Why Hate Walmart?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The last presidential election was pretty much a vote of no-confidence in the party. NOT representative of a shift in our (as a nations) fiscal and social beliefs.[/quote]

I think you are partly correct. I do agree that the prior Presidential election was not a show of dramatic shift in our social beliefs. However, it was more about Obama being a pop culture icon than a no vote for the republicans. As I’ve said repeatedly on this site, since the dawning of the media age the best looking most charismatic candidate has won the Presidency almost every time. I’d hoped against it, but it was true once again.

183

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The last presidential election was pretty much a vote of no-confidence in the party. NOT representative of a shift in our (as a nations) fiscal and social beliefs.[/quote]

I think you are partly correct. I do agree that the prior Presidential election was not a show of dramatic shift in our social beliefs. However, it was more about Obama being a pop culture icon than a no vote for the republicans. As I’ve said repeatedly on this site, since the dawning of the media age the best looking most charismatic candidate has won the Presidency almost every time. I’d hoped against it, but it was true once again.[/quote]

Zeb, I generally do not think you make broad generalizations but when you said “since the dawning of the media age the best looking most charismatic candidate has won the Presidency almost every time,” I do not agree.

  1. Kennedy better looking and charismatic

  2. LBJ not charismatic and good looking. Goldwater is is better looking than LBJ

  3. Nixon won and he is neither Humphrey

  4. Nixon won again and he is neither

  5. Carter not charismatic or great looking and he won.

  6. Reagen (YES) he was more charismatic and better looking than Carter

  7. Reagen (YES) more charismatic than Mondale

  8. GHW Bush won and he is neither charismatic or good looking but still beat Michael Dukakis

  9. Bill Clinton (YES) was younger and more charismatic than Bush

  10. Bill Clinton (YES) was younger and more charismatic than Dole

  11. Bush 2 won and he is neither charismatic or great looking. Added to the fact he could not give a rousing speak for the life of himself.

  12. Bush 2 won again and he is neither charismatic or great looking.

  13. Obama (YES) better looking and more charismatic than McCain

  14. Obama (YES) better looking and more charismatic than Romney

Yes: 7

No: 7

Looks and charism are only half the case as sometimes substance matters.

184

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right? [/quote]

Well, yes in that case I would be ‘tolerant’ due to my ignorance. However tolerance doesn’t mean that I approve of it.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

A post about Costco being a better employer, to which I largely agree
[/quote]

The simple solution is to go work for Costco rather than WalMArt.[/quote]

So, you feel people’s ignorance shouldn’t be taken advantage of?

185

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? [/quote]

No. I wouldn’t invest in company that has such a small PM, and is such a large target for lefty wing nuts that don’t understand economics.

You are a wingnut that thinks there is some utopian paradise out there. There is a Santa Claus too in your world.

News flash: if people didn’t shop at evil greedy WalMart, this whole “problem” would go away… [/quote]

If people always spent their money politically, it seems they would demand some kind of transparency in terms of things like, who the corporation donates money to.

I’m all for people making informed decisions, many things we do in our lives have major impacts that we are ignorant to. Does that mean we somehow tolerate things we are ignorant of? If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right?

People are either oblivious to their support, are aware but jaded because they understand only from a selfish standpoint where they believe they as an individual can make no change, or they are only partially aware of the consequences of shopping at one.

Taking advantage of people’s ignorance is short game, because people can always wise up (You see I believe in the potential of people)

The majority might never understand that the problem with walmart is the business model itself which puts money in the hands of the stockholder rather than the employee vs. Costco’s which at the end of the day pays it’s employees higher wages with the idea that better paid employees are more productive, and less wasteful/likely to steal.

All I know is, you don’t hear about Costco employees going on strike during Black Friday…

I mean… Think about what strike on black friday implies? It means the employee understands his own plight and want’s to stick it to his employer that he doesn’t respect. He understands he will be getting paid the same wage while investors anticipated black friday, so he planned to stick it to them where it hurt more then they could imagine, so that they could feel a little bit of his pain (see, employees wised up and tried to sabotage profits)

Vs. Costco where the Employee is well paid, and the employee feels well taken care of is going to treat his workplace more like something he depends on, and is going to want to see it do well. He isn’t going to look the other way when he sees someone stealing, and he’s more likely to try and foster a work dynamic that is good for the company and others he is around.

