seaglassru...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> That strikes me as self back-patting.
>>> She was responding to self back-patting.
>> I actually waws being *completely* silly about the best parental >> accomplishment comment, as I believe enigma took it.
> I did think you were sincere there. And I thought you naturally came > back with some proud news of your own (not having to buy many > clothes). Which got described as self backpatting. I just wanted to > point out it wasn't done in a vacuum.
> I have an 8 year old son and I do consignment shops as well as nicer > stores too (only sales!). In a way I'm sorta glad he doesn't grow > fast so we can make the most of clothes.
> seaglass
I am not precisely certain what is wrong with self backpatting. I think some people feel that to feel happy for or in oneself is an automatic criticism of others.
> seaglassru...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> That strikes me as self back-patting.
> >>> She was responding to self back-patting.
> >> I actually waws being *completely* silly about the best parental > >> accomplishment comment, as I believe enigma took it.
> > I did think you were sincere there. And I thought you naturally came > > back with some proud news of your own (not having to buy many > > clothes). Which got described as self backpatting. I just wanted to > > point out it wasn't done in a vacuum.
> > I have an 8 year old son and I do consignment shops as well as nicer > > stores too (only sales!). In a way I'm sorta glad he doesn't grow > > fast so we can make the most of clothes.
> > seaglass
> I am not precisely certain what is wrong with self backpatting. I think some > people feel that to feel happy for or in oneself is an automatic criticism > of others.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You're right. I'm guilty of that, but only if the wording seems off to me. I guess I'm sensitive to wording. I'm addicted to Scrabble, so there ya go ;)
>> I just compared a Dell 1501 computer with the same one >> direct from Dell. Dell was about $150 more.
>did you line by line compare those Dells? are they the *exact >same* components? i'll bet they are not. besides, if you buy >direct from Dell you get service. if you buy from Wal-Mart you >get nothing. >lee
I bought direct from dell on the business side and the service is very good for small businesses.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>>>toto wrote: >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:13:27 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky >>>> <beliav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people did not >>>>> think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be the world's largest >>>>> company by sales.
>>>> Opinion isn't truth though. Walmart does not actually offer a good >>>> value for the money. Of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg >>>> in terms of why Walmart is a poor place to shop.
>>>Please tell us why you think Walmart is a poor place to shop. I am quite >>>curious.
>>>Jeff, who rarely shops at Walmart.
>> The way Walmart operates, it dictates the price it's suppliers must >> give them. This forces companies to cut corners and to make shoddier >> goods. It also forces some companies into bankruptcy and others go >> out of business because they cannot sell their goods and make a fair >> profit. They have changed this a bit recently, but Walmart is still >> way too powerful, imo.
>> WALMART WAYS THEY FOOL THE PUBLIC.. I worked for Wal-mart and noticed >> the going out of style or damaged or just didn`t have room for them >> items were put on a SPECIAL SALE table or shelf.. the price wasn`t >> reduced just a sale.. ALSO I got the Kodak camera this Christmas for >> the unbelieveable price of $89 ..the kicker is you can get this model >> everyday for this price... and I stood in line an hour!.. and the >> model is being phased out!.. Watch out
><snip> >Um... I don't think that's a problem. Doesn't sound misleading to me. It >sounds rather obvious to me. >I wouldn't pay £89 for anything without checking that it wasn't cheaper >elsewhere, particularly anything digital where advances mean that generally >things sre becomming obselete very quickly. >Surely if it's damaged then they have to say-certainly in the UK that would >be true-or at any rate you'd be entitled to your money back if you got it >home and found later it was damaged and it didn't say. That's called >"consumer rights" here. >Debbie-who not only has NEVER shopped at Walmart-I don't think I've even >seen one!
In the UK, ASDA is a subsidiary of Walmart
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
<sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: >I really don't get the shoddy goods part. If I buy Pantene or Tresemme at >Walmarts because it is cheaper, how is that a shoddy product? It's the same >product that I could buy at Target or Kmart and it is the same product, but >walmart has it for less. Same with Tide or other name brand things that I >find cheaper at Walmart. Please explain because I really don't understand. >Are they not honest in putting the product in the bottles?
