Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Current)   What to say to the last five people that still defend Walmart   (current.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Wal-Mart, John Fugelsang  
•       •       •

10854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2013 at 5:15 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 10:44:36 PM  

wotthefark: jst3p: LarryDan43: Target has hotter women shopping. That's my reason to not go to Walmart.

Checking out too, don't know why but this has been my experience.

It is strange. We have a Target across the street from a Wally-mart and the MILFs do tend to go to Target. I think they cater more to the ladies than wally-mart but the price points are similar. There are watered down versions of TVs (Panasonic and sony are guilty of this) and watered down brand name clothing as well but target somehow makes their clothing lines acceptable to middle class people.


Their stores are clean, they keep enough registers open so you can get out easily, basically same price as Wal-Mart. Why not shop at the more pleasant place?
 
2013-07-26 10:47:12 PM  

DORMAMU: Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Popcorn Johnny: ghare: Unemployed, or on disability?

I'm on the higher end of the average Farker pay scale, that doesn't mean I'm not going to shop smart. If you feel superior by paying more for what you buy, rock on with your bad self

Some of us take more than price into account like a shopping experience that isn't shiatty.  Wal Mart has gotten shiatty to the point where it's gotten worse than farking KMart.  And I'm saying this as someone who enjoyed Wal Mart 15 years ago.

Where are all these shiatty walmarts? I've been into maybe half a dozen, in the northeast, and they've all been fine. It's not farking nordstroms but it always seems reasonably clean and organized.

Some of the walmarts local to me have gone rotating 6 month temp workers except for management.

11am and some shelves are bare.

That might be moar a local franchise thing tho.

I have on occasion shopped at wmart... I would say their quality is at/beyond the point of being worth the reduced prices.


no. that's wal marts "remix" real time sticking strategy. theoretically, no stock kept in stores, it should be arriving on trucks just as you need it.

/ worked for Wal-Mart when this was implemented. disaster for a lot of reasons, yet they keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-07-26 10:47:17 PM  

ghare: Oh, and I'd like to invite people who want to see Hell to experience the Wal-Mart on South Semoran in Orlando. I'm sure there are worse places, but the employees look damned.


Try the MetroWest Wal-Mart off Kirkman. It's one of the newer Wal-Marts and already sucks.
 
2013-07-26 10:49:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: bbfreak: Captain Dan: Walmart is awesome.  The exact same products I'd buy elsewhere, for less money - that's a no-brainer.  If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

With a few exceptions, most of the opposition to Walmart is either political (anti-free trade left) or fronting ("I pay extra for my invisible clothing because I'm morally enlightened").

So you like the fact that your tax dollars are going towards subsiding Walmart employees eh?

If he is, his beef is with politicians and voters who enact these subsidies, not Walmart.

Don't like giving people handouts with tax dollars? Then don't.


Or Walmart could, y'know, pay a living wage and not stiff employees on hours so they don't have to pay benefits, so the employees wouldn't NEED subsidies. But nope, Profit uber alles.
 
2013-07-26 10:49:26 PM  

tbhouston: lawboy87: Costco, which has very loyal and happy employees who are paid well above the average for retail, for comparison:  Stock price - 10 yrs ago:  $31, today's close $116  (375% return on investment)

WalMart - with shoddy stores, unhappy employees and a pay and benefits package that barely beats out some 3rd world nations:  Stock price-  10 yrs ago $55, today's close $78 (141% ROI)


Which business model seems to be the most successful?  Paying your employees such a crap wage that you tend to draw the worst dregs of the employee market to man your stores; or providing a pay and benefits package that leads to having one of the highest employee retention and job satisfaction rates in retail?

How can the "geniuses" that run WalMart not see what is plain on its face?  More importantly, how can someone analyzing the retail market place looking for a place to buy some stock, not see that Costco provides close to 3 times the ROI than WalMart?