The other thing is. Investors see this as well. So, as touted as Costco’s business plan is, it might not be as good as people claimed, they aim to keep their employees minimally happy, and as a result they have issue with employee productivity… I mean people hate to work for them and it costs them money via picket, employee theft, lack of productivity etc.

Also, you look to the neighborhoods where Walmart employees tend to live, and can afford. Why are they like that? Well, that money is in the investors pocket, so it gets spent on the boys tuition, daughters ballet lessons, jewelry for the wife, in neighborhoods throughout the country that may not even have a Costco within 100 miles (like where I live).

If you have less money, and are poor, you spend less money and are poor right where you live. It isn’t good for local business or local economy to not get paid, neighborhoods that house people that make minimum wage workers speak for themselves.

[/quote]

You are far too worried about corporations my friend. Keep one thing in mind they won’t break into your house with guns and cart you off to prison.

Fear your government![/quote]

People at the bottom have to worry about everyone.

186

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The last presidential election was pretty much a vote of no-confidence in the party. NOT representative of a shift in our (as a nations) fiscal and social beliefs.[/quote]

I think you are partly correct. I do agree that the prior Presidential election was not a show of dramatic shift in our social beliefs. However, it was more about Obama being a pop culture icon than a no vote for the republicans. As I’ve said repeatedly on this site, since the dawning of the media age the best looking most charismatic candidate has won the Presidency almost every time. I’d hoped against it, but it was true once again.[/quote]

Zeb, I generally do not think you make broad generalizations but when you said “since the dawning of the media age the best looking most charismatic candidate has won the Presidency almost every time,” I do not agree.

  1. Kennedy better looking and charismatic

  2. LBJ not charismatic and good looking. Goldwater is is better looking than LBJ

  3. Nixon won and he is neither Humphrey

  4. Nixon won again and he is neither

  5. Carter not charismatic or great looking and he won.

  6. Reagen (YES) he was more charismatic and better looking than Carter

  7. Reagen (YES) more charismatic than Mondale

  8. GHW Bush won and he is neither charismatic or good looking but still beat Michael Dukakis

  9. Bill Clinton (YES) was younger and more charismatic than Bush

  10. Bill Clinton (YES) was younger and more charismatic than Dole

  11. Bush 2 won and he is neither charismatic or great looking. Added to the fact he could not give a rousing speak for the life of himself.

  12. Bush 2 won again and he is neither charismatic or great looking.

  13. Obama (YES) better looking and more charismatic than McCain

  14. Obama (YES) better looking and more charismatic than Romney

Yes: 7

No: 7

Looks and charism are only half the case as sometimes substance matters.[/quote]

With the possible exception of McGovern vs Nixon in 1972 every the better looking more charismatic candidate has won! Becuase substance doesn’t matter nearly as much as many would like to think.

I take issue with some of your sweeping assumptions.

First, LBJ was a big tall Texan with a gigantic personality that dwarfed the Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Those who knew Johnson said that when you got around him you just wanted to agree with whatever he said. He did have charisma in abundance, and Goldwater came off as a four eye’d dweeb in comparison. And because of that (and several other factors) Johnson won the largest popular vote landslide in history over his opponent.

Next, you are wrong on Nixon vs Humphrey. True Nixon was no prize in the charisma department. But, perhaps you never heard Humphrey speak. He sounded like Porky Pig. And looked even worse. Nixon may have had a manufactured personality, but Humphrey had none!

Carter had a smile that could light up a room. And that Southern gentlemanly manner of his charmed and entire nation. And look who he was up against. Perhaps the least charismatic man to ever hold the office of Presidency. And I will remind you that Gerald Ford was never elected, he was appointed by Nixon after the latters VP resigned because of scandal. Carter was easily more charismatic and better looking than Gerald Ford.

President Bush the senior was infinitely better looking and more charismatic than Michael Dukakis. Dukakis reminded people of the late comedian George Burns, a dumpy looking odd sort of character. And when he road in a tank with a helmet on he looked incredibly goofy. When the two stood next to each other in their debate The senior Bush standing at 6’ 2" tall dwarfed Dukakis and made him look dimunitive.

