What is Digg?Sponsored by Toyota
See what Toyota is doing about the recall. view!
toyota.digg.com - Watch as a certified Toyota mechanic executes the quick fix.
147 Comments
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+65Yup--I was in Walmart the other day, buying a gallon pitcher for iced tea. It's bloody hot out! I'll never forget the look on the old lady's face, when she picked up the pitcher and I sacked her like a quarterback. Unfortunately, the pitcher went flying, and a crazed mob descended on it in a feeding frenzy. I fired waning shots into the air, but that didn't dissuade them. Finally I grabbed two propane cylinders from the camping section, hammered open the valves and lit the escaping gas. These improvised missiles quickly dispersed the crowd, and I got my pitcher. The iced tea was refreshing after my struggles, but I wish government would come up with a less violent way of getting people what they need. Capitalism is so... so PRIMAL.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -11/+45For those who think they're saving money by shopping at Wal-Mart, I think you might be missing the interconnectedness of our civilization. Do you realize Wal-Mart gets tax subsidies from local governments to set up shop? Do you realize that by pushing off the health care burden onto state-sponsored programs, that you're actually paying for the health care of Wal-Mart employees? Do you realize that we're mostly strengthening the Chinese economy (and using abusive labor practices in the meantime) by shopping at Wal-Mart?
I'm not out to say that Wal-Mart is the source of the world's evils, but at the very least one should have a total view of what it means to shop there. - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25"Ask yourself this: The last time you went to the store to buy a carton of milk, did you engage in a death "struggle" against other customers, as well as the merchant? Did you "grasp and elbow" your way to the milk aisle and then back to the checkout? Did you "shout and shove" your way through the store, amidst hundreds of others doing the same? Or did you simply pay for the milk, receive a "thank you" from the checkout clerk, after which you returned the pleasantry?
If you answered "yes" to the first three questions then you agree with Lynn about the essential nature of market exchange, or "laissez faire," as he labels it. You would also be speaking absurdities."
ROFL. - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20You're lucky to have survived another day of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Walmart, the biggest supplier of Chinese goods to the United States. And yet the red states love it!
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34Help the poor? I thought Wal-Mart CREATES them..
- jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28no one is FORCED to work at Wal-Mart. wal-mart employees are payed according to their skill level and overall importance to the company. if you don't want bottom-feeder wages, stop being a bottom-feeder.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29Uhh.. I do a lot. I've lowered my grocery and household budget by close to 30% since! Maybe you should check it out, unless of course you live in CA. I hear they ALL suck out there. You have to try Walmart in the midwest where they are from, then you'd understand why people like walmart.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+32"Wal-Mart-hating interventionists are running out of reasons to hate Wal-Mart."
This is the most ***** line I've ever heard on Digg. First of all, I hardly consider most rational people to be "interventionists". Secondly, with Wal-Mart's business practices, I doubt we will EVER run out of reasons to hate Wal-Mart.
Just because they sell things for very cheap prices does not excuse their thoroughly immoral and borderline-illegal business practices in any way, shape, or form. While I think capitalism is overall a good thing, there is absolutely NOTHING good about a single corporate entity wielding the sort of economy-controlling power as Wal-Mart. On a whim, this one single corporation can impact global economics to a large enough scale that hundreds of millions of people will be noticibly affected. They control distribution, and have incredible power over production because of their monopolistic relationship with other companies.
***** Wal-Mart and their PR department's campaigns to improve their image. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"This is the most ***** line I've ever heard on Digg. First of all, I hardly consider most rational people to be 'interventionists'."
Just a note: it helps to know what an "interventionist" is. The term means "someone who favors government intervention, usually in the form of a prohibition or disincentive." In other words, anyone who pushes for government regulation--like the new insurance law in Maryland targeting Walmart, or for zoning regulations in Ithaca to prevent Walmart from legally buying property from willing sellers--is an interventionist.
The corresponding term, for people who advocate government subsidies or other legislative incentives, is "rent seeker." - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Fact: Towns have sued and are suing Wal-mart for getting tax breaks and failing to meet their promises to put $ back into the community."
That is bad. Walmart shouldn't be getting tax-breaks. In fact, nobody should. Then again, nobody should be taxed in the first place. If tax money is taken from you against your will, it's a little thing we Bible-thumpers call "stealing."