Oh look, it's that durrrrtard that compares Costco to Walmart instead of SAMs club.....


Oh, you wanna compare Sam's Club? Okay, we'll compare Sam's Club.
4.bp.blogspot.com
What's your comeback now?

 
2013-07-26 10:51:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: bbfreak: Captain Dan: Walmart is awesome.  The exact same products I'd buy elsewhere, for less money - that's a no-brainer.  If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

With a few exceptions, most of the opposition to Walmart is either political (anti-free trade left) or fronting ("I pay extra for my invisible clothing because I'm morally enlightened").

So you like the fact that your tax dollars are going towards subsiding Walmart employees eh?

If he is, his beef is with politicians and voters who enact these subsidies, not Walmart.

Don't like giving people handouts with tax dollars? Then don't.


Well for the record I am not against a social safety net, but I believe that there being opportunities for the poor and uneducated (IE: Not having a college degree) decreases the need for such a safety net. So far if you don't go to college your choices are retail/food service and maybe something better if you can get it, or the military. Assuming you can pay for college, and assuming you can get those businesses like Walmart and its ilk to give you a flexible schedule so you can go to school.

I am against having an underclass of society that can barely afford to earn a living in a year, its good for no-one. Its not good for the economy, its not good for our society, and the idea that its OK because yay capitalism is bullshiat. What does all of this have to do with Walmart? Its the biggest employer in the US, and its business policy towards its employees sets the standard.
 
2013-07-26 10:52:14 PM  
George Zimmerman shops at Walmart - Fact.
 
2013-07-26 10:55:03 PM  

Descartes: When it's cheaper at Target, I'll buy it there.


If you're buying canned green beans instead of frozen or fresh you already fail at food budgeting.*

Enjoy your 'beetus and hypertension.

/* unless you are stocking an emergency food pantry for hurricanes or earthquakes. Throw in a can or two of Spam while you're at it.
 
2013-07-26 10:58:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Is it possible to not use Walmart because I feel the onus of responsibility is on the consumer?

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that exists to maximize utility for its owners (just like a union). It has no political views and no ethical restrictions and will consider all available options to maximize utility. If Walmart thought that it could make more money by closing the stores and building cruise ships, it would do so. If Walmart thought it could get away with paying labor a cheaper rate, it would do so. And if Walmart thought that it could improve business by giving billions of dollars away to save the rain forest charities, it would also do so. The only ways to control a corporation are through consumption and through the government (both of which required informed citizenry - a major no-no).

I don't agree with Walmart's stance on labor rights and blatant abuse of economies of scale, so I don't use them.

/Filthy liberal socialist

I'm okay with this. Everyone should follow your example: don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

I'll go because those near me arent nearly as bad as they apparently are in other parts of the country, and they have good prices on basic staples.


You go because you believe that the highest ideal anyone can strive for is to make profits for a large corporation.
 
2013-07-26 10:59:30 PM  

LordJiro: Debeo Summa Credo: bbfreak: Captain Dan: Walmart is awesome.  The exact same products I'd buy elsewhere, for less money - that's a no-brainer.  If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

With a few exceptions, most of the opposition to Walmart is either political (anti-free trade left) or fronting ("I pay extra for my invisible clothing because I'm morally enlightened").

So you like the fact that your tax dollars are going towards subsiding Walmart employees eh?

If he is, his beef is with politicians and voters who enact these subsidies, not Walmart.

Don't like giving people handouts with tax dollars? Then don't.

Or Walmart could, y'know, pay a living wage and not stiff employees on hours so they don't have to pay benefits, so the employees wouldn't NEED subsidies. But nope, Profit uber alles.


Sort of like how the call center for training people about Obamacare are not providing health care to employees?
 
2013-07-26 11:04:45 PM  

IlGreven: Selena Luna: Debeo Summa Credo: peacheslatour: Popcorn Johnny: I shop there at least a few times a month, suck it.

You would.