GW Bush was not all that charismatic I agree. And Al Gore actually beat him in the popularity department. I always thought Gore looked like Superman in his youth. But John Kerry? Come on, GW Bush had way more going for him than John Kerry. I would rate Kerry’s charisma right down there with Gerald Ford.

So you see my friend with the exception of perhaps George McGovern in 1972 the best looking most charismatic man has won the White House.

187

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? [/quote]

No. I wouldn’t invest in company that has such a small PM, and is such a large target for lefty wing nuts that don’t understand economics.

You are a wingnut that thinks there is some utopian paradise out there. There is a Santa Claus too in your world.

News flash: if people didn’t shop at evil greedy WalMart, this whole “problem” would go away… [/quote]

If people always spent their money politically, it seems they would demand some kind of transparency in terms of things like, who the corporation donates money to.

I’m all for people making informed decisions, many things we do in our lives have major impacts that we are ignorant to. Does that mean we somehow tolerate things we are ignorant of? If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right?

People are either oblivious to their support, are aware but jaded because they understand only from a selfish standpoint where they believe they as an individual can make no change, or they are only partially aware of the consequences of shopping at one.

Taking advantage of people’s ignorance is short game, because people can always wise up (You see I believe in the potential of people)

The majority might never understand that the problem with walmart is the business model itself which puts money in the hands of the stockholder rather than the employee vs. Costco’s which at the end of the day pays it’s employees higher wages with the idea that better paid employees are more productive, and less wasteful/likely to steal.

All I know is, you don’t hear about Costco employees going on strike during Black Friday…

I mean… Think about what strike on black friday implies? It means the employee understands his own plight and want’s to stick it to his employer that he doesn’t respect. He understands he will be getting paid the same wage while investors anticipated black friday, so he planned to stick it to them where it hurt more then they could imagine, so that they could feel a little bit of his pain (see, employees wised up and tried to sabotage profits)

Vs. Costco where the Employee is well paid, and the employee feels well taken care of is going to treat his workplace more like something he depends on, and is going to want to see it do well. He isn’t going to look the other way when he sees someone stealing, and he’s more likely to try and foster a work dynamic that is good for the company and others he is around.

The other thing is. Investors see this as well. So, as touted as Costco’s business plan is, it might not be as good as people claimed, they aim to keep their employees minimally happy, and as a result they have issue with employee productivity… I mean people hate to work for them and it costs them money via picket, employee theft, lack of productivity etc.

Also, you look to the neighborhoods where Walmart employees tend to live, and can afford. Why are they like that? Well, that money is in the investors pocket, so it gets spent on the boys tuition, daughters ballet lessons, jewelry for the wife, in neighborhoods throughout the country that may not even have a Costco within 100 miles (like where I live).

If you have less money, and are poor, you spend less money and are poor right where you live. It isn’t good for local business or local economy to not get paid, neighborhoods that house people that make minimum wage workers speak for themselves.

[/quote]

You are far too worried about corporations my friend. Keep one thing in mind they won’t break into your house with guns and cart you off to prison.

Fear your government![/quote]

People at the bottom have to worry about everyone. [/quote]

So what? What is the alternative? There will always be people at the bottom. We each come out of our Mommy’s womb with different things going for us, it’s called genetics. And beyond that we are each raised differently. The kid who grows up whose mom is a crack whore and father took off when he was two years old isn’t going to have the same advantages as a child raised in a house with two well educated stable loving parents.

You want the government to do something about that?

Socialism had never worked anywhere for any length of time.

188

How did a thread about walmart turn into which presidential candidate was hotter?

189

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
How did a thread about walmart turn into which presidential candidate was hotter?[/quote]

Hotter? (shaking head) I YI YI!

190

[quote]Severiano wrote:

So, you feel people’s ignorance shouldn’t be taken advantage of?
[/quote]

Well, no, but at the same time in 2012 in America, ignorance is a choice.

So while no, good men won’t and shouldn’t, I have zero sympathy.

191

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

So, you feel people’s ignorance shouldn’t be taken advantage of?
[/quote]

Well, no, but at the same time in 2012 in America, ignorance is a choice.

