|Wally-Mart SUXPage 10 of 20 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)|
You obviously have not worked for walmart or known someone who has Actually I do LMAO. He chooses not to do better. For whatever reason that maybe. You can always find a different job. Not saying that a lot of them are hiring, but there are more oppertunities, you just have to be willing to look for it and go for it for that matter!
Posted: 7/29/2008 8:54:04 AM
|Jiperly - I am glad you asked your questions. I can support all of my statements, I just can't respond to all of your questions in one post and I have to get to work, so I'm going to take them one at a time:|
>>> They are bad for the environment
Care to elaborate?
Wal-Marts are HUGE Big Box stores. In order to build a Wal-Mart – acres of trees, wetlands and pervious soil is destroyed. The parking lots alone create huge impervious surfaces. When there is a big storm, instead of the water percolating into the ground, it cascades down the parking lot, into culverts and out into the little streams that feed the bigger ones which feed bigger ones, etc. etc. The water cascading down at such a fast rate destroys habitat for the juvenile fish (for example, salmon frylings) and even carries some of them away from their hiding spots so they are eaten before they have a chance to mature. Even if you don't care about these fish, it will impact you when there are fewer salmon for you to eat and the price is out of sight.
The trees taken down deplete homes for the local wildlife. So for example, owls who keep the mice population down no longer have a home so they leave or die. Now you have a rodent imbalance. Trees also provide soil stability through their root structure and their ability to draw up groundwater so when you remove the trees, you make the ground more unstable and prone to sliding. Maybe Wal-Mart has the money to shore up their site, but the neighboring sites may not fare so well.
The lights from a Wal-Mart parking lot create light pollution and interfere with the mating processes of all the little critters (frogs, for example) that need the darkness to do their thing.
There is much more about how Wal-Mart is bad for the environment than I have room or time to say here. I will look for some well-founded studies that I can point you towards so you can consider them for yourself, but right now I have to get to work!
Posted: 7/29/2008 9:16:02 AM
Wal-Marts are HUGE Big Box stores. In order to build a Wal-Mart – acres of trees, wetlands and previous soil is destroyed. The parking lots alone create huge impervious surfaces. When there is a big storm, instead of the water percolating into the ground, it cascades down the parking lot, into culverts and out into the little streams that feed the bigger ones which feed bigger ones, etc. etc.
Lets not forget all of the oil, chemicals, trash, and salt (in the wintertime around here anyways) that is washed off the lot and into nearby streams.
Posted: 7/29/2008 9:42:02 AM
|Right, Worldfire, I also forgot that it is primarily an auto oriented business that creates traffic congestion and does not promote pedestrian-friendly shopping. Also, those tire and lube stations on the side of most Wal-Marts are another source of environmental degradation.|
So, on to Employees and Wages - here is a really good study about Wal-Mart and how it is bad for employees and for the labor market in general. It is online and you can google it.
"Hidden Cost Of Wal-Mart Jobs, Use of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Workers in California" Arindrajit Dube, UC Berkeley Institute for Industrial Relations; Ken Jacobs, UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
A Study for the UC Berkeley Labor Center, August 2, 2004
Posted: 7/29/2008 10:12:05 AM
|One more study for now on economic impacts of Wal-Marts: |
Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 88, 5 (2006):1304-1310, in press. Page 1
Copyright 2006 American Agricultural Economics Association
Wal-Mart and Social Capital
Stephan J. Goetz and Anil Rupasingha
Now, I'm off to work and will address the other issues I raised later. I'm sure you are all waiting with bated breath! LOL
Posted: 7/29/2008 11:15:20 AM
|>>>But seriously OP, you know that this is nothing but a flame war that you started. Perhaps our intrepid moderators will squash it flat.|
Naw, I doubt it- this topic is several years old- interestingly enough, until this year, it kept getting revived suspiciously around 420.....yea....
>>>The parking lots alone create huge impervious surfaces. When there is a big storm, instead of the water percolating into the ground, it cascades down the parking lot, into culverts and out into the little streams that feed the bigger ones which feed bigger ones, etc. etc.