So do millions and millions of other people, because they can get more for their money there.

Shake your impotent fists of rage all you want, this is a fact.

Over time, it costs considerably more. When the only clothes I could afford were WalMart clothes, I was replacing them all the time. I can afford better clothes now and they last much longer. I realize this is an anecdote, but it's also the case with most of the crap. Your money doesn't go further there.

Remember, cost is money x time. Which costs less, really: Something that you pay $400 for that lasts six months, or something you pay $600 for that lasts 2 years?


I thought that's what I was saying... Were you telling the other guy to remember this?
 
2013-07-26 11:05:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Is it possible to not use Walmart because I feel the onus of responsibility is on the consumer?

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that exists to maximize utility for its owners (just like a union). It has no political views and no ethical restrictions and will consider all available options to maximize utility. If Walmart thought that it could make more money by closing the stores and building cruise ships, it would do so. If Walmart thought it could get away with paying labor a cheaper rate, it would do so. And if Walmart thought that it could improve business by giving billions of dollars away to save the rain forest charities, it would also do so. The only ways to control a corporation are through consumption and through the government (both of which required informed citizenry - a major no-no).

I don't agree with Walmart's stance on labor rights and blatant abuse of economies of scale, so I don't use them.

/Filthy liberal socialist

I'm okay with this. Everyone should follow your example: don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

I'll go because those near me arent nearly as bad as they apparently are in other parts of the country, and they have good prices on basic staples.

You go because you believe that the highest ideal anyone can strive for is to make profits for a large corporation.


Would it be better if they had low profits so the  shareholders, like all the unions, pensions, and people who have 401ks or any investments got screwed?

That is what you want?
 
2013-07-26 11:06:10 PM  
Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.
 
2013-07-26 11:09:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Is it possible to not use Walmart because I feel the onus of responsibility is on the consumer?

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that exists to maximize utility for its owners (just like a union). It has no political views and no ethical restrictions and will consider all available options to maximize utility. If Walmart thought that it could make more money by closing the stores and building cruise ships, it would do so. If Walmart thought it could get away with paying labor a cheaper rate, it would do so. And if Walmart thought that it could improve business by giving billions of dollars away to save the rain forest charities, it would also do so. The only ways to control a corporation are through consumption and through the government (both of which required informed citizenry - a major no-no).

I don't agree with Walmart's stance on labor rights and blatant abuse of economies of scale, so I don't use them.

/Filthy liberal socialist

I'm okay with this. Everyone should follow your example: don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

I'll go because those near me arent nearly as bad as they apparently are in other parts of the country, and they have good prices on basic staples.

You go because you believe that the highest ideal anyone can strive for is to make profits for a large corporation.

Would it be better if they had low profits so the  shareholders, like all the unions, pensions, and people who have 401ks or any investments got screwed?

That is what you want?


When was the last time you demanded to make less so that there shareholders would do better?
 
2013-07-26 11:10:10 PM  

meanmutton: Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.


You claim that, why?
 
2013-07-26 11:11:16 PM  

Fark It: HeartBurnKid: muddythinker: Apparently, hundreds of millions of shoppers are ignoring the message.

It's a free country.  Go to Whole Foods and mix with the elite, or shop with the poor people at Wal-Mart.  I like mixing with the latter myself.

This is the part where we call the left "elitist" for standing up for the common man as we throw our weight behind the fat cats shipping jobs to third-world sweatshops, I see.

/do most of my grocery shopping at WinCo.
//just as cheap as Wal-Mart, and employee owned.

Aldi and Woodman's.  Aldi pays their people decent wages, and Woodman's is employee owned.  Also better food and prices, and a far, far wider selection (at Woodman's).

Why you would go grocery shopping at a Walmart or Target is beyond me....


Woodman's owner is a gigantic asshole.  Just sayin'.

/It's still my favorite grocery store.
 
2013-07-26 11:13:36 PM  

meanmutton: Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.


