How Costco is clobbering Wal-Mart and...
Not twp

Sacramento, CA

#110 Mar 18, 2013
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
i am not sure that your description of "supply and demand" could have been put in any more simple terms.
You may have to draw him a picture......with crayons.
lol
How's this picture: Most of the people who shop at wally -mart can't afford to shop anywhere else.

If they make a little more they shop at Winco.
If they make a little more they shop at Costco.
If they make a little more they shop at Raleys, Safeway or Savemart.

Like I posted earlier: its fun to look down at the ex -pseudo rich who used to look down on me from their perches and who are now shopping at wally -mart, Winco, Costco.
Local

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#111 Mar 18, 2013
Not twp wrote:
<quoted text>
How's this picture: Most of the people who shop at wally -mart can't afford to shop anywhere else.
If they make a little more they shop at Winco.
If they make a little more they shop at Costco.
If they make a little more they shop at Raleys, Safeway or Savemart.
Like I posted earlier: its fun to look down at the ex -pseudo rich who used to look down on me from their perches and who are now shopping at wally -mart, Winco, Costco.
Yes, very sad.

The Obama Era
Tea Party Solution

United States

#112 Mar 18, 2013
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
Supply and demand is quite simple. It is not a man made invention, supply and demand is merely humans interacting with each other freely exchanging goods and services for the currency of the day.
Your view of supply and demand is not just simple-- it's simplistic.

Consider, for example, the 'suppy side' of the equation. This side is NOT separate from the 'demand side'. They are interrelated. This is because the demand side-- consumers buying things and services-- is determined largely by how much the supply side is paying their workers. Because those same workers within the supply side are the consumers in the demand side.

When the supply side attempts to reduce its cost of products (by reducing the cost of labor), it is correspondingly reducing the money available to the demand side. In effect, it becomes a death spiral, while every attempt by the supply side to reduce its costs further, the demand side shrinks as the jobs and means of acting on the demand are reduced.

http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/blog/ec...
Tea Party Solution

United States

#113 Mar 18, 2013
Also, the "law of supply and demand" is based on a closed system, such as in one country. The 'law' suggests an equilibrium of supply and demand-- and of the workers who function as a part of both the supply side AND the demand side.

But with globalization, supply/ demand becomes skewed, because labor can now be taken out of the equation, upsetting the theoretical equilibrium of the system. Multinational companies such as Walmart and Apple can now outsource much of their labor costs, where these costs are much less.

This means less income for the demand side in the U.S.-- OUR workers. And less income for our workers means less demand. This is great for the multinationals, because they are enjoying two things-- lower labor costs overseas, and because of the fact that this outsourcing causes less jobs in the U.S., they can pay their U.S. workers even less.

Supply and demand in the real world is not nearly as simple as your ideology would like to suggest.
Tea Party Solution

United States

#114 Mar 18, 2013
Despite Walmart's "Made in America" ad campaign-- 85% of its merchandise is made overseas, and usually in sweatshop conditions.

Here's just a few examples:(go to http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/sweatshops....
for a more complete list)

Wal-Mart/Kathie Lee handbags

(Liang Shi Handbag Factory)

$0.13 to $0.23 per hour

60-70 hours a week; 10-hr shifts; 6-7 days a week

No factory fire exits; dirty, cramped dorms. 10 to a room; for 70 hours a week, warehouse workers earn $3.44; no benefits; no legal work contract; workers have never heard of a Code of Conduct

Esprit Label
(Esprit Group)

(You Li Fashion Factory)

$0.13 per hour

93 hours per week; 7:30 a.m. to midnight; 7 days a week

No overtime pay; no benefits; sometimes employees need to work 24-hour shifts; 6 to 8 people to a dorm room; dorm is dark and dirty; workers afraid; under constant surveillance; never heard of a corporate Code of Conduct

I guess that Sam and Loco would have also cheered the great financial success of those early American companies that used slaves for their labor.

If success is only measured by how much money the owners of such firms has amassed, then the Waltons, who are worth 97 billion, are indeed successful. If the goal of our country is to allow a few immoral, greedy families to make obscene amounts of money supported by slave labor, yeah, they're successful.

And they won't even treat American employees right. Walmart pays its fellow American so little that we taxpayers have to pay for their workers' medical care, foodstamps, and child safety net needs.
TWP

Anna, TX

#115 Mar 18, 2013
Now isn't that funny...