Often, the branded products are *not* the same at Walmart because the supplier had to somehow get the price down to what Walmart demanded.
They might have bought cheaper ingredients for the Walmart market. I can't say about specific products, but with clothing, the goods are manufactured more cheaply and definitely inferior even though they are the same brand.
The problem is that by buying anything at Walmart, we are supporting this kind of deception.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Wal-Mart's Health Insurance Falls Far Short of Other Large Companies
* On average for 2005, large companies (200 or more workers) cover approximately 66% of their employees. If Wal-Mart was to reach the average coverage rate, Wal-Mart should be covering an additional 318,000 employees [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005 and http://www.walmartfacts.com/docs/1625_jan2006healthcarebackgrounders_...].
Wal-Mart's Health Care Eligibility is Restrictive
* Part-timers—anybody below 34 hours a week — must wait 1 year before they can enroll. Moreover, spouses of part-time employees are ineligible for family health care coverage for 2006. [Wal-Mart Stores, "My Benefits, New Peak Time Benefits Making a Difference For You," 2006] * Full-time hourly employees must wait 180 days (approximately 6 months) before being able to enroll in Wal-Mart's health insurance plan. Managers have no waiting period. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide] * Nationally, the average wait time for new employees to become eligible is 1.7 months. For the retail industry it is 3.0 months. [Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, 2005]
All of Wal-Mart's Health Plans Are Too Costly for Its Workers to Use
* Since the average full-time Wal-Mart employee earned $17,114 in 2005, he or she would have to spend between 7 and 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, if electing for single coverage. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide and UFCW analysis] * The average full-time employee electing for family coverage would have to spend between 22 and 40 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles. These costs do not include other health-related expenses such as medical co-pays, prescription coverage, emergency room deductibles, and ambulance deductibles. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide and UFCW Analysis]. * Wal-Mart trumps the affordability of its new health care plan. According to Wal-Mart, "In January [2006], ...Coverage will be available for as little as $22 per month for individuals" [www.walmartfacts.com] * What Wal-Mart's website leaves out: Coverage is affordable, but using it will bankrupt many employees. Wal-Mart's most affordable plan for 2006 includes a $1,000 deductible for single coverage and a $3,000 deductible for family coverage ($1,000 deductible per person covered up to $3,000). [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Guide]
Wal-Mart Admits Public Health Care is a "Better Value"
* President and CEO Lee Scott said in 2005, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." [Transcript Lee Scott Speech 4/5/05]
Wal-Mart's Health Care is Getting Costlier
* Between 2000-2005, the cost of premiums rose 169 percent for single coverage and 117 percent for family coverage. [UFCW analysis of annual Wal-Mart Associate Guides]. * In comparison, premiums for family coverage in the U.S. have increased only by 59%, from 2000-2005. [Employer Health Benefits: 2004 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, 2004] Wal-Mart Employees Pay More for Health Care Costs * In 2004, Wal-Mart employees, in total, paid approximately 41% of the plan costs [Wal-Mart IRS 5500 Filings, 2005]. * Nationally for 2004 on average employees paid for only 16% of single coverage costs and 28% of family coverage costs [Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005].
Wal-Mart Covers Less of the Health Care Costs Compared to Its Competitors
* In a state analysis, the Massachusetts Department of Health and Human Services found that in 2003, Wal-Mart covered only 52% of total health care premium costs compared to K-Mart which covered 66%, Target which covered 68%, and Sears which covered 80% ["Employers Who Have 50 or More Employees Using Public Health Assistance," Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, 2/2005]
Wal-Mart's Spending Falls Below Industry Standards
* Wal-Mart's spending on health care for its employees falls well below industry and national employer averages. In 2002, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 per employee. By comparison, the average spending per employee in the wholesale/retailing sector was $4,800. For U.S. employers in general, the average was $5,600 per employee, Therefore, Wal-Mart's average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average. [Bernard Wysocki, Jr. and Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart Cost-Cutting Finds a Big Target in Health Benefits," Wall Street Journal September 30, 2003 p1]
Wal-Mart Only Spends 77 Cents an Hour Per Employee for Health Benefits
* In 2004, Wal-Mart spent $1.5 billion on its health insurance. This amounts to an employer contribution of around only $0.77 an hour per employee. This accounts for approximately a half-percent of Wal-Mart's $285 billion in sales in 2004. [Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005, Wal-Mart Annual Report, 2005].