I've never heard this complaint, I'm certainly not familiar with it, but normally wouldn't proper drainage and sewage be efficient enough to drain these parking lots? I've never seen a parking lot completely flooded with water- I've seen STREETS- especially older streets, like the kind you would see Ma and Pa shops on, have these issues, but I honestly don't recall ever seeing this happen in these larger parking lots. Still, my own personal experiences doesn't make it anything true, but it seems like at least locally, its not an issue for us...
>>>Even if you don't care about these fish, it will impact you when there are fewer salmon for you to eat and the price is out of sight.
Ah, see- that also might explain it- I live near the great lakes- so while your complaints may hold water(no pun intended) for your local area, it doesn't at all apply to our area- we have no Salmon, and have one of the worlds largest bodies to water within a twenty minute drive from my house- so different geography dictate a difference in environmentalism.
>>>The trees taken down deplete homes for the local wildlife.
Isn't that an issue of property? I mean, if you wanted to keep a nature preserve, you could have opted to buy the land- since you didn't, isn't it kinda selfish to tell people what they can do with their property because you couldn't be bothered to spend your own money on your ideals, rather than demand other people uphold your ideals and your standards on their dollar?
>>>The lights from a Wal-Mart parking lot create light pollution and interfere with the mating processes of all the little critters (frogs, for example)
So do street lights- once again, you're citing a far larger issue, this time human expansion and increased urbanization, and blaming it on Walmart- which is just silly- if Walmart didn't expand into this area, Costco, or Target, or numerous of other of their competitors could just as easily buy that land and do the exact same thing- your issue is with cities expanding, not Walmart existing.
>>>Lets not forget all of the oil, chemicals, trash, and salt (in the wintertime around here anyways) that is washed off the lot and into nearby streams.
And independent stores are innocent of this? They too have to deal with this- on a smaller scale. But if consumers wouldn't do business with Big Box stores, this wouldn't at all be an issue- they made the choice to do business with these stores, not the other way around.
>>>Right, Worldfire, I also forgot that it is primarily an auto oriented business that creates traffic congestion and does not promote pedestrian-friendly shopping.
Aren't you objecting the solution to what you are objecting? Less parking spaces means more traffic- if a Walmart parking lot is consistently half full during business hours, and you shrink that by 2/3 and put trees in their place, you're going to have more cars fighting for parking spaces, clogging our roadways and the parking spots.
Posted: 7/29/2008 11:53:16 AM
These employees made a CHOICE to interview there. and frankly, they seem quite happy (at least they're friendly and helpful).
Okay, I'm done now.
I worked at Wal-Mart for two years. I have a bachelor's degree in sociology and due to the basic fact that the economy sucks, I found myself using my grand knowledge of Marxian thought to fold clothes, page people to the fitting room, and ring up customers reeking of fecal matter.
Anyway, you get three unpaid absences a calendar year at Wal-Mart. That means you can be absent three times. For every absence you accrue past that, you get written up. They call them "coachings" at Wal-Mart. I guess it goes with the smiley-face decor.
Now, I work at a major newspaper. I make a good salary. I have health benefits to die for, two paid weeks of vacation a year, one paid week of illness a year, three paid "mental health" days, and so on and so on and so on.
At Wal-Mart, I had no insurance because I could not afford it. Most of my fellow employees had rotting teeth.
The worst part about working there is that people treat you like garbage. It's so easy to forget, now that I have a "real" job where people treat me with dignity. Not at Wal-Mart. Customers coming in and asking if you speak English. The people whose rotten children knock over displays and then tell their kids, "Don't pick that up, that's what those employees are paid to do." Welfare recipients looking down their nose at you because you're the only people they feel they can do that to.
I went to college. My manager had barely graduated high school and was a year younger than me. It was insulting to my dignity, but I had no choice.
Sure, I "chose" to interview there. I "chose" to accept a job there. But the other choice would have been homelessness or public assistance. The only people who'd call taking a job like that a "choice" are people who've never really been faced with that before.