"Fact: Manufacturing jobs, (the supply chain for WM) have vanished from the US in favor of countries with no wage laws, no health and safety regs and slave labor."
I'll point out that you're outraged at people having crappy Walmart jobs--but you're equally outraged that other people are losing equally crappy factory jobs. If the Chinese owned Walmart, and low-paid Americans assembled widgets for them, would your outrage be exactly reversed? Would you pine for the good-ol' AMERICAN Walmart jobs lost, and extol the plight of the oppressed factory workers?
"Fact: WM relies on public health to insure the majority of their employees, very few employees are allowed to work 'full time'."
I agree that's a bad thing. Government health insurance is a crime, not to mention a scam, and should be completely eliminated.
"People who make excuses for the tactics of WM will be the first ones to freak out when Thier own wages, benefits and pensions disappear in the near future."
You haven't stated how exactly I'm going to lose my software development job because of Walmart--or how anyone else is going to lose their job because of Walmart. Yet you claim that I am going to lose MY job--how do you know this? Where did you get your degree in economics, and what peer-reviewed papers back this claim of yours?
"The simple fact is most Americans don't give a *** because they don't see an immediate and personal effect on them. They don't care about the poor because deep down, they think they're better than them."
You're so cute I could pinch you! When asked if you worked for Walmart, you replied, "No thank God I have an education..." In other words, only uneducated people work for Walmart. Talk about elitist BS! Yet despite your "education," you apparently don't know that a superstore's top manager makes six figures. The stockboy doesn't, of course. But that's because he's so utterly uneducated, unlike your superior self, right?
"Most of you will get what you deserve as you lie back, ignore reality and trust your TVs."
I'm not sure what that sentence means, but one thing I get from it is that you're not just superior to all Walmart employees, but also to most of us, meaning most diggers reading this thread. But it's hard to understand the details, because you apparently believe that we pray to our televisions. (Well, I don't own a TV, but I could pray to someone else's, I suppose.) - dangerboy13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Hate to tell you, but working at little shops doesn't usually pay too well, either. If it pays well, and they are making a profit, then they won't go under from Wal-Mart. No on is forced to work at Wal-Mart, but if you are an uneducated person in the workplace, you aren't going to make $75,000 a year, either. My wife works at Wal-Mart, and she went from working at RiteAid (which has a union, which is another bullet point of Wal-Mart haters) for $5.35 an hour to making over $6 an hour working at non-union Wal-Mart. Now she makes almost $8 as a department manager, with very little more responsibility (yeah, the wages are low, but we live in a rural area where the base rate for hiring in a lot of places in $5.15, and she is finishing her schooling).
- m00dc0ntr0l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Walmart isn't captalist at all. When the move to a city they demand:
- tax breaks that other stores cannot demand.
- non-unionized labor, which other stores either can't or don't want to compete with.
- abatements on environmental restrictions, which other stores can't get.
- that their workers ultimately get subsidised healthcare from the cities (albeit not so directly), because their workers cannot afford the Walmart healthplan.
- and various other reliefs from regulation.
That's not what I would describe as competition. That's cheating, pure and simple.
Of course, Walmart also demands equally of its suppliers: they must get the lowest price. That means closing your factory here in the US and re-opening it elsewhere. Arguably, this makes Walmart necessary because all the people who once had jobs as a part of a regular self-sustaining economy, now don't and must shop at Walmart or $.99 to afford living in general.
Walmart isn't capitalist and worthy of any sort of honor. They're just like every other large, exception seeking heavyweight. They need to be regulated -- or our government needs to stop making handouts and exceptions for anyone. Walmart cheats, and our gov't allows it. - SWCarson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Does your desire for high quality mean that no one should be allowed to purchase lower quality?
