Wal-Mart Haters UNITE! - Page 4 - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**kingcrazylegs** · 03-31-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by space virgin@Mar 31 2005, 01:07 PM
Wal-Mart owns Blockbuster

And I was very happy to see in the paper a couple of days ago that Blockbuster got sued! A few months ago, when they started their "no late fees" slogon, I mentioned to Beth that I hope they get sued for false advertising... Basicly, they were not charging late fees, but if you had a rental for more than 8 days they automaticly charged your credit card and you now OWNED the damn movie (this never happened to me because I don't shop there), if you then tried to return the movie they would refund your money, but in turn charge you a "restocking" fee. BOGUS!!!

Anyhow, they were sued and had to pay back anyone who said they misunderstood the advertising, and also had to pay an additional $630,000 in damages!

**Tadpole** · 03-31-2005, 12:48 PM

A Business DOES cater to the people of the town. If a store opens here for hockey supplies only, they will shortly go out of business. Simply becasue no one here gives a shit about hockey. Not that its a bad sport but becuase no one plays here. A business survives solely on the consumer/the towns people/you. Wal-Mart thrives because a very large amount of people shop there. Simply placing a Wal-Mart in a town doesn't make money. People in the town have to go there and spend there money. If there is no NEED/MARKET for a Wal-Mart in a town, then the business would shortly shut down. I know everyone reading this knows that is simple business, no consumer means no producer, but im just ranting here. Truth of the matter is, every town seems to like Wal-Mart. I dont plan on shopping there anytime soon, but non the less, it's a business that alot of people enjoy.

I also agree with LiveFreeorDie on everything he said.

cheers to the first amendment

**TimmyJames1976** · 03-31-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tadpole@Mar 31 2005, 01:47 PM
A Business DOES cater to the people of the town.* If a store opens here for hockey supplies only, they will shortly go out of business. Simply becasue no one here gives a shit about hockey. Not that its a bad sport but becuase no one plays here. A business survives solely on the consumer/the towns people/you. Wal-Mart thrives because a very large amount of people shop there.* Simply placing a Wal-Mart in a town doesn't make money. People in the town have to go there and spend there money. If there is no NEED/MARKET for a Wal-Mart in a town, then the business would shortly shut down. I know everyone reading this knows that is simple business, no consumer means no producer, but im just ranting here. Truth of the matter is, every town seems to like Wal-Mart. I dont plan on shopping there anytime soon, but non the less, it's a business that alot of people enjoy.

I also agree with LiveFreeorDie on everything he said.

* cheers to the first amendment*

very wrong indeed...walmart can operate stroes at a loss because their other stores can carry the financial burden, and they are then able to shut down other companies by doing this thus stopping potential competition before it has a chance to gain any steam.

**Tadpole** · 03-31-2005, 12:59 PM

Its possible Wal-Mart's supper-chain could feel that a loss in profits in an area is better than letting another business in the area take the money. But the concept isn't wrong for simple business.

**TimmyJames1976** · 03-31-2005, 01:04 PM

it's called a monopoly, which is illegal in the US, and if you have ever played the game...if it goes uninhibitated, one person ends up w/all the money, and everyone else is left w/nada

**Tadpole** · 03-31-2005, 01:10 PM

Indeed. Those are my favorite kind of games, Winner Takes All.

**mowark** · 03-31-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Basicly, they were not charging late fees, but if you had a rental for more than 8 days they automaticly charged your credit card and you now OWNED the damn movie

it is actually 30 days. and taking a loss in a community to hurt other businesses doesn't really make any sense. if you are in a community not making money because no one is shopping there, then the other businesses in that community dont feel the pinch of your mega chain. they cant put the mom and pops out of business in a community if people in that community are still shopping at the mom and pops.