Old "Bob the Nob" has no problem at all when his fellow Obama Democrats sit on their fat butts and feed off of the Taxpayer Handout Welfare menu of medical care, foodstamps, and child safetynet needs AS LONG AS THEY VOTE DEMOCRAT...!!!

"BUTT" old "Bob the Nob" blows a gasket when anyone tries to actually "WORK FOR A LIVING" and get off of the never ending Welfare Wheel while they are receiving Government Benefits...!!!

WHAT A BLOODY STINKING HYPOCRITE...!!!

That's right folks....

Old Road Toa d has absolutely NO PROBLEM with people sucking off the Government Tit as long as they SIT ON THEIR FAT ASS'S and do NOTHING ELSE "Butt" vote Democrat and worship BHO...!!!

After all... the more useless Welfare parasite suck-ups the more Democrat voters...!



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

"Butt" you know the problem with Welfare Road Toa d...

You eventually run out of other peoples money...!

And then what are you and your useless Obama Welfare Parasites going to do...?

Because you Obama Welfare Zombies sure don't have the brain power to do anything else but leach off of those who actually work for a living and produce the money that you feel entitled to just take from us and give nothing back...!

YOU REALLY ARE ONE SICK SOB Bob...!

http://www.merrystandish.com/dolanloses.html
Not an idiot like twp

Lincoln, CA

#116 Mar 18, 2013
You haven't learned squat have you? Criticize others for incorrect spelling and you continually do it yourself. It's "twerp" not "twp"!
Local

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#117 Mar 18, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
Despite Walmart's "Made in America" ad campaign-- 85% of its merchandise is made overseas, and usually in sweatshop conditions.
Here's just a few examples:(go to http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/sweatshops....
for a more complete list)
Wal-Mart/Kathie Lee handbags
(Liang Shi Handbag Factory)
$0.13 to $0.23 per hour
60-70 hours a week; 10-hr shifts; 6-7 days a week
No factory fire exits; dirty, cramped dorms. 10 to a room; for 70 hours a week, warehouse workers earn $3.44; no benefits; no legal work contract; workers have never heard of a Code of Conduct
Esprit Label
(Esprit Group)
(You Li Fashion Factory)
$0.13 per hour
93 hours per week; 7:30 a.m. to midnight; 7 days a week
No overtime pay; no benefits; sometimes employees need to work 24-hour shifts; 6 to 8 people to a dorm room; dorm is dark and dirty; workers afraid; under constant surveillance; never heard of a corporate Code of Conduct
I guess that Sam and Loco would have also cheered the great financial success of those early American companies that used slaves for their labor.
If success is only measured by how much money the owners of such firms has amassed, then the Waltons, who are worth 97 billion, are indeed successful. If the goal of our country is to allow a few immoral, greedy families to make obscene amounts of money supported by slave labor, yeah, they're successful.
And they won't even treat American employees right. Walmart pays its fellow American so little that we taxpayers have to pay for their workers' medical care, foodstamps, and child safety net needs.
Why doesn't obama change all of that by raising tariffs on sweat shop products?
He could do it by executive order.....and we all know that he is fond of EO's as he has already issued several hundred of them.

Therefore, either obama favors sweat shops, or he favors walmart or he really doesn't care.
Which one(s) is it.....or is it all of the above?
Loco One

United States

#118 Mar 19, 2013
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, very sad.
The Obama Era
Yes, someOne, President Obama, had to FIX all those FAILURES of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Really very SAD that that Administration RUINED the US Economy.

A TRUE Catastropy would be if the TeaBagger Repubs had a chance to do it again. However it looks like, from the last two elections, that the American People ALL AGREE that the TeaBagger Repubs are IRRESPONSIBLE when it comes to handeling the Economy. Even the Republican Party is distancing itself from the TEABAGGERS Failed RADICAL Policies.

Speaking of Missing in action, let's see W. Bushes Military Record. OMG, did he show up or didn't he?
annoyed

Chico, CA

#119 Mar 19, 2013
Crickets wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide some numbers to that effect.
And people are complaining about Fast food as well. There is an effort to unionize fast food workers for example.
But the 2% isn't giving up any of their money so you'll be paying $7.00 for your bigmac soon. Why don't we pay them the same amount we pay college professors? Problem solved? Or is it a better idea to pay people according to their abilities? Which the average fast food or wallyworker IS already being paid. Unless you ascribe to any of the other diverse social schemes as practiced in say NOWHERE. It's the same everywhere unless, that is, if you fill a government related position, in which case the sky is the limit without regard to your actual abilities.
annoyed