Wal-Mart Increased Advertising More Than Health Care
* In 2004, Wal-Mart spent nearly the same amount on advertising as it did on health insurance. In 2004, Wal-Mart reports that it spent $1.5 billion on health care benefits and $1.4 billion in advertising. [Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005, Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005] * Between 2003 and 2004, Wal-Mart increased its advertising budget by $434 million, only increasing its spending on employee health care by $100 million. That means Wal-Mart increased its spending on advertising by 45 percent while only increasing its spending on employee health care by 7 percent. [Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005, Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005] * In fact, Wal-Mart has consistently increased spending on advertising more than its spending on employee health care. Between 2002 and 2003, Wal-Mart put more new funds into advertising than into health care. Wal-Mart increased spending on advertising by $290 million, while only increasing health care spending by $215 million for the same period. (note: this also occurred in 1995-96, 1997-98,1998-1999). [Wal-Mart Annual Reports and 5500 Filings]
One Out of Six Wal-Mart Employees Has No Health Care Coverage At All
* This is more than double the national percentage for large firms (firms with over 100 employees). In fact, we estimate that Wal-Mart accounted in 2005 for more than 1 out of every 40 uninsured workers who are employed at a large firm. [Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005; Wal-Mart Annual Report; "Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Coverage: Sponsorship, Eligibility, and Participation Patterns in 2001," Bowen Garrett, Ph.D., released by the Kaiser Family Foundation September 2004].
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
<sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: >"Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty sleazy >> employment practices.
>If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the employees can find a >new job. I don't see why you would care how they are treated as long as you >don't work there. And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >actually know someone that works there?
I care about the workers in China, why wouldn't I care about the workers in the US.
In many retail markets, Walmart has driven out other employers, so the retail worker cannot get another job unless they can afford to move out of the area.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>>> Sue wrote: >>>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>>>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>>>> sleazy employment practices. >>>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >>>> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >>>> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >>>> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >>>> actually know someone that works there? >>> There have been many reports about how they force employees >>> to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the >>> night, they get little pay, etc.
>> minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide >> health insurance, etc >> lee
>The wages are a true issue. 93% of Walmart employees have health >insurance, and just over 1/2 have health insurance through Wal-Mart. >This is because Wal-Mart has new health insurance that recently began. >(about 43% of employees have health insurance from another source, like >their spouses). I don't know how many employees get health insurance for >their families, though.