**TimmyJames1976** · 03-31-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mowark@Mar 31 2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Basicly, they were not charging late fees, but if you had a rental for more than 8 days they automaticly charged your credit card and you now OWNED the damn movie

it is actually 30 days. and taking a loss in a community to hurt other businesses doesn't really make any sense. if you are in a community not making money because no one is shopping there, then the other businesses in that community dont feel the pinch of your mega chain. they cant put the mom and pops out of business in a community if people in that community are still shopping at the mom and pops.

the concept is that walmart stores A-Y make a large fiscal profit...walmart Z loses money but still can take business away from mom and pops. just because they lose money does not mean people are not shopping there. a store like walmart needs massive shopping in order to turn a profit because their profit margins are slim. they can still drop a store into a developing area and knock out any possible competion before it gets started because they (walmart) get their stock at lower prices then smaller firms, thus can can sell it for less and still earn their minor profit....BUT, to offset costs of business they need to sell ALOT of merchandise. Even if store Z doesn't turn a profit it is supported by the profits of A-Y while still luring enough consumers away from near by retailers to weaken them. Large business' like walmart do not look at store to store profits for the bottom line, they look at the entire picture. sure if a store is a major drain then the risk-reward may not be worth it to them, but if the store is a small loss or a break even store and it can squash or stagnate other competition then that is a benefit top the entire conglomorate.

**Tadpole** · 03-31-2005, 03:08 PM

Wal-Mart wont simply keep a store open that isn't pulling their weight to get rid of the mom and pop stores. However, they would follow that concept to, say, compete with Target in a city.

**TimmyJames1976** · 03-31-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tadpole@Mar 31 2005, 04:07 PM
Wal-Mart wont simply keep a store open that isn't pulling their weight to get rid of the mom and pop stores. However, they would follow that concept to, say, compete with Target in a city.

true, my example was a bit extreme, but i thought it was easier to get the concept across....now...don't get me going about target and their atrocities....lol....j/k

**Sijuki** · 04-01-2005, 10:11 PM

One of the tactics of Wal-mart is to open a store and lose money for up to 5 years to drive out competition. This is often a tactic used by other large chains that can afford to dump money in the hope of reducing competition and then reaping the benefits. This process while almost impossible to be able to prove is illegal. It falls under Anti-Competition Laws.

As far as LiveFreeOrDie, while this is America and we are a capitalistic economy has little to do with Wal-marts methods. If you pay your people below the poverty level, they receive benefits from our federal / state gov't. This is very anti-productive for society. It also is very reminiscent of the days of Standard Oil and other such companies that paid workers what they wanted to pay them regardless of whether people could survive on it, and raked a huge profit for themselves. They also price gouged and used other unsavory tactics to force competitors out of business and strong armed suppliers. These are all things that Wal-mart has done, has been sued for, and in almost every example has in some way been found guilty of.

More interesting links to read through, give different views.

Feb 97 Cover Story: Category Killers Stalk Small Towns

Wal Mart Challenges Ban on Supercenters

As a note: I have no problem with large companies, or companies that may seem like they control a market, i.e. Microsoft, Starbucks, etc. My major problem with wal-mart is its inability to take care of its employees, many of whom live in depressed areas where work may be hard to come by or people that don't know any better. To take advanatage of people or to force them into low paying jobs with no benefits and little hope for advancement is not a good thing. While federal minimum wage may be $5.15/hr... in most places it is not a livable wage. This I believe we can all agree on, cause I don't know the last time you lived off $5.15/hr in the USofA, but the last time i did I was 18 and just started college.

**Tadpole** · 04-02-2005, 08:19 AM

Im convinced now. They think they control everything. Im never going to give them anymoney again. Ok I just spent $523.43 and bought alot gasoline, a torch, and some matches from another dicount store, SAMs Club, and now im going to go burn down those evil Wal-mart stores.

Wait a second....

**bluepea** · 04-02-2005, 08:48 AM

^Oh, haha I get it.

OHT1910 · 04-02-2005, 09:04 AM

On a similar note to this, Tesco in the UK prides itself on taking on the designers by selling Levis etc. at low prices.

Their latest step is to sell non-brand jeans for £3. That is about $6 on current exchange rates, but more like $4.50 on long term rates.

An interesting article was produced questioning how much the kid in Bangladesh that stitched it together gets out of that.