I like high quality, who doesn't? But I cannot afford to have high quality everything. So I focus my money on the things that matter to me: nice house, nice computer, wireless network at home, etc. But I don't personally care about cars so I buy used ones and drive them until they fall apart and, yes, I shop at Wal-Mart for certain things that are just good enough for me there. Is there something immoral about this? - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15trunkster, maybe you should study basic economics. You are basically arguing along the principles of Bastiat's Petition of the Candlestick makers. If it weren't for the sun -- imagine how the candlestick makers would flourish! And with it the rest of the economy, and everyone would be richer. Of course, that is economic nonsense. http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
- vajra918, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15FTA: "Lynn complains that the Reagan administration "eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement…" Tell that to Bill Gates and other victims of the federal government's nonstop persecutions of successful businesses under the guise of antitrust."
"Bill Gates" and "Victim" used in tandem... what a strange day today is. - autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Pennyco,
You need to take that thought process to it's logical conclusion:
Everyone is FORCED to be productive if he/she wishes to continue to exist on this planet. Nobody alive chose to be born. However, everyone chooses to continue to live (or else commits suicide). Blaming Wal-Mart for forcing people to work there by way of out-competing other businesses is akin to decrying your own existence: it's Wal-Mart's fault that you are alive and have to do something to stay alive and therefore have to work to live.
If all you had was a mom and pop store in a little town, would you be forced to work there, too? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Of course. When something is pro something else, a conspiracy must be involved and the evil corporation must have paid someone off.
- jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22GET ANOTHER JOB IF YOU HATE YOURS SO MUCH! NO ONE IS FORCED TO WORK FOR WAL-MART! It is not Wal-Mart's job to feed the poor nor is it in anyone's best interest to promote underachievers.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18How does offering low-price goods, and being creative enough to make even the most low-skilled person a productive member of society MAKE people poor. If anything they're helping the poor get more out of what few dollars they have.
- megabozz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Two dumb ideas that keep getting repeated in these comments:
1. Wal-Mart causes "all of the other businesses" in the town to close. Has anyone ever been to a small town where there's just a Super Wal-Mart and a bunch of houses, where there were a bunch of thriving businesses before Wal-Mart opened up?
2. People in small towns "ravaged" by Wal-Mart can only look for employment within the confines of that town. - autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So what you're saying is that they would be better off without a job at all? How so?
- xenoputtss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I know. Im lazy and im not going to read the article. I don't know which side the article is standing on, but her, put it simply.
No, walmart should not be broken up.
Why? regardless of all the "evils" that it may/maynot bring or use, it has done one thing.....lowered prices. And im not just talking about WalMart prices. Many stores have readjusted the prices they charge their customers so that they can compete with walmart. Some stores have decided to offer a better variaty of products (which walmart does not do).
Its a really simple choice. If you want a free market where companies compete for your business by demanding more effiecient means to get the goods to you....let walmart stay (they will lose their #1 position soon).
If you want to be in a country where the goverenment controls this stuff.....move to china.
Me, well i like being able to pick up some very cheap items. I don't always need the $15 ice tea mug, i just need 10 mugs that may break. Its a free country, allow ME to choose where I shop and what I pay for things. - TheBull, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17pay ***** wages huh? all they have to pay is minimum wage. If people who work there hate the wage so much they should leave and find a better paying job, or get a better education and get a better paying job. Same goes for health care, another walmart haters bullet point. No corporation has to provide health care to any employee. They do it for one reason and one reason only, to get and keep employees. It is a pure expense for them.
Since when is any company, big or small, required to make their employees rich? The company is there to make money, pure and simple and that is why we live in a capitalistic government. Don't like it, go to a country rules by communism. Or hey, even better, start your own company and get rich then you can hire people and pay them a ton of money and well, maybe be a non-profit company...
Sure the big execs line their pockets, and in really big companies like walmart, so do the middle execs and even some of the store managers, not to mention the company itself; which then opens up even more stores (hiring some 100+ employees in the process) and it keeps going.
Why is it that those who succeed in the American dream (the waltons or gates) end up being the American enemy? Because they succeeded too much? - honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Why do people assume the owner of the Mom and Pop shop is benevolent? I've worked for a few that were complete a-holes.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Am I the only one who is getting sacked by old ladies? :(
- Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10We are NOT letting corporations sell us out. We are selling ourselves out. Easiest way to keep a Wal-Mart from setting up shop or moving into your community? STOP SHOPPING AT WAL-MART. Anyone who shops Wal-Mart and then complains because their local economy was eviscerated as a result deserves what they get.