Chico, CA

#120 Mar 19, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
Also, the "law of supply and demand" is based on a closed system, such as in one country. The 'law' suggests an equilibrium of supply and demand-- and of the workers who function as a part of both the supply side AND the demand side.
But with globalization, supply/ demand becomes skewed, because labor can now be taken out of the equation, upsetting the theoretical equilibrium of the system. Multinational companies such as Walmart and Apple can now outsource much of their labor costs, where these costs are much less.
This means less income for the demand side in the U.S.-- OUR workers. And less income for our workers means less demand. This is great for the multinationals, because they are enjoying two things-- lower labor costs overseas, and because of the fact that this outsourcing causes less jobs in the U.S., they can pay their U.S. workers even less.
Supply and demand in the real world is not nearly as simple as your ideology would like to suggest.
And NOW we hear the corporate drums beating out a new message:

We are running out of farm workers because their kids have grown up to take jobs from other non-farming people and won't work on the farm ((Actual agenda is of course...after we give citizenship to the criminals in this country now...then we want a new batch of illegals RIGHT AWAY....JUST LIKE LAST F'ING TIME))

And most lately:

We are running out of programmers, etc. so we MUST be allowed to hire and import cheaper labor from other countries who are not as concerned with benefits as much as just getting their foot in the door.
Crickets

Colusa, CA

#121 Mar 19, 2013
annoyed wrote:
<quoted text>
But the 2% isn't giving up any of their money so you'll be paying $7.00 for your bigmac soon. Why don't we pay them the same amount we pay college professors? Problem solved? Or is it a better idea to pay people according to their abilities? Which the average fast food or wallyworker IS already being paid. Unless you ascribe to any of the other diverse social schemes as practiced in say NOWHERE. It's the same everywhere unless, that is, if you fill a government related position, in which case the sky is the limit without regard to your actual abilities.
People should be paid according to their abilities and qualifications. Obviously a college professor merits more pay than a fast food worker but that is hardly the point is it?

I think that anyone in this great country who is willing and able to hold down a full time job should be able to meet their basic needs without government assistance. That is called a 'living wage'. It does not mean we pay fast food employees the same as Doctors or professors, but it does mean they should be able to put a roof over their heads and get enough to eat, and be able to go to the doctor, without government assistance.

You're are welcome to disagree but why would you? Do you think it is a good thing that tax payers have to subsidize peoples' big mac habits and the profits of companies that make them, by providing a 'social net' for the employees who are not paid a living wage and have no health benefits?
one is loco

Sacramento, CA

#122 Mar 19, 2013
Crickets wrote:
<quoted text>
People should be paid according to their abilities and qualifications. Obviously a college professor merits more pay than a fast food worker but that is hardly the point is it?
I think that anyone in this great country who is willing and able to hold down a full time job should be able to meet their basic needs without government assistance. That is called a 'living wage'. It does not mean we pay fast food employees the same as Doctors or professors, but it does mean they should be able to put a roof over their heads and get enough to eat, and be able to go to the doctor, without government assistance.
You're are welcome to disagree but why would you? Do you think it is a good thing that tax payers have to subsidize peoples' big mac habits and the profits of companies that make them, by providing a 'social net' for the employees who are not paid a living wage and have no health benefits?
Easy now, a living wage for people who actually work is equal to the lowest denominator relative to third –world wages and the earnings of the top percentile is whatever they can force those at the bottom to give them.

“Living wage” is a dirty word to the elite throughout the world.
Tea Party Solution

Chico, CA

#123 Mar 19, 2013
Crickets wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that anyone in this great country who is willing and able to hold down a full time job should be able to meet their basic needs without government assistance. That is called a 'living wage'. It does not mean we pay fast food employees the same as Doctors or professors, but it does mean they should be able to put a roof over their heads and get enough to eat, and be able to go to the doctor, without government assistance.
You're are welcome to disagree but why would you? Do you think it is a good thing that tax payers have to subsidize peoples' big mac habits and the profits of companies that make them, by providing a 'social net' for the employees who are not paid a living wage and have no health benefits?
Good post, Crickets.

We taxpayers subsidize the Walton's 97 billion fortune by paying for their employees' health care and basic needs-- and not one rightie has disagreed with this kind of corporate welfare.

But when we talk about a livable wage (such as a higher minimum wage), righties start foaming at the mouth.

Righties adore the super-rich plutocrats, and despise their own neighbors. It's crazy, absolutely nuts.

