't have the size I want.
I can go to Target again not the size I want. Possibly I can go to Academy
in several weeks and may do just that. I can mail order and risk getting
a faulty pump but the fact of the matter is I would prefer to ban
Haliburton but that would mean my husband would have no job
and we would quickly fall in the impoverished bracket since
I myself am soon to either lose my job or have my hours
cut in half. Either way we couldn't survive.
But I do understand. And I made the decision long ago to never
ever do business with McDonalds due to all that I feel they do.
And I will probably avoid WalMart as well after this topic has come
up. Still I am on the fence considering the amount of employees they have.
At least they aren't outsourcing the majority for a fraction of the cost
like Haliburton, IBM, and Hewlett is.
Gwen
Melinda Shore
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>And I will probably avoid WalMart as well after this topic has come
>up. Still I am on the fence considering the amount of employees they have.
>At least they aren't outsourcing the majority for a fraction of the cost
>like Haliburton, IBM, and Hewlett is.
The stuff they sell is made overseas. Ships arrive from
China to the port of Seattle laden with clothes, toys, and
all sorts of consumer goods for sale in America. It is
literally the case they return to China laden with straw and
hay for sale. There are a lot of reasons why jobs are
leaving the US, and this is one of them - crappy trade
policy has led to a record trade deficit. It sounds like a
boring abstraction but it has concrete results, and job loss
is one of them. So, I think you could say that they really
are involved with outsourcing in a very big way (by
lowballing their suppliers and forcing their suppliers to
slash costs).
But wait, there's more: outsourcing is, unfortunately,
pretty much inevitable given what's going on with the
globalization of the economy. Preventing those jobs from
leaving makes things worse by damaging American companies on
top of leading to American job loss. Probably the best
recent example of this is the 200,000 jobs lost in
manufacturing due to the Bush administration's steel
tariffs, which were supposed to help the steel industry.
Instead, it pushed up the costs of steel and hurt
manufacturers that use it. D'oh!
The problem isn't how to stop specific jobs from leaving but
rather how to stimulate growth and entrepeneurship in this
country, and I think this is yet another area where there's
a problem with Walmart - because their business practices
are anti-competitive they're also anti-entrepeneurial,
making it harder for American small businesses to start up
and create new jobs.
Mind you, if you stopped doing business with companies that
do bad things, you'd be sitting naked in the woods and
living on fungus and squirrels. It comes down to where you
draw the line for yourself, how much flexibility you have in
your personal finances, how much efforts you're able or
willing to put into researching alternatives, and so on.
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>
>Mind you, if you stopped doing business with companies that
>do bad things, you'd be sitting naked in the woods and
>living on fungus and squirrels.
>
Yep because it is my opinion there isn't a single business that isn't
guilty in one
way or another. Where do find clothing that isn't made in China or
somewhere like that? Macy's? Yeah I would much prefer to spend
my money at Macy's, Saks, etc but it sure isn't practical and it
sure does waste lots of hard earned money, IMO.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
>
>
> Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mind you, if you stopped doing business with companies that
>> do bad things, you'd be sitting naked in the woods and
>> living on fungus and squirrels.
>
And if you recognize that why ban WalMart? Did it help to ban
Nike at one time? Have NBA, and NFL players quit wearing
Nike?
And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
I sure haven't seen them but if you can name another superstore
that hires persons 60 and over I will certainly consider shopping
there. There are way too many companies who put the elderly
out to pasture to die. They won't hire them or give them a chance.
My daughter has informed me it is quite opposite in Australia
and most youth can't find jobs whereas the older persons
can easily obtain a new job. Her live in is 43 and a jack
of all trades and has had at least 5 jobs since they met
and each time he quits he is hired again. That isn't something
that occurs here. When I lose my job it will probably take
a year to find a job unless I stoop to going to get employement
at WalMart.
Gwen
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> And if you recognize that why ban WalMart?
I haven't seen Melinda or anyone advocating banning Wal-Mart, but rather
making a personal choice not to do business with them.
Sure, my not shopping there isn't going to make it go away, but it makes me
feel better to act according to my conscience.
Cate
Melinda Shore
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>And if you recognize that why ban WalMart? Did it help to ban
>Nike at one time? Have NBA, and NFL players quit wearing
>Nike?