Posted: 7/29/2008 12:01:44 PM
|Okay, here is a quick list I was able to compile - this is a mix of studies, articles and regulations that relate to my post above. All of these are online. I have the links if you can't find one and want to read it. Just email me the title of the document and I'll send you the link:|
"The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages and Municipal Finances," Prepared for the Orange County Business Council by Dr. Marlon Boarnet of the University of California at Irvine and Dr. Randall Crane of the University of California at Los Angeles, 1999. Available online.
"Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," Kenneth E. Stone, Professor of Economics, Iowa State University, 1997. Available online.
"Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart," A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2004. Available online.
"Wal-Mart: An Example of Why Workers Remain Uninsured and Underinsured," October 2003, AFL-CIO. Available online.
"Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs." UC Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations, August 2004. Available online.
"What Do We Know About Wal-Mart? An Overview of Facts and Studies for New Yorkers." Annette Bernhardt et al. Brennan Center for Justice. NYU School of Law. Economic Policy Brief No 2. August 2005. Available online.
"Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty," Stephan Goetz and Hema Swaminathan, Penn State University, October 2004. Available online.
"What Happened When Wal-Mart Came to Town? A Report on Three Iowa Communities with a Statistical Analysis of Seven Iowa Counties," Thomas Muller and Elizabeth Humstone, National Trust For Historic Preservation, 1996. Summary available online.
The Case Against Wal-Mart, Al Norman. Raphael Marketing, 2004. Chapter 5: Unfair Competition, pp 43 – 68. 16. St. Albans, Vermont State Environmental Board Act 250 Decision, 1994, Summary available online.
"Fiscal & Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Wal-Mart Development," Land Use Inc. and RKG Associates, 1993. Summary available online.
"The Fiscal and Economic Impact of a proposed Shopping Center Project on the City of Leomister. Thomas Muller, August 2003. Available online.
"Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes," Tischler & Associates, July 2002. Available online.
"Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio," Randall Gross, Development EconomicsAugust 2004. Available online.
"Impacts of Development on DuPage County Property Taxes," prepared by DuPage County Development Department for the County Regional Planning Commission, Illinois, October 1991. Summary available online.
"Understanding the Tax Base Consequences of Local Economic Development," RKG Associates, 2001. Available online.
"The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine ,"Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, September 2003. Available online.
"The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics," Civic Economics, 2004. Available online.
"Retail Sprawl Impairing Nation's Waterways," The Hometown Advantage: Reviving Locally Owned Business, September 1, 2003. Available online.
"The Importance of Imperviousness," Watershed ProtectionTechniques 1(3) 100-111 Available online.
"Cars Are Leading Source of Metal Loads in California," Tech Note #13 from Watershed ProtectionTechniques 1(1):28.
"EPA Hits Wal-Mart With Big Fine for Clean Water Act Violations—Again," May 5, 2004. Available online.
"US Announces Major Clean Water Act Settlement with Retail Giant Wal-Mart," USDOJ Press Release, May 12, 2004. Available online.
"US Reaches Water Pollution Settlement with Wal-Mart," USEPA Press Release, June 7, 2001. Available online.
"Retail Sprawl Impairing Nation's Waterways," The Hometown Advantage: Reviving Locally Owned Business, September 1, 2003. Available online.
"Wal-Mart's Impact on Local Police Costs." A summary of recent newspaper articles from around the country reporting on this problem. Available online.
HAPPY READING! A well-read nation is a healthy nation!
Posted: 7/29/2008 12:39:38 PM
|>>>I found myself using my grand knowledge of Marxian thought to fold clothes|
You made it your life's goal to follow Marxism and you didn't find happiness? What a shock....
>>>I have health benefits to die for, two paid weeks of vacation a year, one paid week of illness a year, three paid "mental health" days, and so on and so on and so on.
Exactly- you developed your skills and you took the said skills to a workplace that appreciates it and uses it. No real shock- if more Walmart employees enabled themselves as you did, there would be far less outraged employees.
>>>It was insulting to my dignity, but I had no choice.
Obviously you did, or you would still be there. Don't blame the manager for not paying you a sociology's wage because you couldn't find work. There are many of people out there just like you- you don't deserve a larger wage because you developed skills that have no relation to your workplace- my sister took a medical course in order to become a Dentist- now she's the GM of a restaurant- should she be paid more for skills that doesn't apply to her workplace? My Step-sister graduated to college to become a Marine Doctor- now she's a photo lab tech- should she earn more?
