Posted on 05/12/2005 8:08:27 AM PDT by TXBSAFH
Wal-Mart profit misses forecast; outlook weak
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Thursday reported a weaker-than-expected profit and said second-quarter results would miss Wall Street forecasts as steep energy prices and cool, wet weather cut spring sales.
Shares of Wal-Mart, which said gasoline prices would continue to curb consumer spending in the current quarter, fell 4 percent in premarket trading. The world's biggest retailer said it expects trends to improve in the second half and remained optimistic about the U.S. economy.
"Our results were not up to Wal-Mart standards," Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott said on a recorded message, citing steep oil prices and unusually cool, wet weather in parts of the United States.
EXCERPTED
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.netscape.cnn.com ...
In the real world, authoritarians crush resistance to their rule.
Of course they do.
target's sales went way up this quarter. Are their suppliers or corporate policies significantly different from Wal-Mart's?
Given that this article is from Reuters maybe we should get a second opinion.
I work in Walmart also, and I can tell you that the reason that lines are long and cashiers short at some Walmarts usually has nothing to do with turnover. Their scheduling is closely tied to profits for that particular store as well as the presence of neighboring competition.
For example, in our store which is in a relatively small town with no other discount stores for 30 miles around, the store is always relatively understaffed. Customers don't have another store to go to other than the local grocery or hardware stores with much higher prices. However, 30 miles away in Kalamazoo, you are almost always next in line at Walmart because Meijer (Midwest Walmart-type discounter) is right across the street. Our store has some turnover, but also has a stack of applications at all times. There are many more applicants than jobs. However, the home office will freeze hiring if the store is not profitable enough.
Therefore, the lack of cashiers does not stem from employee dissatisfaction, but from a careful formula which weighs likely loss of profitability due to customer dissatisfaction and likelihood to decide to shop at another store against loss of profitability due to personnel costs needed for increasing staff. Will the long lines and lack of service on the floor or the increased payroll cause that particular store to lose more profits? That is the question that drives hiring decisions.
People assume that Walmart doesn't notice that a particular store is lacking in service or cashiers, and that this is a sign of a downturn. My contention (based on my observations as an employee) is that they do notice and it is a calculated risk.
You still need troops on the ground, and the Chinese Communists have a lot of them.
Individuals in China have control of their own destiny? LOL! The Communists can take all that away in a heartbeat.
"Industrial Revolution" is not the right term. China was very industrial even when Chiang Kai Shek was at the helm. In the 50s China had the bomb. In the 60s the Far East was being flooded with Chinese-produced weapons. Traditional industries like fireworks, silk, other textiles, and cookware, are still industries and they have been around for a looonnnng time.
In the real world it can go either way. There's no sure thing in history. North Korea or Zimbabwe didn't have to become the starved socialist hellholes they are. In those cases I agree the authoritarians triumphed. In Industrial revolution Britain (1816?) the authoritarians eventually conceded on suffrage, if I remember correctly.
A lot depends on the mindset and world view of the people. China has a looong addiction to despotic rule and the idea that the state owns you. China has a lot of self-identity, almost primordial, mitigating against divison. But ... the middle class has seen a HUGE change in its living conditions. No politburo will able to stop them voting with their feet, if nothing else.
/sarcasm off
Yes. I apologize.
And I am no longer an environmentalism.
.
"Reagan's heart and head were clearly on the side of free trade. While president, he declared in 1986: "Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize ... the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations."
"It requires acts of faith in economic laws to applaud free trade. But Adam Smith was resoundingly correct in laying down the law that both parties benefit" - William Buckley on Free Trade
Is Milton Friedman a Conservative?
How about The Heritage Foundation?
Why America Need to Support Free Trade
And The Cato Institute?
It's a whole lot easier to find conservatives who are for free(r) trade than against it.
Um, I didn't say which side of the border the Communists would be on. By Communists I mean the Communists at the top of the tree. Communists have a way of turning into very rich people, and of shucking off ideology when it suits them.
If the coastal provinces have 90% of the wealth (for the sake of argument) then they can get 90% of the fighting power. They keep all the tanks, planes and the generals, plus all that lovely Loral technology. They get to cherrypick the internal provinces they want to keep, probably the ones with the hydro power. There's a balancing act to be sure, but I don't think any of the power brokers are going to be on the wrong side of it.
Thanks for those links Mase.
Yes, this is true. But since when does a communist country allow their people to start and operate their own businesses for their own benefit. It's happening now contrary to what you might believe.
The Chicom's have a lot of problems with unrest so I don't think they want to exacerbate that situation by nationalizing these businesses.
Besides, the state owned businesses and joint stock ventures are failing miserably in China. The only successful industries are those that have been allowed to be privately held.
The economy is better off with TRADE.. your attempt to stretch that argument that it is better of with "FREE TRADE" is of course ludicrous. But of course I suppose they missed those distinctions in your little macro course.
That's only because its been added to the mantra... Prior to the 1980s free trade was not remotely defacto a conservative principle, and it is not a conservative princple today... only dodgma and cowtowing have made most believe that it is.
There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about multinational trade arrangements that supersede sovereignty. Free Trade is a scam.
Ronald Reagan was a useful idiot?
William Buckley and Milton Friedman as well?
Do you know anything about the modern conservative movement and how we got to where we are today?
My list for not shopping at Walmart: 1. Cheap cr*p (not talking about price) 2. Dirty store 3. No one to help you 4. If found, employee knows nothing aboiut products. 5. Long checkout line at the couple of cash registers that are actually opened.
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.