Nope.
 
2013-07-26 11:14:45 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I shop there at least a few times a month, suck it.


Yeah...you sure showed us by being trashy and pathetic. We lose I guess.
 
2013-07-26 11:16:02 PM  

meanmutton: Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.


You'd be right if not for the fact that you're entirely wrong.
 
2013-07-26 11:17:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Is it possible to not use Walmart because I feel the onus of responsibility is on the consumer?

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that exists to maximize utility for its owners (just like a union). It has no political views and no ethical restrictions and will consider all available options to maximize utility. If Walmart thought that it could make more money by closing the stores and building cruise ships, it would do so. If Walmart thought it could get away with paying labor a cheaper rate, it would do so. And if Walmart thought that it could improve business by giving billions of dollars away to save the rain forest charities, it would also do so. The only ways to control a corporation are through consumption and through the government (both of which required informed citizenry - a major no-no).

I don't agree with Walmart's stance on labor rights and blatant abuse of economies of scale, so I don't use them.

/Filthy liberal socialist

I'm okay with this. Everyone should follow your example: don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

I'll go because those near me arent nearly as bad as they apparently are in other parts of the country, and they have good prices on basic staples.

You go because you believe that the highest ideal anyone can strive for is to make profits for a large corporation.

Would it be better if they had low profits so the  shareholders, like all the unions, pensions, and people who have 401ks or any investments got screwed?

That is what you want?

When was the last time you demanded to make less so that there shareholders would do better?



Wow, did you throw out your back trying that twisted logic?

There is a world of difference between having an agreement with a company (wages/work) and whining that corporations are making profits.
 
2013-07-26 11:19:49 PM  
You either own Walmart or you work at Walmart.

/the future
 
2013-07-26 11:21:21 PM  

LordJiro: Captain Dan: Walmart is awesome.  The exact same products I'd buy elsewhere, for less money - that's a no-brainer.  If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

With a few exceptions, most of the opposition to Walmart is either political (anti-free trade left) or fronting ("I pay extra for my invisible clothing because I'm morally enlightened").

Or, y'know, "Their service is shiat, their business practices are shiat, and they treat their employees like shiat."


Well said, but forgot "everyone who shops there is responsible for increasing the tax liability for the rest of us". On top of farking the manufacturing sector. These dumb sh*ts don't realize that they are likely doing more financial harm than good, even to their individual pocketbooks (especially if they are in the already economically farked segment that ironically tends to favor shopping there).
 
2013-07-26 11:29:26 PM  

COMALite J: tbhouston: lawboy87: Costco, which has very loyal and happy employees who are paid well above the average for retail, for comparison:  Stock price - 10 yrs ago:  $31, today's close $116  (375% return on investment)

WalMart - with shoddy stores, unhappy employees and a pay and benefits package that barely beats out some 3rd world nations:  Stock price-  10 yrs ago $55, today's close $78 (141% ROI)


Which business model seems to be the most successful?  Paying your employees such a crap wage that you tend to draw the worst dregs of the employee market to man your stores; or providing a pay and benefits package that leads to having one of the highest employee retention and job satisfaction rates in retail?

How can the "geniuses" that run WalMart not see what is plain on its face?  More importantly, how can someone analyzing the retail market place looking for a place to buy some stock, not see that Costco provides close to 3 times the ROI than WalMart?

Oh look, it's that durrrrtard that compares Costco to Walmart instead of SAMs club.....

Oh, you wanna compare Sam's Club? Okay, we'll compare Sam's Club.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x414]
What's your comeback now?


Walmart does not report financial data for Sam's club except year-to-year sales.

Weird that you chart would exclude the Earnings Per Share of the two companies.  Ya know the thing that investors actually care about.
  Walmart's Earnings Per Share is much higher than Costco. (5.07 vs. 4.54)

So tell me again, how Costco is getting more out of their workers?
 
