Author Topic: Everything Walmart *  (Read 6343 times)

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #75 on: May 13, 2008, 12:47 AM »
Did you actually read the first paragraph of that article?  Walmart gave $296 million. 

Walmart employees and customers raised or donated the balance of that $470 million.

Sure did...did you!?  Try it again little choo choo:

This past year, we donated more than $296 million to charitable organizations benefiting thousands of communities across the United States. What’s more, our associates and customers generously contributed an additional $106 million through company-sponsored programs. When combined with international donations, Wal-Mart’s global contributions totaled more than $470 million.

For the past two years, we (Wal-Mart) have been recognized as the largest corporate cash contributor by Chronicle of Philanthropy, an honor we proudly share with our customers and associates


I guess sponsoring programs to get others to contribute a paltry $106mm isn't enough for you to take off the blinders, eh Name?  ::)

How noble of them to give about 1.5% of their income to charitable causes.  We should all live like WalMart.

Yeah, if that wasn't so sarcastic I would agree.  Who cares what % of their income it is?  Even without the sponsored programs, that's almost $300 million in donations.  I wonder what percent would have made you happy?  5%? 10% 50%???  "Heck, that's still keeping $10 Billion for themselves! What a bunch of A-holes!"  Thanks for proving my point. 

Like I said before - it really doesn't matter what WM does.  The Wal-Mart haters in our midst will bash them regardless of what they do. 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 12:51 AM by JediJman »
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline name

  • Jedi Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
  • I ate your llama!
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #76 on: May 13, 2008, 11:23 AM »

 I wonder what percent would have made you happy?  5%? 10% 50%???  "Heck, that's still keeping $10 Billion for themselves! What a bunch of A-holes!"  Thanks for proving my point. 

5% seems to work out well for Target.
This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #77 on: May 13, 2008, 12:52 PM »

 I wonder what percent would have made you happy?  5%? 10% 50%???  "Heck, that's still keeping $10 Billion for themselves! What a bunch of A-holes!"  Thanks for proving my point. 

5% seems to work out well for Target.

So Target contributes $150MM and they are good guys, but Wal-Mart contributes twice that (or more) and they are a rotten company?  Thanks for that objective perspective of right and wrong. 
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline knashdx

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3955
  • I see Llama's
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #78 on: May 13, 2008, 01:02 PM »
So Target contributes $150MM and they are good guys, but Wal-Mart contributes twice that (or more) and they are a rotten company?  Thanks for that objective perspective of right and wrong. 

Target has computers that tell people what they have in stock. Wal-Mart doesn't.
Target has stores (Knollwood) that put Star Wars toys on sale for $2.50 a pop; Wal-Mart doesn't.
Target doesn't let those annoying (personal opinion) Salvation Army Bell ringers stand out side and harass their customers, Wal-Mart does.
Target employees for the most part speak English and are easy to understand, Wal-Mart's employees you need a UN interpeter for.
Target has employees staffed in departments (for the most part) and cashiers to make for fast check out, Wal-Mart does neither!

That alone should show that Target GOOD, Wal-Mart BAD!!!
I have been told to go to hell; well at least I will know everyone there!

Offline ruiner

  • Jedi Master
  • *
  • Posts: 5023
  • raised to be lowered
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #79 on: May 13, 2008, 01:15 PM »
Both have nothing on Bill and Melinda Gates.

Online Keonobi

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 4368
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #80 on: May 13, 2008, 01:19 PM »
Plus I'm sure that the Gates' keep the bathroom much cleaner. :P
I am not the Stig

Offline P-Siddy

  • Jedi Master
  • *
  • Posts: 7399
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #81 on: May 13, 2008, 04:16 PM »
Plus I'm sure that the Gates' keep the bathroom much cleaner. :P

LOL

 ;D

Thanks for the humor, Keonobi!

Offline Nathan

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3958
  • Destroying the hobby one EU figure at a time.
    • View Profile
    • The Clone Wars Unofficial Site (in carbonite)
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #82 on: May 13, 2008, 05:32 PM »
So Target contributes $150MM and they are good guys, but Wal-Mart contributes twice that (or more) and they are a rotten company?  Thanks for that objective perspective of right and wrong. 