Wal-Mart has a limited benefit plan, called Starbridge. Fast-Growing Health Plan Has A Catch: $1,000-a-Year Cap Employees Pay $10 or So Weekly, for Basics That Provide Little Help for Serious Illness
On October 26, 2005 the New York Times reported a "secret" memo written by Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Executive Vice President for Benefits, for the Wal-Mart Board of Directors. The memo shattered Wal-Mart’s healthcare mythology and revealed that the company executives are strategizing to implement policies that intentionally benefit its bottom line over the welfare of employees. The most egregious revelations of the memo include:
* ON ASSOCIATES … Chambers wrote, "Most troubling, the least healthy, lease productive Associates are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with Wal-Mart." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 4, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05]
* ON SPOUSES … Chambers wrote, "Decrease cross-subsidization of spouses through higher premiums or other charge. Spouses are by far the most expensive plan members to cover, and Wal-Mart pays more per spouse than per Associate." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 6, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05]
* ON CHILDREN … Chambers wrote, "We also have a significant number of Associates and their children who receive health insurance through public-assistance programs. Five percent of our Associates are on Medicaid compared to an average for national employers of 4 percent. Twenty-seven percent of Associates’ children are on such programs, compared to a national average of 22 percent. In total, 46 percent of Associates’ children are either on Medicaid or are uninsured." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 6, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05, emphasis added]
* ON "UNHEALTHY PEOPLE" … Chambers wrote, "A healthier workforce will lead to lower health insurance costs, lower absenteeism through fewer sick days, and higher productivity. It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier workforce than it will be to change behavior in an existing one. These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart. Even a healthier workforce could result in significant savings: $220 million to $670 million in FY2011." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 10, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05, emphasis added]
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>>>> Sue wrote: >>>>> "Stephanie" <h...@noway.net> wrote in message >>>>>> My beef with Walmart is the rustle and rumor of pretty >>>>>> sleazy employment practices. >>>>> If the employee doesn't like the practices, then the >>>>> employees can find a new job. I don't see why you would >>>>> care how they are treated as long as you don't work there. >>>>> And how do you know if they are treated poorly? Do you >>>>> actually know someone that works there? >>>> There have been many reports about how they force employees >>>> to work during breaks, have locked employees in for the >>>> night, they get little pay, etc. >>> minimum wage, just under the # of hours required to provide >>> health insurance, etc >>> lee >> The wages are a true issue. 93% of Walmart employees have health >> insurance, and just over 1/2 have health insurance through Wal-Mart. >> This is because Wal-Mart has new health insurance that recently began. >> (about 43% of employees have health insurance from another source, like >> their spouses). I don't know how many employees get health insurance for >> their families, though.
> Wal-Mart has a limited benefit plan, called Starbridge. > Fast-Growing Health Plan Has A Catch: $1,000-a-Year Cap > Employees Pay $10 or So Weekly, for Basics That Provide Little Help > for Serious Illness
> On October 26, 2005 the New York Times reported a "secret" memo > written by Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Executive Vice President for > Benefits, for the Wal-Mart Board of Directors. The memo shattered > Wal-Mart’s healthcare mythology and revealed that the company > executives are strategizing to implement policies that intentionally > benefit its bottom line over the welfare of employees. The most > egregious revelations of the memo include:
> * ON ASSOCIATES … Chambers wrote, "Most troubling, the least > healthy, lease productive Associates are more satisfied with their > benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with > Wal-Mart." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 4, > http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05]
> * ON SPOUSES … Chambers wrote, "Decrease cross-subsidization of > spouses through higher premiums or other charge. Spouses are by far > the most expensive plan members to cover, and Wal-Mart pays more per > spouse than per Associate." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 6, > http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York Times, 10/26/05]
> * ON CHILDREN … Chambers wrote, "We also have a significant number > of Associates and their children who receive health insurance through > public-assistance programs. Five percent of our Associates are on > Medicaid compared to an average for national employers of 4 percent. > Twenty-seven percent of Associates’ children are on such programs, > compared to a national average of 22 percent. In total, 46 percent of > Associates’ children are either on Medicaid or are uninsured." > [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 6, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; New York > Times, 10/26/05, emphasis added]
> * ON "UNHEALTHY PEOPLE" … Chambers wrote, "A healthier workforce > will lead to lower health insurance costs, lower absenteeism through > fewer sick days, and higher productivity. It will be far easier to > attract and retain a healthier workforce than it will be to change > behavior in an existing one. These moves would also dissuade unhealthy > people from coming to work at Wal-Mart. Even a healthier workforce > could result in significant savings: $220 million to $670 million in > FY2011." [Wal-Mart Secret Memo, Page 10, http://walmartwatch.com/memo; > New York Times, 10/26/05, emphasis added]
The thing is that the health plan coverage that Wal-Mart offers now is different from what it offered two years ago.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:01:14 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
<beliav...@aol.com> wrote: >There's a reason you don't show up in sweat pants to white-collar >jobs.
Except in the tech fields. I think half the reason people want to work for tech companies is that they do NOT have to dress up even if they are in non-engineering positions.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:44:49 -0800 (PST), seaglassru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I'm sure it'll happen, but it's hard to believe he'll *ever* care >about trends. He couldn't be bothered with what he wears. For one >thing, he's colorblind, which I'm sure takes the fun out of a lot of >it.