So while no, good men won’t and shouldn’t, I have zero sympathy. [/quote]

I say hell yes, because if ignorance comes without a price tag why would anyone bother to learn anything?

192

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
How did a thread about walmart turn into which presidential candidate was hotter?[/quote]

Yeah… what he said.

193

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? [/quote]

No. I wouldn’t invest in company that has such a small PM, and is such a large target for lefty wing nuts that don’t understand economics.

You are a wingnut that thinks there is some utopian paradise out there. There is a Santa Claus too in your world.

News flash: if people didn’t shop at evil greedy WalMart, this whole “problem” would go away… [/quote]

If people always spent their money politically, it seems they would demand some kind of transparency in terms of things like, who the corporation donates money to.

I’m all for people making informed decisions, many things we do in our lives have major impacts that we are ignorant to. Does that mean we somehow tolerate things we are ignorant of? If you want to play like that, then that means you would ‘tolerate’ your girlfriend or spouse (or both) cheating on you when you didn’t know it. I mean, your still with her (them) right?

People are either oblivious to their support, are aware but jaded because they understand only from a selfish standpoint where they believe they as an individual can make no change, or they are only partially aware of the consequences of shopping at one.

Taking advantage of people’s ignorance is short game, because people can always wise up (You see I believe in the potential of people)

The majority might never understand that the problem with walmart is the business model itself which puts money in the hands of the stockholder rather than the employee vs. Costco’s which at the end of the day pays it’s employees higher wages with the idea that better paid employees are more productive, and less wasteful/likely to steal.

All I know is, you don’t hear about Costco employees going on strike during Black Friday…

I mean… Think about what strike on black friday implies? It means the employee understands his own plight and want’s to stick it to his employer that he doesn’t respect. He understands he will be getting paid the same wage while investors anticipated black friday, so he planned to stick it to them where it hurt more then they could imagine, so that they could feel a little bit of his pain (see, employees wised up and tried to sabotage profits)

Vs. Costco where the Employee is well paid, and the employee feels well taken care of is going to treat his workplace more like something he depends on, and is going to want to see it do well. He isn’t going to look the other way when he sees someone stealing, and he’s more likely to try and foster a work dynamic that is good for the company and others he is around.

The other thing is. Investors see this as well. So, as touted as Costco’s business plan is, it might not be as good as people claimed, they aim to keep their employees minimally happy, and as a result they have issue with employee productivity… I mean people hate to work for them and it costs them money via picket, employee theft, lack of productivity etc.

Also, you look to the neighborhoods where Walmart employees tend to live, and can afford. Why are they like that? Well, that money is in the investors pocket, so it gets spent on the boys tuition, daughters ballet lessons, jewelry for the wife, in neighborhoods throughout the country that may not even have a Costco within 100 miles (like where I live).

If you have less money, and are poor, you spend less money and are poor right where you live. It isn’t good for local business or local economy to not get paid, neighborhoods that house people that make minimum wage workers speak for themselves.

[/quote]

You are far too worried about corporations my friend. Keep one thing in mind they won’t break into your house with guns and cart you off to prison.

Fear your government![/quote]

People at the bottom have to worry about everyone. [/quote]

So what? What is the alternative? There will always be people at the bottom. We each come out of our Mommy’s womb with different things going for us, it’s called genetics. And beyond that we are each raised differently. The kid who grows up whose mom is a crack whore and father took off when he was two years old isn’t going to have the same advantages as a child raised in a house with two well educated stable loving parents.

You want the government to do something about that?

Socialism had never worked anywhere for any length of time.

[/quote]

Now I’m a socialist… It’s typical…

It’s like I said there is room for people at the top to make their money, and people at the bottom to live with some dignity along with a ladder to climb.

When we get away from this concept, we are no better than despots.

194

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

So, you feel people’s ignorance shouldn’t be taken advantage of?
[/quote]

Well, no, but at the same time in 2012 in America, ignorance is a choice.

So while no, good men won’t and shouldn’t, I have zero sympathy. [/quote]

I thought we agreed that ignorance isn’t a choice when we are oblivious.

196

Wal-Mart Targeted Over Corruption and Labor Practices

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9418