Just because you can't achieve perfection doesn't mean that
you shouldn't try to do better. I'm also not trying to "ban
Walmart." I don't shop there, but it's not that I'm part of
an organized boycott - I just don't like them or how they do
business. It's a personal decision. I'd like to see them
stop engaging in anti-competitive practices and I'd like to
see them stop receiving what are essentially subsidies from
communities that are desperate for jobs and shopping and
then see them have to compete on their own merits.
>And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
>make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
>are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
>else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
>that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
McDonald's, for starters.
When I was in graduate school I took some courses in the
business school because it was the only place at the
university you could find applied statistics classes, and I
remember being quite taken aback when in a regression class
the professor presented a distribution showing an inverse
correlation between compensation and job satisfaction. He
said "and you can get elderly people to work for you for
free because they'd be happy just to have a place to go
every day."
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>Just because you can't achieve perfection doesn't mean that
>you shouldn't try to do better. I'm also not trying to "ban
>Walmart." I don't shop there, but it's not that I'm part of
>an organized boycott - I just don't like them or how they do
>business. It's a personal decision. I'd like to see them
>stop engaging in anti-competitive practices and I'd like to
>see them stop receiving what are essentially subsidies from
>communities that are desperate for jobs and shopping and
>then see them have to compete on their own merits.
>
Some of the posts, not just yours sure implied boycotting IMO. That may
not have been your intention but it was certainly what I read into it.
And again
not just you but several others. I would like to see IBM quit some of
their practices.
I would like to see lots of things. Like hemp being grown and utilized
for paper
products, clothing etc instead of cotton and trees. I would like to see
now cattle
farms in South America where there once were rain forests.
>
>
>
>>And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
>>make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
>>are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
>>else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
>>that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
>>
>>
>
>McDonald's, for starters.
>
Not around here. They hire teens. And McDonalds is a place I will
never give another dime to and that is my preference not to and I
won't. Is it going to make McDonalds go out of business. Nope
they could care less. Is it going to make me feel warm and fuzzy
about myself, you bet. So while you don't do WalMart I will
stay far far away from McDonalds.
>
>When I was in graduate school I took some courses in the
>business school because it was the only place at the
>university you could find applied statistics classes, and I
>remember being quite taken aback when in a regression class
>the professor presented a distribution showing an inverse
>correlation between compensation and job satisfaction. He
>said "and you can get elderly people to work for you for
>free because they'd be happy just to have a place to go
>every day."
>
60 year olds who lost everything they had from Enron are just happy having
a place to go while their bills don't get paid and they have no food? I
don't
think so. In fact in todays world and economy more and more 65+ are
having to work and not because they are happy to just have a place to
go. I'd be happy just sitting in my backyard 24/7 and never get bored
nor have need for a place to go. To me my place is paradise.
Gwen
Emily Carroll
"Gwen Watson" <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:c3pjbo$sqt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
> make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
> are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
> else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
> that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
Meijer (major Walmart competitor in the Michigan & surrounding areas)
Target
As another mentioned, McD's.
--
Emily Carroll
Fluttervale Labradors: www.fluttervale.com
CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.595 / Virus Database: 378 - Release Date: 2/25/2004
Gwen Watson
Emily Carroll wrote:
>"Gwen Watson" <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:c3pjbo$sqt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>
>
>
>>And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
>>make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
>>are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
>>else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
>>that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
>>
>>
>
>Meijer (major Walmart competitor in the Michigan & surrounding areas)
>Target
>As another mentioned, McD's.
>
The Target around me only hires kids, since
the high school is just blocks away.
And I am not in Michigan and I have never
heard of Meijer.
And I have banned McDonalds for good. And my reasons
are my business and I am not hear telling everyone here
all the bad practices of McDonalds nor do I intend
to since I think lots of this has to do with personal
choice like driving a gas guzzling SUV so my dogs
and I can drive in comfort with ALL their accessories
and needs versus driving around in an economy car
to save gas.
Gwen
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> Some of the posts, not just yours sure implied boycotting IMO.
Boycotting isn't at all the same as banning. The first is a personal
choice; the latter requires legislation.
Cate
Emily Carroll
news:Xns94B56D4...@216.196.97.132...
> "Emily Carroll" <carr...@nospam.msu.edu> wrote in
> news:c3pl9b$25ti$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
>
> >
> > "Gwen Watson" <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:c3pjbo$sqt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> >
> >> And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
> >> make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
> >> are one of the few places that hire the elderly. Most everyone
> >> else has a person less then 30. Name other businesses in US
> >> that frequently hire persons in their 60's on a regular basis?