2013-07-26 11:35:55 PM  
The most enlightening thing about this thread isn't that some farkers shop at Walmart, it's that they seem to be proud of it.

/The nearest Walmart up here in the Calif high desert closed last week ... when the new Super WalMart opened. Now in addition to the husks of all the smaller stores that were shut down after Walmart moved in, there's the huge husk of an abandoned Walmart.
 
2013-07-26 11:41:06 PM  
Also of note for all those who are against welfare. The future is upon us. Automation is taking more and more jobs, which technically is a good thing, but only if we come to the realization that there aren't enough good paying jobs to go around. How we'll solve this issue I'm not sure, but its a reality that we'll be facing very soon.
 
2013-07-26 11:44:55 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I shop there at least a few times a month, suck it.



Oh my goodness, aren't we impressed with ourselves!

What a cute little internet contrarian you are!

Who's a big boy?

Who's a big boy?
 
2013-07-26 11:45:05 PM  

bbfreak: Also of note for all those who are against welfare. The future is upon us. Automation is taking more and more jobs, which technically is a good thing, but only if we come to the realization that there aren't enough good paying jobs to go around. How we'll solve this issue I'm not sure, but its a reality that we'll be facing very soon.


we know that already.
Obama blamed unemployment on ATMs and airline ticket machines.

Those darn copy machines also screwed the people making mimeograph machines.
 
2013-07-26 11:54:08 PM  

meat0918: Wait, people still defend Wal-Mart?

I mean besides stock-holders?


Ctrl-F tenpoundsofcheese.
 
2013-07-26 11:55:12 PM  

SomeoneDumb: The most enlightening thing about this thread isn't that some farkers shop at Walmart, it's that they seem to be proud of it.


You're misreading things.  Some anti-free trade liberals, including in this thread, are trying to imbue Walmart with moral valence.  Because Walmart does not forgo profit in favor of liberal political values, therefore Walmart is "bad" - and by implication, so are the people who shop there and enjoy its presence.

Most of those denigrated people, of which I am one, do not give a shiat about what some whiny liberals wish the world would be like.  We're neither proud nor ashamed of shopping at Walmart, because it's a financial decision, not a moral one.

What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.
 
2013-07-27 12:18:02 AM  
So people shop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs?
 
2013-07-27 12:20:38 AM  

John Buck 41: Ed Grubermann: Debeo Summa Credo: Its not walmarts fault.

[www.trilobite.org image 440x500]

It very much is WalMart's fault they do everything they can o avoid paying their employees a living wage. And this is after they've driven the stores that did pay a living wage out of business.

Do you really think Ed's Hardware or Joe's Market paid their employees a higher wage than Walmart? Really?


For the most part, small businesses tend to pay higher wages.
 
2013-07-27 12:21:02 AM  
I am not a fan of Wal Mart, but I still buy toilet paper and cat food there.  I don't think there's anything else that I actively seek out.  I can get better food for the same price/cheaper at the local places.
 
2013-07-27 12:28:59 AM  

gnosis301: So people shop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs?


No.  To save money (EDLP) and for the selection.

Since they sell almost a half trillion dollars worth of stuff, seems that a lot of people like saving money.

You can overpay at many other places if you want.
 
2013-07-27 12:30:23 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: meat0918: Wait, people still defend Wal-Mart?

I mean besides stock-holders?

Ctrl-F tenpoundsofcheese.


Meh.  They sell almost a half trillion dollars worth of stuff, so plenty of people vote with their wallet and support Walmart and their shareholders.
 
2013-07-27 12:31:56 AM  

TheLopper: Popcorn Johnny: I shop there at least a few times a month, suck it.

You can pick up Blackhawks Stanley Cup Champions merchandise at decent prices.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-27 12:56:51 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No.


Captain Dan: What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.


Looks as though some people  doshop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs.
 
2013-07-27 01:13:05 AM  
Last year in the spring, I spent five months working in Vicksburg, Mississippi. It was a huge outage, over four thousand people at one time.