What the hell ever happened to personal accountability? The government does NOT have to fix everything. - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wait - you're saying that less government intervention for one company is less capitalism? Please elaborate. Of course, all such regulations should be abolished, but I fail to see how a small step toward laissez-faire capitalism is un-capitalist.
And then you claim that intervention is capitalist, as far as I can tell. Wow. - autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"If you can't recognize a hit piece crappy propagandist written diatribe then I really feel sorry for you and would like to write up a proposal to take your wife and $. It seems some of you are very gull able."
Actually, many of us can recognize a piece of "crappy" propaganda. And guess what, that's what your little diatribe is: just a list of ad hominem attacks sprinkled with anecdotal evidence. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8For those claiming Wal-Mart destroys local businesses thus forcing people to work there:
To the extent that local businesses are hurt by the presence of Wal-mart, it is the CUSTOMERS that are doing the hurting. The CUSTOMERS are choosing to stop purchasing goods at the local stores. It is self-evident that the CUSTOMERS prefer, on net, to buy from Wal-mart. How do I know? Because they are shopping there. Perhaps, instead of passing these draconian laws against businesses for being too successful, you should support something like:
Citizens of the great state of _________ are hereby forbidden to purchase goods from, or be employed by, the following businesses, under penalty of law (fines and jail time to be determined at trial): ....
Customers destroy local businesses when they choose to stop shopping at them. - trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13He probably meant creates the poor by killing all the local businesses in the area.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"You want to help the poor, what about all the poor people in China who have jobs because they supply products to Wal-Mart?"
You don't get it. When we bellyache about the oppression of poor people, we mean 'Merkin poor people. We don't mean little slant-eyed YELLOW poor people. They're stealin' ahr JOBS! - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You kidding? All of the local businesses around here are never open when I'm out of work, and they have the only parking lot that I can park in for free. Our community made our walmart sign into a bunch of stipulations in order to move in.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Walmart is a very greedy corporation and should be investigated."
All business are greedy. A business is just a bunch of people working together to make a profit. Just like a softball team is a bunch of people trying to win a game. It doesn't mean the *people* are somehow evil.
In fact, I'm greedy too. I try to get as highof a wage as possible. My baby-sitter is greedy, she tries to get as much money as possible (she started working for someone else because they would pay her more).
So, when should the inquisition begin? - jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18like i said, no one is FORCED to work there. if they don't like their job and their skills are so valuable, then maybe they should go somewhere they can be more valued.
- clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I run wallyworldlife.com and worked for Wal-Mart for 7 years, including their corporate office. This crap about not having healthcare is a load of bull. I don't care for the company either, but quit spewing junk you heard second hand.
The benefits aren't great, but they aren't unreasonable either. You have to be there for a specified period of time to begin to get benefits, which is standard with most companies I have been involved with.
They operate their business well by having great logistics and a technological edge over most other companies. If you don't like it, don't shop there. - thotpoizn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How about unemployment, for starters? But they generally do pay a little more than comparable positions in competitors stores.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Well That depends. Sometimes when you're poor you don't have the luxury of saving your money for a couple months to purchase something that's more expensive that will last longer. I was poor for awhile, and I was very thankful for Wall~Mart -- even if their stuff started falling apart.
Now that I'm a little wealthier and have the capital saved so I'm capable of saving even more money buy purchasing better quality stuff -- I don't shop at Wall~Mart much anymore. Plus the Huge warehouse shopping experience just doesn't do it for me -- but that's a personal issue.
But I probably wouldn't have gotten to that point where I AM now currently wealthy enough to purchase quality if Wall~Mart's cheep "junk" as you call it, hadn't been there as a stepping stool to begin with.
Tracy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10You know an article is bad when it has to present a strawman to knock down, rather than straightfowardly addressing the issue.
And even then the first three words of the summary had to be an ad hom. I guess the strawman wasn't enough to build confidence of the sheeple, so they had to reinforce it with another logical fallacy right off the bat. - Petromyzon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The other day all I needed was just one 12mm open face wrench to get my pedals off my bike. I wasn't interested in a whole set or anything at this time. I first went to Sears hardware, everything was locked behind glass. I sat around for like 10 minutes waiting for someone but no one could help even after asking for it at the front counter - I soon left.