> >
> > Meijer (major Walmart competitor in the Michigan & surrounding areas)
> > Target
> > As another mentioned, McD's.
> >
Meijer, yes, to an extent, I worked for them for a summer and it was hell.
Target I prefer...I can't stand shopping in a store that is messy, or you
can never find an employee to help you find/price something.
They also have lots of really neat stuff that you can't find anywhere else.
Gwen Watson
Cate wrote:
Thanks Cate for the clarification.
And indeed I have banned McDonalds for a lifetime.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Emily Carroll wrote:
>
>can never find an employee to help you find/price something.
>
>
>
Then you must really hate Home Depot because it has to be the worst in
that department.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
diddy wrote:
>Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in
>news:c3po1t$2bl$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
>Target and Home Depot are also Big business companies with probably the
>same dirty business tactics that besieged Walmart also has...
>
Indeed. I think too much has to do with some jealousy and this recent
article
about WalMart.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
And in reality the other 2 companies would do the same
if they had the money to out do WalMart. It goes
back to that ugly "golden rule" my dad talks about,
called money. Those with can do whatever they want
however they want whenever they want. Those without
do without. Sort of like the Westminster Dog Show. Not
one of those dogs was owned or handled by an impoverished
person anymore then you will ever see a Kentucky Derby winner
or horse for that matter owned by impoverished.
Those with money can and do get away with murder,
those without get the death penality or at least life.
Gwen
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> Thanks Cate for the clarification.
>
> And indeed I have banned McDonalds for a lifetime.
No you haven't. Unless you've done the unheard of and passed laws
preventing McDonalds from operating in your locale. <g>
If you've made a personal choice not to do business with them, you've
boycotted them. (Although I use the word here to contrast with 'ban,' it's
more often used in the sense of concerted protest by multiple people
intended to ostracize the offender.)
Cate
Melinda Shore
diddy <di...@nospam.diddy.net> wrote:
>Target and Home Depot are also Big business companies with probably the
>same dirty business tactics that besieged Walmart also has...
Not quite. Walmart just topped the Fortune 500 for the
third year in a row. Their size gives them the ability to
pressure suppliers, etc. in a way that smaller companies
cannot. Also, on purely an emotional level you've got to
admire Target's marketing savvy for going with a "just
because it's cheap doesn't mean that it's got to be ugly"
approach, which I think is a little more respectful of
consumers.
But anyway, it's not a binary good/bad situation. It's a
scalar bad/worse situation.
Emily Carroll
exactly where it is and what it is.
I live in an apartment, have very little use for that kinda store right now
:)
--
Emily Carroll
Fluttervale Labradors: www.fluttervale.com
CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/
"Gwen Watson" <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:c3po1t$2bl$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Gwen Watson
Melinda Shore wrote:
>In article <Xns94B5748...@216.196.97.132>,
>diddy <di...@nospam.diddy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Target and Home Depot are also Big business companies with probably the
>>same dirty business tactics that besieged Walmart also has...
>>
>>
>
>Not quite. Walmart just topped the Fortune 500 for the
>third year in a row. Their size gives them the ability to
>pressure suppliers, etc. in a way that smaller companies
>cannot.
>
That's true but if Home Depot suddenly had the money and potential
that WalMart has you better believe their practices would be
just as dirty.
>Also, on purely an emotional level you've got to
>admire Target's marketing savvy for going with a "just
>because it's cheap doesn't mean that it's got to be ugly"
>approach, which I think is a little more respectful of
>consumers.
>
How so? A rubbermaid box from Target is exactly the same as the rubbermaid
box from WalMart. And the slogan is of course directed only at clothes
and I
don' think that clothes is what WalMart sells the most of. Not even.
And as far as clothes goes theres isn't anywhere around cheaper
then Foley's on their "Red Apple Day" sales and this is good quality
and nothing as ugly as on the racks of either Target or WalMart
which I don't buy since I can find so much better at Foley's.
>
>But anyway, it's not a binary good/bad situation. It's a
>scalar bad/worse situation.
>
I suppose until Target gets as big. If they do that is.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Emily Carroll wrote:
>Home Depot's not my thing. If I need something, it's something I know
>exactly where it is and what it is.
>
>I live in an apartment, have very little use for that kinda store right now
>:)
>
>
>
>
Well I practically live there! :) I do like it but I hate their lack of
service
and help. Good thing I practically live there because I no longer need
their help. I know where everything is in every isle, just about.
