Posted on 09/16/2006 6:51:22 AM PDT by bitt
Wal-Mart vacated its Cathedral City discount store on Oct. 26, the same day the Supercenter opened in Palm Springs. Cathedral City had provided the retailer with nearly $2 million in tax incentives. But it now has lost about $650,000 in tax revenues, and the former neighboring shops are left without an anchor store.
Additional comments from both sides of the fence-
http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/BUSINESS06/510300342/1003/business
Well it depends on quality versus quantity. Target offers higher-quality housewares and clothing at reasonable prices. I don't mind paying ten cents more for dishwashing detergent than I would at Walmart because the shopping experience is a pleasure, not a headache. The aisles are wider and cleaner. The frozen foods are of better quality and cheaper. The employees are nicer and actually smile once in a while. And most importantly, the security guards don't treat every customer as a potential thief.
According to rudeboy, Wally World is a paragon of corporate morality. I guess that is why the CEO is falling all over himself apologizing for paying low wages and forcing workers to go on Medicaid. Did you see him earlier this week? He was dancing like Buddy Ebsen in that movie "Swingin' the Jinx Away" (1936).
Is that what Rep. Miller thinks? Did I hurt your feelings?
My buddies wife has worked at Walmart for years. Probably 15 or so. She is a team leader or department head, or whatever, but she isn't a store manager or assistant manager. She makes $20 bucks an hour. They recently informed her that she could no longer receive raises, as they needed to raise base wages. If she wants more money, she has to get into store management, which she isn't interested in, and she'd have to take a cut in pay initially.
Had to call for back-up, eh, rudeboy? Typical response of a DU dummy is cry for help! You are a DU mole, rudeboy! Admit it! I found you out. LOL, LOL, LOL!
Alright, then, let's argue my point. How is WalMart legally or morally obligated to provide health benefits to its employees, any more than Mom and Pop are?
There is no legal requirement. If you disagree, cite the statute. In fact, according to my SEC-licensed husband, SEC rules require publicly-traded companies such as WalMart to maximize profit for its owners, the shareholders.
If you're going to make a moral argument, be careful. You may say that since Walmart is so profitable they owe more to their employees. Of course that argument is the same as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And we know where such ideas get us.
Not back-up, my Democrat friend. I thought others would share in your ridicule.
"See my post #64 with link. My primary source is the Congress of the United States. Not leftists."
ex-texan please look at your link in post 64,it takes you to WakeUpWalmart.com, it has nothing to do with Congress, it is the same web site you keep promoting in your other links
This is how they describe themselves.
Congressman George Miller is a leading spokesman in Congress on education, labor, the economy, and the environment. He has represented the 7th District of California in San Francisco's East Bay since 1975. His district includes portions of Contra Costa and Solano counties, including Richmond, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Benicia and Vacaville. He is a life-long Democrat.
Net gain of stores = -20.
"You are a DU mole, rudeboy! Admit it! I found you out."
Read post 150
I posted a photo of ex-Texan's "primary source." Check it out.
Don't sweat it. He'll wriggle on the hook for a while, then evacuate the thread, hoping it'll go down the memory hole.
Where? According to whom?
Wal-Mart at the point of a gun made Cathedral City give Wal-Mart $2 M??? Not.
Assuming the store has been there 10 years. (you tell me) The city made $ 6.5 M in tax revenues.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Wal-Mart made a business decision. Life sucks.
"As I look at the three years Snapper has been with you," he told the vice president, "every year the price has come down. Every year the content of the product has gone up. We're at a position where, first, it's still priced where it doesn't meet the needs of your clientele. For Wal-Mart, it's still too high-priced. I think you'd agree with that.
"Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."
The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapper.html
What's sad about this thread, regardless of the position you take, is one could have bought anything online, from an American owned company, manufactured in the U.S, using U.S. citizens, paying U.S. taxes ---- in less time than it took to post a comment.
Don't you understand? As soon as Wal-Mart built a store in Cathedral City, the government of Cathedral City "owned" it. [collectivist mode=off]
This cannot stand. How can we prevent Wal-Mart from pursuing beneficial terms from its vendors?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.