There were two local box stores, a Walmart, and a Kroger's. And it was single-handedly the most useless Walmart I'd ever been in. Nothing was ever stocked. Every time I went entire shelves were empty. I went a grand total of three times I think, and never for groceries. I shopped at Kroger's almost exclusively. Initially, I assumed that the rush of outage workers had overwhelmed the local Walmart.

But no. The locals told me that it was pretty typical of that Walmart, and regaled me with stories of some exotic disease being found in the veggie sprayers (no idea how true that was).

/fark Walmart, gimme Meijer's, Whole Foods, Kroger's, whatever.
 
2013-07-27 01:15:59 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: ghare: Popcorn Johnny: ghare: Unemployed, or on disability?

I'm on the higher end of the average Farker pay scale, that doesn't mean I'm not going to shop smart. If you feel superior by paying more for what you buy, rock on with your bad self

Oh, definitely, the few extra dollars I pay for higher quality merchandise, and better service, and to not be subjected to the generally horrific experience is well worth it to me. Local businessmen get my money normally. Hell, I even get better-than-Wal-Mart pricing  frequently.

Hmm. You'd think that Walmart wouldnt have grown to the sales volume it currently has if it offered lower quality merchandise, poorer service, and a generally horrific experience, while not offering better pricing than elsewhere.


there is a huge difference between the days of Sam Walton's Wal-Mart and current day Sam in the Grave Greedy sibling WalMart, you dolt.
 
2013-07-27 01:17:19 AM  

gnosis301: Captain Dan: What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.

Looks as though some people do shop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs.


That's poor reading comprehension on your part.  It's Friday night, so I'll assume it's a temporary impairment.

People shop at Walmart because of low prices.  When liberals insult them online, they defend themselves.  That online reaction is the backlash (not the shopping at Walmart).

Also, it's more of a backlash against pricks than it is against liberals.  In this case, it's liberals who are nosy, so they're the ones resented.  In other contexts the meddlesome pricks might be conservative (e.g. pushing creationism in public schools).
 
2013-07-27 01:18:58 AM  

meanmutton: Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.


You have a citation for this tidbit?
 
2013-07-27 01:19:53 AM  

rev. dave: Here is where my pragmatic side appears.  Mr. Fugelsang is doing what I want a guy like him to do, we could use thousands more if they split the work.   However, if it were not for Wal-Mart my few dollars left after debt payments would not help as much.
The workers ay my store are all nice to me and a few recognize me, I buy a lot of my groceries from there.  I feel glad they have a job, if things were worse, I could work there.I can imagine them as co-workers at least once in the next 30 years, mainly after retirement.  I don't trust Republicans with social security.  The money I save is a big deal.
But really there are a lot of other non-political organizations I feel much stronger about.  Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Banks, Commodities markets.   This company is a Weathervane rather than a Haliburton.  They adapt to changes well.  So the way to affect the unethical behavior of Wal-Mart is to have laws which restrict them and allow their workers to organize.  I will still shop there if the price is 30% more.  Especially if the workers are better treated.


Best troll
 
2013-07-27 01:20:09 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: COMALite J: tbhouston: lawboy87: Costco, which has very loyal and happy employees who are paid well above the average for retail, for comparison:  Stock price - 10 yrs ago:  $31, today's close $116  (375% return on investment)

WalMart - with shoddy stores, unhappy employees and a pay and benefits package that barely beats out some 3rd world nations:  Stock price-  10 yrs ago $55, today's close $78 (141% ROI)


Which business model seems to be the most successful?  Paying your employees such a crap wage that you tend to draw the worst dregs of the employee market to man your stores; or providing a pay and benefits package that leads to having one of the highest employee retention and job satisfaction rates in retail?

How can the "geniuses" that run WalMart not see what is plain on its face?  More importantly, how can someone analyzing the retail market place looking for a place to buy some stock, not see that Costco provides close to 3 times the ROI than WalMart?