Gwen
>
>
>
>
Cate
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
> Indeed. I think too much has to do with some jealousy and this recent
> article
> about WalMart.
>
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
No. Others have been reporting on their anti-competitive practices for
years, at least as far back as 1991 (NBC's Dateline).
Cate
Rocky
> I do like it but I hate their lack of
> service and help.
I've experienced exactly the opposite with Home Depot. All I
have to do is grab anyone in an orange apron and they'll take me
to what I'm looking for, even if it's at the other end of the
store.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Bethgsd
>And you know one thing I do like about WalMart that does
>make me want to continue to shop there forever, is they
>are one of the few places that hire the elderly.
Of course, I wish our elderly didn't have to work at Walmart.
Beth
Melinda Shore
Bethgsd <bet...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>Of course, I wish our elderly didn't have to work at Walmart.
Ha! "Why do you hate America?"
Gwen Watson
Rocky wrote:
Matt it depends on thne store. The new one close to us is much more like you
described. In the Austin boom days of high technology you couldn't find
an employee
because there just weren't that many. But yes I have seen both. It seems
to depend
on location, manager etc.
Gwen
Gwen Watson
Bethgsd wrote:
Of course I wish no one had to work at all. Wouldn't that be nice?
And I am being serious.
Gwen
Melinda Shore
Rocky <2d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote:
>I've experienced exactly the opposite with Home Depot. All I
>have to do is grab anyone in an orange apron and they'll take me
>to what I'm looking for, even if it's at the other end of the
>store.
I've only been in two, but that's been my experience as
well. One just opened here in Ithaca and it's hurting the
one remaining locally-owned hardware store - their prices
are lower and they have a HUGE inventory. However, the
people who work there have a lot less expertise in their
product line than the people at the hardware store. It's
not that the people who work at Home Depot aren't helpful -
to the contrary, they're very helpful at things like
locating products you know you're looking for and for making
broad recommendations, but on the other hand they don't have
much specific knowledge. It's the PetsMart thing.
Rocky
> It's
> not that the people who work at Home Depot aren't helpful -
> to the contrary, they're very helpful at things like
> locating products you know you're looking for and for making
> broad recommendations, but on the other hand they don't have
> much specific knowledge. It's the PetsMart thing.
The Home Depots that I know have one knowledgeable person in
each department on staff at all times. For example, my buddy
Ray is an experienced licenced electrician who heads up the
electrical department at the Home Depot branch in my home town.
Mark Shaw
They're a gigantic pain in the ass, anyway. I hate that place,
for a number of reasons, but even if I looked at it purely
selfishly, I'd stay away because of the crowds and the shoddy
merchandise.
Funny thing -- my maternal grandparents were pretty close friends
of Sam and Helen Walton....
--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage --> http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
========================================================================
"Grown men are not comfortable explaining why they want to use the sniper
rifle on fictional dogs with speech impediments." -James Lileks
Mark Shaw
Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>Of course I wish no one had to work at all. Wouldn't that be nice?
>
>And I am being serious.
Um.... Okay, I give up. How would that work?
--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage --> http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
========================================================================
"How can any culture that has more lawyers
than butchers call itself a civilization?" - Alton Brown
Julia Altshuler
> In article <c3pv14$6jb$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>Of course I wish no one had to work at all. Wouldn't that be nice?
>>
>>And I am being serious.
>
>
> Um.... Okay, I give up. How would that work?
It wouldn't work at all. Get it? No one would have to work at all.
--Lia
Julia Altshuler
> Boycotting isn't at all the same as banning. The first is a personal
> choice; the latter requires legislation.
I always thought a boycott was an organized effort involving many
people, not a single person acting alone. I'm thinking of the Nestle's
boycott as in an effort to force them to stop selling baby formula in
the third world.
Is there a word for a personal choice not to buy something for a
political or moral reason? I'm thinking of a friend who is vegetarian
because he's personally opposed to killing animals, but he's not trying
to convince the government to ban all animals raised for food nor is he
particularly interested in what his friends eat. For him, it is
strictly a personal decision. Is there a distinct word for that?
And what about a decision not to patronize a business that has nothing
to do with their political policy? There are plenty of restaurants I'll
never go back to because I hated the food and service. Other folks must
love it because the places always look busy, and they're still in
business. My decision not to go isn't exactly a boycott, is it? What
is it instead?
