Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

SInce you're such a dull student, I'll have to explain in detail for you. They have paid taxes all their working lives (some for many years) and, due to Walmart's baleful influence on the job market, are now collecting welfare.

Now I know for a fact that you post just to keep the flame war going. No one but a simpleton could state such a thing with a straight face.

I'll say one thing for you, you do keep this forum active, even if your posts are just so much ____ (I'll let you fill in the blank - you will anyway).

That could be said about almost any small business in town (except perhaps a radiator shop), i.e. "If people really preferred shopping at ____, then it would have nothing to fear from WalMart". WalMart sell a plethora of retail items including gasoline and groceries. Just how many stores in a town carry the same catagory of items as WalMart? They are all in jeopardy to a greater or lesser extent. The closer their proximity to WalMart, the greater their danger. WalMart gets the tax breaks and has the volume buying power to purchase items at wholesale cheaper than anyone else. Virtually no one can compete with them on price, and that's all most people seem to care about these days. At least there are a few of us that recognize WalMart's threat to our future. And there are a few of us that care about the shopping experience.

My question to you is where did Walmart get the dollars in their cash register?

People choose to spend their money where they want. If they wanted to spend it somewhere other than walmart, they can. Some people do indeed choose to spend their money at the non walmart stores. Good for them. Freedom of choice in action. Other people, alot of them, choose to spend *their* money at walmart. Why? Lower prices? More (not better) selection? Better parking? Less trips? Who cares, the fact is that many people spend their money at walmart, that they could have spent at a non walmart store.

Walmart getting big and powerfull, look around you to see why. Walmart creates the buying opportunity, and buyers are electing to take advantage of it. No one is herding people off the road into the walmart parking lot, dragging them in and making them spend there. It is being done by choice.

Walmart started very small, and through aggressive business grew. In the begining, walmart was just like your local small town store. What made them grow and others fail? It's the stuff of MBA courses. Find a need and fill the need better than the competition.

Saying that people only care about price is a gross oversimplification. If that were true, we would all be driving fords and chevys. There would be no BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc. We would all be talking on the cheapest phone available, with the cheapest PC. There would be no IPODs, etc. Price is certainly a driver for many; but not for all. Service, quality, reputation and status are motivators for others. If price were the only benefit of walmart, how did the grow in the begining? They had no price leverage when they were a single store company.

Walmart does get tax breaks. Usually from local communities will bid for the store (although that is changing). Communities will offer the tax breaks because they see other benefits (jobs, sales taxes, etc). Some walmarts also support local producers. The one in our area buys produce from local farmers and orchards. Some communities (and I have some near me) that do not want a walmart. They offer no tax breaks, and walmart moves down the road until they find an area that wants them (on their terms of course).

Whenever there are winners, there will also be losers.

Don

When purchasing products, the larger quantity you purchase the better price. WalMart is able to purchase significantly larger quantities than most local retailers. Therefore they do have an advantage.

Of course it has an advantage, but it's a natural advantage, and the playing field is nonetheless even, because lower prices are available to anyone able to buy in larger quantities. The playing field would only be uneven if WalMart were somehow able to prevent others from getting similarly good prices.

Depends on the store, but true enough.

That kind of "danger" is normal in a free market, the essence of competition. It increases when they lack imagination, using little more than the if-we-stock-it-(at-retail-list)-they-will-come business model. They can minimize that danger by competing more effectively, on a basis other than price (and the other things WalMart does well).

Only sometimes, and that doesn't have a material effect on its prices.

True enough, which is the reason to compete on some other basis.

Hardly -- examples abound of people being happy to pay more for perceived value, quality, convenience, selection, prestige, etc.

There is no real threat. This is simply the free market at work, rewarding a well managed, highly efficient competitor.

Most people care, and that's part of why so many shop at WalMart, which conveniently has a huge number of items at low cost under one roof, a liberal satisfaction guaranteed policy, etc. Nevertheless, many businesses do compete successfully with WalMart, one way if they're a Target, another way if they're a specialty retailer, and yet other ways if they're just small fry.

My point is that the doctor experience has fundamentally changed, pushing up costs. 30 years ago it was rare to see a specialist -- GP and family practice medicine was the norm. These days it's routine to see a specialist, often more than one. In addition, doctors are now routinely prescribing more expensive tests and drugs than they did 30 years ago.

In other words, your unsupported gut feeling. ;) My own unsupported gut feeling is that most people are actually pretty skeptical of advertising, routinely making informed decisions. That you don't agree with those decisions doesn't mean that they have somehow been victimized by clever advertising.

It's a fundamental contradiction, not a nuance. You really should reflect on that. Seriously.

" Prescription drug advertising has benefits say health professionals"

On the contrary -- you are advocating unwarranted censorship based on a patronizing attitude toward the average person.

It actually proves that people should be informed about their own health issues.

Straw man. I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm simply defending the right of people to be fully informed. Censorship is inherently bad.

I've done nothing of the kind.

That's only one company. What about all the other employers? This is about the prevailing wage, not a single example.

As noted previously:

1. A conclusion based on numerous assumptions, not an actual survey.
2. A small difference that's probably well within the margin error.

That's only one company. What about all the other employers? This is about the prevailing wage, not a single example.

What research? Citation? UC Berkeley again? Proof by repetition? ;)

You'll have to do a lot better than that.

GM is hiring skilled workers. WalMart is hiring unskilled workers. GM is in desperate trouble. WalMart is doing well.

How old are you 12? What are you planning to do with your summer vacation this year?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

How quickly you forget all the complaints about those blue collar manufacturing jobs. In fact studies show that service jobs are often better than those blue collar jobs of the '60's.

"How Good Are the New Jobs?" by Tim Kane, Ph.D. June 30, 2004

Economic pessimists have changed their tune. After years of trumpeting a "jobless recovery," the skeptics are admitting that America is in the midst of a jobs boom, with 1.4 million new jobs over nine straight months of payroll growth. Now the pessimists insist that the new jobs are no good.

But if the jobs being created are not any good, what is? Since January 2001, American incomes have risen by 7.5 percent, wages have risen by 2.4 percent, and the government projects 21 million good job opportunities over the 2002-2012 decade.1

The charge that low-quality service jobs--often dubbed "McJobs"--are proliferating is inaccurate. The McJobs argument has two primary implications. The first is that wages are declining, and the second is that the new jobs are unfulfilling. Empirical data on American pay, incomes, and quality of life make the case that American jobs are better today and getting better every year.

I agree. The waste of $811 billion on our ill-advised adventures in Afganistan and Iraq, while shortchanging education, research and development, and infrastructure, not to mention homeland security, is nothing short of criminal.

How quickly you forget the hubris of "Japan is Number One!" and the long downhill slide of Japan. The US business model is clearly superior by any meaningful measure.

The Chrysler execs were clearly not worth their pay -- the Daimler execs had to take charge and fix the mess, making it a model merger.

On the contrary -- it's investment. There's a big difference between investment, which increases productivity, and interference, which hampers it.

Spend it with your wife. I figure that will give you more free time with your new boyfriend.

After chiding Philip for using sources based in Berkeley, you have some gall dragging out your favorite "always agrees with Jonn and vice versa" source. For shame.

By your usual standard, the Chrysler execs were worth exactly what they were making, as determined by the free market.

Gentlemen, start your goalposts.