I think Name's point is that it's not the absolute dollar amount, but a proportion of the whole.

I'm not usually a Scripture-quoting type, but here it seems an appropriate illustration. Mark 12:41-44: "And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

Anyway, here's an interesting NY Times article on the subject. You have to log in to read it but check BugMeNot.com for a profile.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 05:32 PM by Nathan »
Twitter: @OKeefeNathan
Blog: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Fanboy (in carbonite since '09, back someday)

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #83 on: May 13, 2008, 06:57 PM »
I think Name's point is that it's not the absolute dollar amount, but a proportion of the whole.

I think that is exactly the difference between looking at percent and actual my friend.   ;)

You can talk circles around what someone should or should not donate to charity, but if you ran a charity in need of money and Wal-Mart donated twice as much money to your cause as Target, would you consider Target your biggest benefactor because they donated a higher percentage of their earnings? Or said another way, if it takes $10,000 in donations to save a life, which company is making a bigger difference?  You can't tell me that Target couldn't afford to raise their contribution level to 10% and match Wal-Mart's domestic contributions if they really wanted to.

Regardless, what has been proved in the last page of posts is that perception of a company donating $300 MILLION DOLLARS to needy causes and sponsoring events that are driving another $100MM more is still frowned upon because people are unwilling to examine their own biases against an entity like Wal-Mart.   :-\
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #84 on: May 13, 2008, 06:59 PM »
Here's something else I bet a lot of people don't know about "evil" Wal-Mart and their low prices. Nearly every grocery store in the country charges manufacturers to shelve their products - money spent just to get the product on the shelf. Nationally, this alone costs manufacturers about a million dollars to launch a new item.  Grocery stores pocket this money as added income, utilizing funds to pay for additional administrative costs of bringing in a new item (warehouse impact, shelf revisions, data management changes, etc. 

Wal-Mart and Target don't charge a dime for new items.  Instead, they use their equivalent share of funds to drive down the end price of their products, effectively passing along the savings to consumers. consider the following:

Pepsi produces a 12pack of soda for $1.50
They want to make a profit of 25%, so they sell to retailers at $2.00
Grocery retailers want to make a 33% profit, so they sell 12packs for $3.00
AND they get to keep all of the new item money that Pepsi paid to get the item stocked.

Wal-Mart wants to make 33% profit as well
However, they apply new item fees towards the invoice prices paid to manufacturers. 
Instead of paying $2.00 per item, maybe they only have to pay $1.90
They can still make a 33% profit by selling the item at $2.80, 20 cents less than grocery
Only downside is that they didn't get to keep all that new item money becasue they're driving the cost down for the consumer.

Does the strategy make them more money in the long run? Yes!  Does it drive down costs for the consumer?  You bet.  What an evil corporation.   ::)
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline name

  • Jedi Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
  • I ate your llama!
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #85 on: May 14, 2008, 12:03 PM »
I never said that Walmart was evil, or that their giving had anything to do with goodness or evilness in any way.

You held up their giving campaign as an indicator of their goodness.  If we're going to use giving as an indicator of goodness - which is flawed thinking anyway - then I thought it should benchmarked against their closes peer - Target - and the only way to compare that benchmark of relative goodness is by looking at who dug the deepest into their own pockets (and not the pockets of their employees and customers).   

Another way of looking at those numbers is to say that Walmart earned nearly 9 times what Target did in 2007, yet Target returned nearly 5 times as much of their percentage of earnings to the communities they operate in. 

Walmart's giving, while significant, is hardly the banner of their inherant goodness that you make it out to be.  It doesn't begin to compare to the benchmark set by their corporate peers.

Otherwise we could just as easily say "Walmart is not evil - they intentionally did not kill any babies in 2007.  They even have policy saying that they do not kill babies."



« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 12:05 PM by name »
This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.