--Lia
Tracy Daniel
1) I think we actually have less selection since Walmart has grown so big.
The last time I shopped for a blow dryer and an iron, there were fewer to
choose from on the shelves. I see this as a symptom of Walmart squeezing
out other merchants and squeezing their suppliers to offer such low prices.
Smaller merchants that carried unique items have gone out of business .
2) Walmart pays low wages, which means people can only afford to shop at
Walmart, which pays low wages, etc. It's a vicious cycle. They are an
example of why unions were started in this country. They treat workers like
crap because they can.
3) Most stuff is made in China, often in sweatshop conditions. This does
cost American jobs & how much does it really help the people working in the
conditions they work in? I'm an MBA & know all the intellectual arguments
for globalization, but consumers still have to be able to buy the products.
Also, Walmart pressures the government NOT to put pressure on the Chinese
government to keep their currency at artificially low valuations. This
hurts other American companies, but helps Walmart.
5) Walmart stuff is cheap.
6) Walmart stores are often dirty and cluttered.
7) Walmart Supercenters are way too crowded. I don't have patience to shop
in them.
Tracy
The Puppy Wizard
Take your BULLSHIT to alt.frugal.fruitcake.consumers.
"Tracy Daniel" <tdan...@NOT.ME.charter.net> wrote in message
news:1061s18...@corp.supernews.com...
Julia Altshuler
> I've experienced exactly the opposite with Home Depot. All I
> have to do is grab anyone in an orange apron and they'll take me
> to what I'm looking for, even if it's at the other end of the
> store.
EVERYTHING'S better in Canada.
--Lia
Tee
news:c3nfv0$2bdl26$1...@ID-45033.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Cate" wrote:
>
> > I think the credit card companies are imposing a new fee, or
> > Wal-Mart suddenly doesn't like a fee it's been paying all along.
>
> I can't remember the details, but there was some sort of lawsuit
recently
> about Visa/MC forcing businesses to accept the cards that go directly to
> checking accounts, and extra fees for those transactions.
> Any way you look at it, it sucks for the customer; I very much prefer
> using the card to writing a paper check.
I'm coming in really late here but I want to point out that the fees are a
huge deal for businesses, particularly small business, since percentages are
based on volume. So the consumer doesn't like not being able to use their
debit card as a credit card, too bad IMO. They're lucky that just about
every retailer around now actually accepts plastic. I'm speaking as the
bookkeeper for 2 very different retail business who get charged a good bit
of money each month just so their customers can use credit or debit. This
is an overhead expense they don't have to incur, that some can't really
afford, yet they do so as a convenience to the customer.
AMEX is the absolute worst with their fees but all the CC companies charge
fees *on top of* the merchant service who provides the means of being able
to take credit cards. I may be missing some critical piece of info in this
thread, and if so then I'll retract my rant, but IMO using plastic is a
privaledge, just as using checks is a priveledge. If the bank charges its
customer a fee for using their debit cards then I say bitch at the bank, not
at the retailer...or write a check or use cash. Expecting retailers to
absorb higher percentage costs, plus bounce fees, plus return charge fees,
for people who have a debit card but want to act like its a credit card
seems unrealistic to me.
As for why there's a difference between the two, with V, MC, Discover &
Amex, authorization means that the charge is authorized, it'll go through
regardless. This means the retailer is guaranteed his money. With the
debit cards, if its run as a credit card, then there's really no
guaranteeing corporation on the other end since debit cards are issued by a
bazillion different banks. That means that the charge will go through but
if there's no funds in that person's bank account then it'll bounce back on
the retailer. No different from a bad check. So while we're assigning our
anger, let's direct a great portion of it to dishonest people who spend more
than they have at other people's expense.
--
Tara
Cate
$JL2.892823@attbi_s03:
> I always thought a boycott was an organized effort involving many
> people, not a single person acting alone.
Yeah, I said as much in a later post to Gwen (that I was using boycott
technically incorrectly, but to illustrate the contrast with banning), but
maybe it hasn't shown up for you yet.
> Is there a word for a personal choice not to buy something for a
> political or moral reason? I'm thinking of a friend who is vegetarian
> because he's personally opposed to killing animals, but he's not trying
> to convince the government to ban all animals raised for food nor is he
> particularly interested in what his friends eat. For him, it is
> strictly a personal decision. Is there a distinct word for that?