I have a son who *never* cared about trends and fashion even in high school. He's in his mid-thirties and still doesn't. He will wear a suit to work *if* he has to for a meeting, but as an engineer, he mostly wears nomex over shorts or sweats when he is in the plant.
I don't know that ds is colorblind, but his theory has always been that comfort comes before fashion. His clothes are clean, but they are not fashionable.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>>There's a reason you don't show up in sweat pants to white-collar >>jobs.
>Except in the tech fields. I think half the reason people want to >work for tech companies is that they do NOT have to dress up even if >they are in non-engineering positions.
Actually even in tech fields, it depends on the company and region, and sweatpants would be way dressed down for many tech firms.
Think more along the lines of jeans and khakis. And only the nicer jeans if customers are around or presentations to mangement are on the day's schedule.
*Any* workplace has some kind of dress code, even if unwritten. The places that pride themselves on casual dress put pressure on those who show up in more formal attire. A close coworker who some evenings goes from work directly to school board meetings (he is on the school board) regularly gets razzed for his more formal clothes on those days 'whazzap - gotta job interview hee hee' 'who died and where's the funeral hee hee'. And note that he's a techie who takes care about how he presents himself in another venue.
It always amazed me, back when some would make a point of wearing 'floods' (pants a bit too short) as a way to show off their attitudes toward dress, that the SHORT guys always managed to find 'floods' to wear too. IF they really didn't care, they'd always have to roll up the pant legs of whatever they had grabbed at the thrift store. So they were paying attention and taking care about it too - just in a different direction.
> <sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: > >I really don't get the shoddy goods part. If I buy Pantene or Tresemme at > >Walmarts because it is cheaper, how is that a shoddy product? It's the same > >product that I could buy at Target or Kmart and it is the same product, but > >walmart has it for less. Same with Tide or other name brand things that I > >find cheaper at Walmart. Please explain because I really don't understand. > >Are they not honest in putting the product in the bottles?
> Often, the branded products are *not* the same at Walmart because the > supplier had to somehow get the price down to what Walmart demanded.
> They might have bought cheaper ingredients for the Walmart market. I > can't say about specific products, but with clothing, the goods are > manufactured more cheaply and definitely inferior even though they are > the same brand.
> The problem is that by buying anything at Walmart, we are supporting > this kind of deception.
Do you have a source for this? That identically named and packaged products, such as laundry detergent or shampoo, are manufactured specially, using inferior ingredients, for Walmart? Hmmm. Shampoo is also a lot more expensive at the local convenience store than it is at mega-drug store chain. Does that mean that they're different products as well? There *may* be some products labeled *bottled especially for Wal Mart,* and those may be somewhat different. Otherwise, I think you're mistaken.
Clothing, for example, is a different story. Manufacturers often have different lines at different price points. A blue tee shirt from store X may be very different in terms of material and craftsmanship than a blue tee shirt from store Y, even if they look similar. Ralph Lauren, for example, has several different lines. Skirts in his Lauren (moderately priced) line often look similar to those in his higher-end lines (eg, Blue Label), but using lower-quality materials and not having the same quality of craftsmanship or detailing. OTOH, I don't see how that's deception.
I'm not a big high-end shopper for my son. I prefer him to wear clothes that I don't care about him ripping or staining, which is inevitable.(*I* won't send him to school in patched clothing, but that's just me.) We're lucky enough to have off-price retailers such as Syms conveniently located, and I find that Old Navy pants hold up admirably well. Since he's an only, we usually donate his outgrown clothing to our sitter's church or to clothing drives.
toto wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:44:49 -0800 (PST), seaglassru...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>>I'm sure it'll happen, but it's hard to believe he'll *ever* care >>about trends. He couldn't be bothered with what he wears. For one >>thing, he's colorblind, which I'm sure takes the fun out of a lot of >>it.