Oh look, it's that durrrrtard that compares Costco to Walmart instead of SAMs club.....

Oh, you wanna compare Sam's Club? Okay, we'll compare Sam's Club.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x414]
What's your comeback now?

Walmart does not report financial data for Sam's club except year-to-year sales.

Weird that you chart would exclude the Earnings Per Share of the two companies.  Ya know the thing that investors actually care about.
  Walmart's Earnings Per Share is much higher than Costco. (5.07 vs. 4.54)

So tell me again, how Costco is getting more out of their workers?


You realize that earnings per share is a totally worthless metric, right? Price to earnings is better, but not foolproof because the price is calculated based on future potential. So in reality, a high p/e ratio would indicate that a stock is more prefered by the market, despite returning less on a current market price based evaluation. In the end, you're still a retard who has no idea what he's talking about.
 
2013-07-27 01:20:33 AM  

Captain Dan: gnosis301: Captain Dan: What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.

Looks as though some people do shop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs.

That's poor reading comprehension on your part.  It's Friday night, so I'll assume it's a temporary impairment.

People shop at Walmart because of low prices.  When liberals insult them online, they defend themselves.  That online reaction is the backlash (not the shopping at Walmart).

Also, it's more of a backlash against pricks than it is against liberals.  In this case, it's liberals who are nosy, so they're the ones resented.  In other contexts the meddlesome pricks might be conservative (e.g. pushing creationism in public schools).


Ah. Thank you for the clarification.
 
2013-07-27 01:20:54 AM  
tenpoundsofcheese (farkied: It ain't cheese): Oh goodie, Current is now criticizing companies in the US that provides millions of jobs, supports millions of jobs of suppliers  and has stock that is owned by unions and teachers and little ol ladies

The same is true of GM.  But the bailout was teh evul.
 
2013-07-27 01:21:01 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: meanmutton: Every other store you shop at has employment practices effectively the same as WalMart.

You have a citation for this tidbit?


I doubt a lot of shops provide health insurance or pensions
 
2013-07-27 01:21:05 AM  

Cletus C.: I enjoyed the part where he said the Walton family "controls" as much wealth as the lower 30 percent of all Americans.

Ha. Like that lower 30 percent has any wealth and in any way "controls" what money they do have.


And the fact that you're right and that does not absolutely disgust you is proof of how horrible a human being you are.
 
2013-07-27 01:21:10 AM  

Captain Dan: because it's a financial decision,


It's a shiatty financial decision and you should feel bad for making it. It has nothing to do with libruls, dear.
 
2013-07-27 01:23:32 AM  

gnosis301: tenpoundsofcheese: No.

Captain Dan: What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.

Looks as though some people  doshop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs.


Why did you edit what I wrote to make a different point?

I said "No.  To save money (EDLP) and for the selection. "

Libs don't influence where I shop.
 
2013-07-27 01:23:41 AM  
tenpoundsofcheese (farkied: It ain't cheese): Lee Jackson Beauregard: meat0918: Wait, people still defend Wal-Mart?

I mean besides stock-holders?

Ctrl-F tenpoundsofcheese.

Meh.  They sell almost a half trillion dollars worth of stuff, so plenty of people vote with their wallet and support Walmart and their shareholders.


McDonald's is the best-selling fast food restaurant.  Pretty damn close to all of the others make better food.
 
2013-07-27 01:26:32 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: gnosis301: tenpoundsofcheese: No.

Captain Dan: What you read as "pride" is mostly backlash against the nosy liberals who want to impose their preferences on other people.

Looks as though some people  doshop at Wal-Mart to stick it to the libs.

Why did you edit what I wrote to make a different point?

I said "No.  To save money (EDLP) and for the selection. "

Libs don't influence where I shop.


When I said "people," I wasn't referring to you.
 
Displayed 50 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report