Linky: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1448686,00.html

I can't fault her conclusion. People are happy to pay a few pence more for their organic eggs to give hens a reasonable quality of life but to hell with a few extra quid on clothes to give a human being a reasonable quality of life.

dimples · 04-02-2005, 10:04 AM

I agree. They should pay their "workers" more money, they deserve to make more than that... Do you know how much they profit on say a pair of jeans, i think they can afford to give them a little more.

And on a side note... I got totally screwed by blockbuster with that whole 8 days thing!!! Crappy!!!! I was slightly pissed about that.

And another side note, i live in a town where it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a job. McDonalds isn't even hiring, so to say that we have a huge freedom to get new jobs isn't true. When there are tons of little shops there are tons of opportunities, but when a big buisness like walmart comes in.... only so many people can work at walmart before it gets a little too crowded. I have had the same job for a year and a half, and HATE, HATE, HATE my job, but i can't quit becuase there is no where else to work... and they know that.... how crappy is that too?? grrrrr......

**TimmyJames1976** · 04-02-2005, 10:53 AM

uh oh...this tread is growing wal-mart sized and won't die. DIE THREAD DIE!!!!! :greenguy:

britkettle · 04-02-2005, 03:39 PM

This thread is making my head hurt...

Also...for the record, that lawsuit against Blockbuster was total crap. People need to be able to use their common sense. If people rent movies and there is no consequence for not bringing them back within a certain time, then nobody would ever bring their movies back. I thought that it was a great program because I always remembered to take my movies back a day later and I got charged $4 just for that one day. Plus, the re-stocking fee was only like $5. I thought it was a great idea!

**simply_angelic** · 04-02-2005, 03:59 PM

yeah, the no late fees for blockbuster VERY good idea.....my fam is very bad w/ rentals and we tend not to bring them back for like 2 weeks so by the time we bring em back it's already the price of the movie practically. This way we hv a week to bring em back, and then if we dont and we only bring em back w/in the month it's only a dollar seventy five.......mUCH BETTER1

**Tadpole** · 04-02-2005, 04:12 PM

Blockbuster didn't come up with that idea. Netflix was the first company to. They are also the largest with over 3 million customers. Netflix doesn't charge you for never returning the DVD. You pay 20 dollars a month and you can rent as many DVDs as you want. They have an on-line store where you make a list and add to list whenever. Then they send you three and whenever you want your next one just send one back and they will replace it. But if you never return the DVD and keep it they dont charge you for buying it. However if you loose it then you can pay for it because you can't have more than 3 DVDs with you at a time. Check it out, its alot beter then blockbuster's gig. Block buster did it because Netflix was killing their business.

Netflix

I have had Netflix for over a year and I love it.

**juliagulia** · 04-02-2005, 04:35 PM

Heh. I don''t really like Wal-Mart either. Mostly because it's always so disorganized and dirty (and if the prices keep rolling back, wont it eventually be zero!!??). The thing with not paying enough I agree. It's nice that they hire those with disabilities, elderly, and those that don't speak English, and it's true that they are underpaid, but, in most situations they wouldn't have a job anyway.

and pratically everything is made in China. and if ur so worried about the people who make your product being underpaid, stop drinking Brazilian or Colombian coffee since they get paid about less than one dollar per pound of coffee beans. and any icecream/cheesecake/coffee with the words "dulce de leche'' b/c i garruntee that the people who made that dulce was way too underpaid to make that simple milk/sugar/water concoction of deliciousness. oh, and stop buying clothing, toys, and DVDs..... home appliances and basically everything else. We're in America people. Everything is made through "slave labor''

once again, i don't like wal mart. i usually try to shop at the supermarket (in MD Wal-Mart Supercenters are illegal) and clothing i buy at Kohls. For CDs i usually go to Target. Wherever you go, you're gonna find the same products made by the same people in the same countries, no matter if u buy it at Wal-Mart or any other store.

(i do kinda not like that unionization is disprooved upon at Wal-Mart... but since i don''t support it with my dollar, theres not much else i can do about it)