People make mistakes- and its not the business that you turn to fault to compensate you when your life doesn't line up as you envisioned.
>>> The only people who'd call taking a job like that a "choice" are people who've never really been faced with that before.
That's a funny claim- I make 26 cents over minimum wage at a donut shop- I'm extremely unhappy there, and I'm thrilled I funny put in my two weeks notice last week.
But hey, glad you know more about me than I do. I guess, like you, I hold zero responsibility for my own personal decisions in life. Doesn't surprise me, really, that someone who would see Marx as a great man would equally believe that society is responsible for their own individual choices in life.
>>>Okay, here is a quick list I was able to compile
To be honest, I'm not interested in spending the next 72 hours studying surveys undoubtedly purported by unions and other people who have political ideals to push- if you wish to present arguments and challenge my counter-arguments, I'd be more than happy- but don't give me a list of things to read, and when I refuse to, claim I failed to argue my points. I don't demand you read Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, and claim its the only way to argue my points.
Posted: 7/29/2008 1:12:16 PM
|Phooey- there is no reaching you, Jip. I give you my thoughts, you just want to argue, I give you evidence to back up my thoughts, you don't want to read them. You didn't have to read Everything I Listed, you could have just picked one. I didn't claim that this list was the ONLY way to argue my points, just as a way to indicate that I do have more than opinions to offer. |
It is pointless to debate with someone who won't read up on the subject matter in order to understand what is being debated. Impervious surfaces is a classic example. If you cannot understand why this simple concept is important with big box construction, then you really don't get the big picture.
I really wanted to have a grown up conversation about Wal-Mart. I'm sorry to waste everyone else's time following this silly diatribe. This is all I really want to say on this thread and then I'm done:
I make less than 30K a year and I am taking care of two people on that income. Even so, I will do everything in my power not to shop at Wal-Mart and I will continue to advocate for people not to shop at Wal-Mart. I understand that some people like Wal-Mart (many of them are my neighbors). I also understand that sometimes people have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart. I just think people should understand what they are supporting when they go shopping and whenever possible, they should think about the long term consequences of their choices.
Posted: 7/29/2008 1:52:48 PM
|>>> I give you my thoughts|
How is giving me a series of articles to look up giving me your thoughts? That's the furthest thing from giving me your thoughts- you're giving me other peoples thoughts
>>>you just want to argue
I prefer the word 'debate'- you know, I explain my opinion and why its valid, you explain your opinion and why its valid, then you find flaws in my thoughts and I find flaws in yours, and we both benefit.
Don't pout cause I didn't fold. If you've read all those articles, you can use them to either present an argument on why your beliefs are superior or argue why my beliefs are inferior.
>>> I give you evidence to back up my thoughts, you don't want to read them
What evidence? What thoughts? Backing up something is when you present an argument, then show the basis of the facts of that argument. You've presented some thoughts, then flooded me with homework rather than further explaining your thoughts, and say its MY fault for not proving you right.
All I'm asking is you interpret the facts you've taken from your sources into bite sized bits- you said earlier you're too busy to respond to all my comments- I accepted that without whining, without pouting, and without claiming that you 'don't want to read them'- and yet I give you the same response when you flood me with over two dozen different articles, each with varying degrees of credibility("Hometown Advantage"- yea, they didn't have a preconceived goal in mind when they did their "study"), and somehow I'm being argumentive?
Why is your time more precious than mine? Why is it okay for you to ignore my statements, but sacrilegious for me to ignore yours?
>>>It is pointless to debate with someone who won't read up on the subject matter in order to understand what is being debated.
So am I to assume you're planning this evening to pick up Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which I mentioned in my previous post? Or would it be pointless for you to research some of my beliefs, but disrespectful if I act in the same accord?
>>>If you cannot understand why this simple concept is important with big box construction, then you really don't get the big picture.
ARGUE YOUR POINTS- don't condemn me for not accepting your convictions, or for your own disinterest in arguing your own arguments.