> I have a son who *never* cared about trends and fashion even in high > school. He's in his mid-thirties and still doesn't. He will wear a > suit to work *if* he has to for a meeting, but as an engineer, he > mostly wears nomex over shorts or sweats when he is in the plant.
> I don't know that ds is colorblind, but his theory has always been > that comfort comes before fashion. His clothes are clean, but they > are not fashionable.
My father was a mechanical engineer for a manufacturing company - he generally wore khaki pants and some kind os short-sleeved cotton shirt to work. He had to be out in the plant all day, and wearing a suit (or even nicer clothes) would have been ridiculous. We could always tell when the bigwigs from New York were in for a meeting - he'd wear a suit to work.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0800 (PST), Barbara <mom_2_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 9:31 am, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:22:04 -0500, "Sue"
>> <sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: >> >I really don't get the shoddy goods part. If I buy Pantene or Tresemme at >> >Walmarts because it is cheaper, how is that a shoddy product? It's the same >> >product that I could buy at Target or Kmart and it is the same product, but >> >walmart has it for less. Same with Tide or other name brand things that I >> >find cheaper at Walmart. Please explain because I really don't understand. >> >Are they not honest in putting the product in the bottles?
>> Often, the branded products are *not* the same at Walmart because the >> supplier had to somehow get the price down to what Walmart demanded.
>> They might have bought cheaper ingredients for the Walmart market. I >> can't say about specific products, but with clothing, the goods are >> manufactured more cheaply and definitely inferior even though they are >> the same brand.
>> The problem is that by buying anything at Walmart, we are supporting >> this kind of deception.
> Do you have a source for this? That identically named and packaged > products, such as laundry detergent or shampoo, are manufactured > specially, using inferior ingredients, for Walmart? Hmmm. Shampoo is > also a lot more expensive at the local convenience store than it is at > mega-drug store chain. Does that mean that they're different products > as well? There *may* be some products labeled *bottled especially for > Wal Mart,* and those may be somewhat different. Otherwise, I think > you're mistaken.
Well, I don't know about Wal-mart, but I just had the experience of replacing a tub faucet cartridge that originally came from a local ( but now defunct ) Big Box home store. The remaining Big Box home store had it for $25.00, according to the website. I don't shop there unless I have to, so I got it from a "real" plumbers supply store. The one I bought there - same model number, etc - was $15.00 more. It also had *much* better construction. Brass instead of cheap plastic, valve seats were finished much more smoothly, etc. I expect this one to last much longer than the four years the other one did. It was a real eye-opener.
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:01:14 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky > <beliav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>There's a reason you don't show up in sweat pants to >>white-collar jobs.
> Except in the tech fields. I think half the reason people > want to work for tech companies is that they do NOT have to > dress up even if they are in non-engineering positions.
pretty much. i used to wear jeans (yes, sometimes with holes in the knees) & t-shirts to work when i was a sys admin. wasn't an issue. i had to dress nice when i worked retail, & that doesn't pay enough to afford the way they expect you to look. lee
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0800 (PST), Barbara <mom_2_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 31, 9:31 am, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:22:04 -0500, "Sue"
> >> <sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: > >> >I really don't get the shoddy goods part. If I buy Pantene or Tresemme at > >> >Walmarts because it is cheaper, how is that a shoddy product? It's the same > >> >product that I could buy at Target or Kmart and it is the same product, but > >> >walmart has it for less. Same with Tide or other name brand things that I > >> >find cheaper at Walmart. Please explain because I really don't understand. > >> >Are they not honest in putting the product in the bottles?
> >> Often, the branded products are *not* the same at Walmart because the > >> supplier had to somehow get the price down to what Walmart demanded.
> >> They might have bought cheaper ingredients for the Walmart market. I > >> can't say about specific products, but with clothing, the goods are > >> manufactured more cheaply and definitely inferior even though they are > >> the same brand.
> >> The problem is that by buying anything at Walmart, we are supporting > >> this kind of deception.