Not everyone wants to be, or can be, a Walton, Jobs, Gates, or Koch. Some of us want to teach, run a small business, be a handyman. Some of us will only be able to work at a Walmart store. But that doesn't make them sub-human. They have a right to live with dignity even though they aren't making millions or billions a year.

Republicans, up until recently, used to agree with this basic right. What happened?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#124 Mar 19, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post, Crickets.
We taxpayers subsidize the Walton's 97 billion fortune by paying for their employees' health care and basic needs-- and not one rightie has disagreed with this kind of corporate welfare.
But when we talk about a livable wage (such as a higher minimum wage), righties start foaming at the mouth.
Righties adore the super-rich plutocrats, and despise their own neighbors. It's crazy, absolutely nuts.
Not everyone wants to be, or can be, a Walton, Jobs, Gates, or Koch. Some of us want to teach, run a small business, be a handyman. Some of us will only be able to work at a Walmart store. But that doesn't make them sub-human. They have a right to live with dignity even though they aren't making millions or billions a year.
Republicans, up until recently, used to agree with this basic right. What happened?
So are you really saying that Walmart should fire all of the people that could not get a job even at McDonalds and rehire half the amount of people at double the wages????

That is what morons want........
Not an idiot like one

Lincoln, CA

#125 Mar 19, 2013
Maybe wally -mart could take some of their obscene profits and pay their employees a little more. What a concept!

Thanks to corporate America the middle class is going down, down, down.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#127 Mar 19, 2013
The RIDDLERS Ones wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is WE ALL PAY WALLY MARTS BILLS for their employees healthcare. Caching let's RAISE TAXES to PAY FOR WALLY MARTS employees. You win Riddler SAM.
Don't you want a government run health care system? When the government is involved in almost half of the health care costs in this country we already paying far more than we pay for a few Walmart employees.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#128 Mar 19, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Your view of supply and demand is not just simple-- it's simplistic.
Consider, for example, the 'suppy side' of the equation. This side is NOT separate from the 'demand side'. They are interrelated.
Duh! That is the reason it is called “supply and demand”.
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
This is because the demand side-- consumers buying things and services-- is determined largely by how much the supply side is paying their workers.
The demand is determined by what the supplier is selling and at what price. Bill Gates will not buy something he doesn’t want.
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
When the supply side attempts to reduce its cost of products (by reducing the cost of labor), it is correspondingly reducing the money available to the demand side. In effect, it becomes a death spiral, while every attempt by the supply side to reduce its costs further, the demand side shrinks as the jobs and means of acting on the demand are reduced.
http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/blog/ec...
Normally supply side prices are reduced by increasing the supply, not by cutting wages. The price of diamonds will not decrease if the mine workers wages are reduced by $5/hour. Diamond prices will only go down if supply increases.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#129 Mar 19, 2013
Tea Party Solution wrote:
Despite Walmart's "Made in America" ad campaign-- 85% of its merchandise is made overseas, and usually in sweatshop conditions.
Sweat shop conditions in comparison to the U.S. maybe. If those people in India and China etc., didn’t have those jobs they would most likely not have a job. Obviously the wages must be good compared to other local jobs otherwise the foreign manufacturers would not be finding employees. In case you are not up on the latest information wages are rising in India and China. Some manufacturers are now returning their operations to the U.S., the drop in natural gas prices due to our increased supply has also made it cheaper for companies to operate here.

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#130 Mar 19, 2013
Not an idiot like one wrote:
Maybe wally -mart could take some of their obscene profits and pay their employees a little more. What a concept!
What constitutes an obscene profit? Over the last 5 years Target has had a slightly higher profit margin than Walmart, 3.94% to 3.54%. The Dollar Store is higher than Walmart over the last 5 years at 3.74%

Why are you not attacking those stores when their profit margin is higher than Walmarts'?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vina Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AZ ‘Dreamers’ are 8% of state prison population 7 hr Godfrey 1
Trump is a Racist. NBC gave him a show 4/10yrs. 8 hr Godfrey 14
MLK Day Service 9 hr Wild Bill 15
One FUNNY CARTOON 11 hr Funny Cartoon 12
20 Years Ago Today - The Cigar The Dress The Lies 12 hr 20 Years Ago Today 1
(-Can-nabis -co-caine- he-roin op-ium ecs-tasy ... 12 hr Gueld 1
Picture this; Trump in "Tighty Whities" chasing... 16 hr Dont think to long 1

Vina Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vina Mortgages