Next I went to Ace. Nope, no wrench to be found and to get help I had to wait another 10 minutes with no luck because the help was in back. That's it, I left.
Of course, next stop was Wal-Mart, walked right up to the hardware and found a stanly wrench. It turned out to be cheeper that Sears and I walked out a couple minutes later to go for a bike ride with my new pedals (bought at bike nashbar). - bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How much does one get paid to post 'begging the question' fallacies?
- academician, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4tinker123: The author is neither a right winger, nor a Republican, nor a fundamentalist. He's a libertarian. Confusing libertarians with right wingers merely because they might agree on one or two issues is rather like confusing anarcho-communists with Democrats. Would you really say to an anarcho-communist, "We've got a welfare state and public ownership of roads, aren't you happy?"
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Typically jacking up the minimum wage can cost jobs but might not in the retail sector since you can't really farm those jobs overseas."
Do your local stores have self-service checkout lanes? Almost all the stores near me do. Odds are you're too young to remember when self-service gas stations were rare... - helionsecundus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'd be interested to see the anti-Wal-mart crowd support their assertions with some evidence. Some basic links would do. I grant that Wal-mart has imprisoned some of its workers. And that's a terrible crime. But is there any reason to hold Wal-mart as a corporation responsible for this? I don't know.
Beyond that complaint, and the worry that Wal-mart uses local eminent domain law to its advantage, I see no legitimate complaint against Wal-mart, the hysterical ranting of the anti-Wal-mart crowd on and off this list notwithstanding.
Oh, and brotheralwyn, sorry, your comment ticked me off a bit. What if someone had moral reasons to defend Wal-mart? You should concede that this is possible. Everyone who defends a business isn't necessarily a corporate tool. Maybe there are *reasons* for defending businesses. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4PPS I'm looking forward to their getting it right. They'll phase it in slowly, so cashiers don't scream TOO much, but a few years down the road we'd shudder in horror at the thought of waiting in line for some gum-chewing teenager to slowly scan our items and take our payment. We'll probably mention it as we wheel through the exit lane, swipe our "quick pay" keyfob, and be out of the store in about 15 seconds.
- autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"@autodogmatic: You forgot to mention how WalMart creates poorer people here in the States by driving small, local businesses out of business, by driving manufactures to cut costs and move jobs overseas. You also forgot to mention how much of the stuff bought at WalMart is of such poor quality that the poor end up having to by a replacement within two years, resulting in greater spending by the poor."
I didn't forget to mention anything. I accept the free market for what it is and what it isn't. Plenty of "small businesses" continue to exist in a Wal-Mart world. You act like the economic repercussions of competition are a bad thing: driving jobs overseas frees up labor to work on higher orders of work here. More efficient operations result in lower prices and higher standards of living. The natural selection of the free market is a force for good that I have not forgotten. Have you?
"@autodogmatic: no, they are better of with the jobs they lost when their business collapsed because of walmart."
So the Chinese people working at suppliers of Wal-Mart were better off before? If so, then why did they change jobs? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hey, even if you like Wal-mart, this article makes your position look like a bad joke, at least to anyone with experience in debate, or anyone who isn't completely dizzy from an inner ear problem.
- SageofLightning, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@MrStylz
"In addition, WalMart has NEVER supported local charity or charity efforts. Ever try asking them to support a cancer walk, local event, etc? You'll recieve nothing but a blank stare and a "move along, nothing to see here" attitude. While they may not be the only big-box like that out there, they are the largest and richest, use some money to help your neighbors and your employers."
Must just be your Walmart, cause when I worked at the local Wal-mart not only did I work 39 & 1/2 hours, AND I DID GET HEALTH BENEFITS, but we also supported our local charitys on a regular basis.(CASA, and Big Brotheres Bigsiters, the Heart Walk) - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6ilyag, by the Austrian Economics definition of interventionism, anti-trust is interventionism. (It's just domestic protectionism.) Thus those who advocate anti-trust are interventionists.
- autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think your "tragedy of the commons" argument is exactly pro-regulation as regulation/government is probably the single greatest source of commons creation. The problem, as I see it and as you describe it, is a *lack* of property rights. Define the property rights and the market will regulate itself.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