> > Do you have a source for this? That identically named and packaged > > products, such as laundry detergent or shampoo, are manufactured > > specially, using inferior ingredients, for Walmart? Hmmm. Shampoo is > > also a lot more expensive at the local convenience store than it is at > > mega-drug store chain. Does that mean that they're different products > > as well? There *may* be some products labeled *bottled especially for > > Wal Mart,* and those may be somewhat different. Otherwise, I think > > you're mistaken.
> Well, I don't know about Wal-mart, but I just had the experience > of replacing a tub faucet cartridge that originally came from a > local ( but now defunct ) Big Box home store. The remaining > Big Box home store had it for $25.00, according to the website. > I don't shop there unless I have to, so I got it from a "real" > plumbers supply store. The one I bought there - same model number, etc - > was $15.00 more. It also had *much* better construction. Brass > instead of cheap plastic, valve seats were finished much > more smoothly, etc. I expect this one to last much longer than > the four years the other one did. It was a real eye-opener.
Same model number? So, when a store order *Model X,* how does the manufacturer know which one to ship? Sounds like a pretty inefficient system to me, that would lead to a LOT of confusion for the manufacturer. Are you sure that what you're looking at isn't a cartridge *for* model X, with completely different model number of its own?
>In article <iuiup3dfciq501qbea80akj4o49l2f2...@4ax.com>, toto says...
>>On 25 Jan 2008 07:43:30 -0800, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>You don't believe the prices on crude oil are a result of anything our >>>>govt has, or has not, done?
>>>Nope. Unless the govt could zap China and India out of existance.
>>>Now I'm all for moving *off of* oil where we can. "Where we can" is a matter of >>>other debates, though.
>>The government *could* increase the gasoline taxes (price at the pump >>would move up, but those taxes could then be used to fund alternative >>sources of energy).
>OK, so let's review:
>Nan is complaining of high energy prices (including gas prices) due to 'the >government'.
>I say that what 'the government' can do is limited since there are large market >forces outside the US driving oil prices.
>You come back to say oh yessee 'the government' *can* do something about it - >they can raise the gas tax.
>!!?!
>Um, OK.....
>Not to say that that is or is not a bad idea (it would drive up just about all >prices, and put a lot of my relatives outta jobs, but I think some of both those >things are inevitable), but it's not a very good answer to Nan's concerns :)
>Banty
Yes, the price at the pump would be higher, but *if* we used that to fund public transportation and alternative energy sources, everyone would be better off in the long run.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:14:33 -0800 (PST), Barbara <mom_2_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 1:14 pm, user <R...@iwantnospam.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0800 (PST), Barbara <mom_2_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > On Jan 31, 9:31 am, toto <scarec...@wicked.witch> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:22:04 -0500, "Sue"
>> >> <sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote: >> >> >I really don't get the shoddy goods part. If I buy Pantene or Tresemme at >> >> >Walmarts because it is cheaper, how is that a shoddy product? It's the same >> >> >product that I could buy at Target or Kmart and it is the same product, but >> >> >walmart has it for less. Same with Tide or other name brand things that I >> >> >find cheaper at Walmart. Please explain because I really don't understand. >> >> >Are they not honest in putting the product in the bottles?
>> >> Often, the branded products are *not* the same at Walmart because the >> >> supplier had to somehow get the price down to what Walmart demanded.
>> >> They might have bought cheaper ingredients for the Walmart market. I >> >> can't say about specific products, but with clothing, the goods are >> >> manufactured more cheaply and definitely inferior even though they are >> >> the same brand.
>> >> The problem is that by buying anything at Walmart, we are supporting >> >> this kind of deception.
>> > Do you have a source for this? That identically named and packaged >> > products, such as laundry detergent or shampoo, are manufactured >> > specially, using inferior ingredients, for Walmart? Hmmm. Shampoo is >> > also a lot more expensive at the local convenience store than it is at >> > mega-drug store chain. Does that mean that they're different products >> > as well? There *may* be some products labeled *bottled especially for >> > Wal Mart,* and those may be somewhat different. Otherwise, I think >> > you're mistaken.