Posted: 7/29/2008 5:19:15 PM
|Actually I do LMAO. He chooses not to do better. For whatever reason that maybe. You can always find a different job. Not saying that a lot of them are hiring, but there are more oppertunities, you just have to be willing to look for it and go for it for that matter!|
Why should you have to keep changing jobs just to find one that you can get a decent wage. The problem is companies like Wall Mart care more about making money then there employees. Why can Wall Mart not pay a decent wage. Sure you can find a different but that does not mean you can find one that pays more.
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:57:53 AM
|>>>Why should you have to keep changing jobs just to find one that you can get a decent wage. |
Why should Walmart be punished for their employees lack of intuitive? If you are unhappy at your job, its not your bosses responsibility to keep lining your pockets until you're satisfied- once again, this is personal responsibility- if you want to improve your quality of life, then YOU are the one who has to take action- not your employer.
A nice example would be littleaudrey- they were unhappy with their job- and that unhappiness drove them to a job they were more happy with. If Walmart paid them $30 with full benefits,they might have stayed- but they wouldn't be any where near as satisfied then if they would have pursued their own goals and their own career.
>>>The problem is companies like Wall Mart care more about making money then there employees.
Aight, this brings two points I'd like to address;
Firstly- and you might want to sit down, cause this ones a shocker- Walmart is not a charity- it exists for its own profits, not to profit their employees. They act in their own self-interest; But by doing well and profiting, their employees profit. If their business was failing, then people who need those jobs would lose them- and existing employees would be paid less.
My, what a humanitarian you are!
Secondly, although I don't know if it was intentional, but you did literally say that Walmart management cares about making money, while their employees do not. Isn't that the point? The employees who make the least care the least about their business succeeding- they are the ones who work the slowest, the most incompetently,and expect another person to pick up the slack where they left off- they simply do not care,or they would put in significant effort to make themselves so valuable to the store that the store would suffer without them.
>>>Why can Wall Mart not pay a decent wage.
Once again, DEFINE DECENT WAGE
We all know exactly why you refuse to answer this question-you're moving the goalpost- if you say $10 is a decent wage, and Walmart does in fact on average full time pay their employees that amount, then you say they should pay $15, or $20, or $25- you are justifying your hatred,and when its proven to be false, you change your stance to better suit your hatred rather than the facts.
More importantly, though- why only Walmart? The independent stores people so love to defend-Ma and Pa shops- why shouldn't they be commanded to follow the same standards? Should Walmart employees be the only ones allowed to have a 'decent' wage off the street? What about Restaurants- those people get paid significantly less,and get far less hours-why aren't you expressing outrage over these people being exploited?
Posted: 7/30/2008 6:00:30 AM
|Speaking of pollution. The Super Wal-Mart that was built here was contructed on an EPA superfund site in which the developers of the store PAID to clean up. No government funds were used at all. Yet in appreciation for it, our greatful city fined them $15,000 a pop for a few trees that were cut down. How stupid is that? But it doesn't surprise me especially when the idiotic liberal mentality is involved. I guess it could've been worse though. They could've said no to Wal-Mart period and left the bleachery there as they originally wanted to and get this, designated as a historic site. Glow in the dark dirt and all.|
Posted: 7/30/2008 2:01:26 PM
|There is a economical reason Wal-Mart is looking for superfund sites - it is image perception for the mass public. Municipalities are eager to get those places cleaned up and Wal-Mart can come in and look like the good guy. You all might want to thank the "idiot liberal mentality" for standing up and saying no to Wal-Mart. That is the only reason it is trying to clean up its act and at least make an attempt to be more environmentally responsible.|
Posted: 7/30/2008 8:06:16 PM
|Why should Walmart be punished for their employees lack of intuitive? If you are unhappy at your job, its not your bosses responsibility to keep lining your pockets until you're satisfied- once again, this is personal responsibility- if you want to improve your quality of life, then YOU are the one who has to take action- not your employer.|
I was about not reply to Jip because he/she is obviously a troll but I changed my mind. When is working hard a lack of intuitive? Do you even know what they do there? It is your bosses responsibility as it is society that everyone is taken care of. Or do you think it is okay to treat your employees like slaves?