Offline name

  • Jedi Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
  • I ate your llama!
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #86 on: May 14, 2008, 12:13 PM »


Does the strategy make them more money in the long run? Yes!  Does it drive down costs for the consumer?  You bet.  What an evil corporation.   ::)

Here's another way that Walmart keeps prices low for us.  Raising Walmart's minimum wage to $10 an hour would net the Walmart employees living at 200% below the poverty level an annual an increase of  between $1020 and $4640 in their incomes.  That would be nice and all, but my heavens it would cost the average Walmart customer $9.70 a year!!!!  Thank GOD that Walmart can squeeze so much out of their employees for less than $8 per hour....just one more way that they are saving the world by offering discount Cheetos.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 12:19 PM by name »
This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #87 on: May 14, 2008, 01:31 PM »
I never said that Walmart was evil, or that their giving had anything to do with goodness or evilness in any way.

I'm not sure where you're going with this goodness/evilness thing.  My responses were initially geared to Tracy who started out her post as "Yet another reason to hate the Walmart Corporation."  Sorry to burst your bubble, but not every post is about you or your comments.

If we're going to use giving as an indicator of goodness - which is flawed thinking anyway - then I thought it should benchmarked against their closes peer - Target - and the only way to compare that benchmark of relative goodness is by looking at who dug the deepest into their own pockets (and not the pockets of their employees and customers). 

Why are you making an arguement based on a measure you don't believe in?  If giving is not an "indicator of goodness" as you call it, why waste time comparing "relative goodness" between Target and Wal-Mart?  You're the one that brought Target into the conversation.   

Another way of looking at those numbers is to say that Walmart earned nearly 9 times what Target did in 2007, yet Target returned nearly 5 times as much of their percentage of earnings to the communities they operate in...It doesn't begin to compare to the benchmark set by their corporate peers.

Your arguement over percentages and ratios is duly noted several times in previous posts.  I get that in your mind, a guy who makes $100 and contributes $5 to charity is the same as a guy who makes $1,000,000 giving $50,000 to charity.  I personally think their both doing something good (i.e. evidence that maybe we shouldn't blindly attack them at every opportunity).  You're the one forcing a comparison of "goodness" by Wal-Mart's peers...

How noble of them to give about 1.5% of their income to charitable causes.  We should all live like WalMart...

5% seems to work out well for Target

All I'm saying is that if you really need to compare then in the example above, I personally think the guy giving $50,000 is doing more to help charitable causes than the guy giving $100.  If you truly see them as being equal contributors, then I guess you're entitled to your own wrong opinion.   ;)

Otherwise we could just as easily say "Walmart is not evil - they intentionally did not kill any babies in 2007.  They even have policy saying that they do not kill babies."

I have no idea what you're talking about here, so I'll just chalk this comment up to heavy drinking or drain bamage.  ;D
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13946
  • Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects.
    • View Profile
More Wal-Mart Bashing
« Reply #88 on: May 14, 2008, 01:33 PM »
Here's another way that Walmart keeps prices low for us.  Raising Walmart's minimum wage to $10 an hour would net the Walmart employees living at 200% below the poverty level an annual an increase of  between $1020 and $4640 in their incomes.  That would be nice and all, but my heavens it would cost the average Walmart customer $9.70 a year!!!!  Thank GOD that Walmart can squeeze so much out of their employees for less than $8 per hour....just one more way that they are saving the world by offering discount Cheetos.

I'm pretty sure there is an "I hate Walmart Thread" around here somewhere - maybe you'd feel more comfortable posting there.  Curious to know how these figures stack up against Target or McDonald's.
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline Jeff

  • Administrator
  • Jedi Council Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20253
  • i stay down with my demons
    • View Profile
    • www.JediDefender.com
Re: Everything Wal-Mart
« Reply #89 on: May 14, 2008, 01:38 PM »
Since the Wal-Mart junk has escalated from a simple "pet peeve", I moved the posts into this "Everything Wal-Mart" discussion thread...

You can continue your discussion here, but I will ask that you keep things civil since this thread seems to be heading for trouble if it continues at it's current pace.  Thanks!
Editor-in-Chief  - www.JediDefender.com
Follow me on Twitter - @jedidefender / @jlsmentek