>> Well, I don't know about Wal-mart, but I just had the experience >> of replacing a tub faucet cartridge that originally came from a >> local ( but now defunct ) Big Box home store. The remaining >> Big Box home store had it for $25.00, according to the website. >> I don't shop there unless I have to, so I got it from a "real" >> plumbers supply store. The one I bought there - same model number, etc - >> was $15.00 more. It also had *much* better construction. Brass >> instead of cheap plastic, valve seats were finished much >> more smoothly, etc. I expect this one to last much longer than >> the four years the other one did. It was a real eye-opener.
> Same model number? So, when a store order *Model X,* how does the > manufacturer know which one to ship? Sounds like a pretty inefficient > system to me, that would lead to a LOT of confusion for the > manufacturer. Are you sure that what you're looking at isn't a > cartridge *for* model X, with completely different model number of its > own?
Yep, same exact model number, not just a "For Delta model 1300" sort of deal. Who knows, maybe the one I bought had been sitting on the shelf for 15 years and they'd cheapened it up in the meantime. ;-) Didn't look like it, though.
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:44:49 -0800 (PST), seaglassru...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >I'm sure it'll happen, but it's hard to believe he'll *ever* care > >about trends. He couldn't be bothered with what he wears. For one > >thing, he's colorblind, which I'm sure takes the fun out of a lot of > >it.
> I have a son who *never* cared about trends and fashion even in high > school. He's in his mid-thirties and still doesn't. He will wear a > suit to work *if* he has to for a meeting, but as an engineer, he > mostly wears nomex over shorts or sweats when he is in the plant.
> I don't know that ds is colorblind, but his theory has always been > that comfort comes before fashion. His clothes are clean, but they > are not fashionable.
Hmm..interesting! Btw not sure what nomex is, but it sure doesn't sound trendy! ;p
In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>,
enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote: > > That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people > > did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be > > the world's largest company by sales.
> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't > realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly > replacing shoddy goods.
Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I just don't *have* $50.
-- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
In article <bebcec14-e275-4a7c-b267-30f108467...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Beliavsky <beliav...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:44 am, Chookie <ehreben...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote:
> <snip>
> > IMHO household tasks should not be paid for. Children will not be paid to > > wash their own dishes or take out their own rubbish as adults; those things > > have to be done anyway. Besides -- what if your child's desire for cash is > > exceeded by his desire to avoid housework?
> If one sibling is willing to pay another (out of his allowance or > outside earnings) to do a chore, I would not object. Children should > learn about the benefits of free trade.
I was more thinking about the child who forgoes his pocket money in order NOT to do the washing up. That puts the parent in the position of either having to do the chore or pay the kid a large sum to get him to work. I would not worry about labour hire among siblings unless I believed it was exploitative. (My children are four years apart in age and I can imagine the younger one preferring a particular colour or size of coin on the assumption that it was worth more because it was bigger!)
-- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
Chookie wrote: > In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, > enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>> did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>> the world's largest company by sales. >> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >> replacing shoddy goods.
> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if > I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. > That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I > just don't *have* $50.
Yet you have the option of saving an additional $30. There are things called savings accounts. Instead of wasting money (e.g., instead of buying two 1/2 gallons carton of milk twice a week, buy one one gallon cartoon of milk), you spend wisely, save the money, and when you know you're going to need a new iron, get a good one on sale (or in my case, a cheap one, because I don't use the iron much). And because you saved, you had the money when you needed the iron. Or buy it on a credit card and get 1% back. In addition, if you shop around on the internet, you can find some pretty ok irons for $20.
BTW, the US company with the most profits (ExxonMobil) had slightly more sales ($370B vs. $372). But ExxonMobil has a lot more income outside the US than Wal-Mart.
On Feb 6, 6:15 am, Chookie <ehreben...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote:
> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>,
> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote: > > > That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people > > > did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be > > > the world's largest company by sales.
> > no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't > > realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly > > replacing shoddy goods.
> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if > I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. > That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I > just don't *have* $50.
Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how much of a factor that is here.
|