If there is, I don't know it. People I know who talk about such issues
often use the word boycott even to mean an individual protest.
> And what about a decision not to patronize a business that has nothing
> to do with their political policy? There are plenty of restaurants I'll
> never go back to because I hated the food and service. Other folks must
> love it because the places always look busy, and they're still in
> business. My decision not to go isn't exactly a boycott, is it? What
> is it instead?
Common sense.
Cate
Lee DeRaud
The Home Depot near me (in southern California) isn't *quite* that
good. Apropos to this discussion, it recently moved from a "normal"
(i.e. large) Home Depot building to one that used to be a SuperKMart.
I don't expect an escort to the other end: it's truly HUGE.
Lee
Gwen Watson
Julia Altshuler wrote:
Exactly Lia. <g>
Gwen
Cate
news:c3qtak$2b8pod$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de:
They're lucky that just
> about every retailer around now actually accepts plastic.
Lucky? Businesses generally accept plastic not as a favor to the customer,
but because refusing it would mean they couldn't be as competitive in the
marketplace.
So while we're assigning our anger, let's direct a great
> portion of it to dishonest people who spend more than they have at
> other people's expense.
I'm not angry. Not shopping at Wal-Mart is a business decision--paying
attention to my bottom line. Wal-Mart no doubt made their new policy based
on similar criteria.
Cate
Dimpled Chad
>
>
> Cate wrote:
>
>>Gwen Watson <gw...@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in news:c3n6ej$ccs$1
>>@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes that all seems to come to mind. But isn't it rather peculiar
>>>that they will take CC? Or I am quite certain they do, if not they
>>>won't be in business very long.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They continue to take regular credit cards, just not check cards as credit
>>cards. Considering the the smaller size of the (regular) credit card-using
>>population that shops in their stores, a *lot* of people are going to get
>>hosed by bank fees if they don't pay attention.
>>
>>Cate
>>
>
> Indeed, though I will just use my checkbook at Walmart from now on.
>
> Too bad they don't care more for their customers.
>
> Gwen
>
Sorry: I've not read this entire thread </disclaimer>
I don't know if it was raised or not, but for check/debit cards, the fees are
different for the store depending on how the card is used. I heard an NPR
special about it once. It was something like a dollar more if it was
processed as a credit card than if it was used like a debit card (thus with a
pin verification rather than a signature).
My bet is that walmart did this purely for economic reasons. Most consumers,
I guess, use their card one way or the other out of habit and not for any
reason where they'd know the difference.
Chad
--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com
Votes for Nader gave Bush the election in '00. Don't let it happen again.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Melinda Shore
Cate <notreally....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not angry. Not shopping at Wal-Mart is a business decision--paying
>attention to my bottom line. Wal-Mart no doubt made their new policy based
>on similar criteria.
To bring it back around to dogs, Ithaca Grain doesn't accept
credit cards. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't
particularly have a problem with Walmart not accepting
credit cards, either. But Ithaca Grain is a small local
concern that's competing against Agway, grocery store dog
foods, and whatever chain store is up at the mall (Pet
Depot?). And not only that, they've got a really nice
selection of pet foods that you can't find anywhere else
locally, like my guys' much beloved Eagle Pack. If they
have to cut some corners to stay in business it's fine with
me, although as I said I don't generally object to not
accepting credit cards, anyway.
Cate
> To bring it back around to dogs, Ithaca Grain doesn't accept
> credit cards. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't
> particularly have a problem with Walmart not accepting
> credit cards, either.
There are so many reasons for me not to shop at Wal-Mart; their not taking
my preferred form of payment is the most trivial one.
But Ithaca Grain is a small local
> concern that's competing against Agway, grocery store dog
> foods, and whatever chain store is up at the mall (Pet
> Depot?). And not only that, they've got a really nice
> selection of pet foods that you can't find anywhere else
> locally, like my guys' much beloved Eagle Pack.
For Ithacans who feed Nutro, as I did for a while, there's a decision to be
made: buying the food at Agway and getting every tenth bag free, or
choosing to buy at Ithaca Grain despite no price breaks. We chose the
latter because they made me a loyal customer.
They're knowledgeable about what they sell and will make real efforts to
find out what they don't know. And they always remembered my name and my
dog's name. For service like theirs, I'd pay in livestock if I had to. My
kind of loyalty makes them competitive.
Hey, was their parrot ever found?
Cate