Posted: 7/31/2008 6:15:04 AM
There is a economical reason Wal-Mart is looking for superfund sites - it is image perception for the mass public. Municipalities are eager to get those places cleaned up and Wal-Mart can come in and look like the good guy. You all might want to thank the "idiot liberal mentality" for standing up and saying no to Wal-Mart. That is the only reason it is trying to clean up its act and at least make an attempt to be more environmentally responsible.
And you say it's a bad thing? Oops I forgot, government is your answer to all problems. Nevermind the millions of dollars that Wal-Mart saved the taxpayer though, right?
Posted: 7/31/2008 7:23:33 AM
|No, Jim, please don't faint, but I agree with you - this is a GOOD thing! It means that all the work by those of us who have been working so hard to make Wal-Mart be more responsible is paying off. It is wonderful that Wal-Mart is cleaning up superfund sites and good that they are using their own money. I'm just saying that they are not doing it to be altruistic good neighbors. They want to make money, just like Schindler did. If they actually do a good deed in the process then the world is a better place.|
BTW, governmental bodies gives just as much hand-outs to corporations like Wal-Mart as they do us individual taxpayers. If Wal-Mart agreed to clean up that superfund site, then I'm pretty sure they got something in return besides just building a store on the site. Many times, it is some sort of exception for that specific store - maybe in the size of the parking lot, traffic impacts, and/0r environmental impacts. If they got fined for cutting down trees they weren't supposed to, then I'm assuming they got some sort of environmental impact exception but accidently took down more trees than they should.
My happy town has a big old Wal-Mart on top of an old NIKE site - in the process of "cleanning up" that site, the developers neglected to water down the topsoil so when we had a random wind storm, it blew all that NIKE-polluted topsoil down on the people living below. Nice! Lucky me, I live high up from the store.
Posted: 7/31/2008 9:54:44 AM
|Nice posts, Neaptide. Thank you for stepping up to the plate to speak up about Wal Mart. Wal Mart is so bad that it should be forced out of business for the way they ruin the environment, treat its workers and destroy communities. |
As I've said before, there ARE low cost alternatives to Wal Mart that are respectable. I've been going to the local Family Dollar for many years, and some of the same staff has been there for a long time. Longevity of staff shows that something is being done right!! Go Family Dollar, kick some Wal Mart butt
Posted: 7/31/2008 11:53:40 AM
|>>> Municipalities are eager to get those places cleaned up and Wal-Mart can come in and look like the good guy. |
Not 'look like the good guy'- they are doing a good deed.
>>>You all might want to thank the "idiot liberal mentality" for standing up and saying no to Wal-Mart.
I personally don't like Taco Bell- no matter how low their prices are, I could easily make the same meal at home for less. Should I be asking people to thank me from refraining from taking my business where I'd rather it not be? Isn't that conceited to ask people to thank you for not supporting people and businesses you don't like?
>>>That is the only reason it is trying to clean up its act and at least make an attempt to be more environmentally responsible.
You see no spin in what you're saying? Someone pointed out that Walmart cleaned up a polluted lot- and you think they should be condemned because they did it for self-interest?
You'd rather our tax dollars pay for it? You'd rather it continue to be polluted?
Walmart, in that instance, did a good thing- stop trying to make it seem like they're a bad guy if they harm the environment, but still a bad guy if they help it, too.
>>>When is working hard a lack of intuitive?
Folding clothing for 8 hours and going home is working hard. Doing an 8 hour shift and then going to night school so you can learn skills to become a manager- that's intuitive. That's making that extra step to better yourself and create a future for yourself.
>>> It is your bosses responsibility as it is society that everyone is taken care of.
The hell it is. Where does your responsibility to better your life end and societies begin? Why should any other human being but yourself be responsible for the decisions you've made in life?
>>> Or do you think it is okay to treat your employees like slaves?
You're an idiot- I've already discussed that these people are not even close to being slaves.
>>> It means that all the work by those of us who have been working so hard to make Wal-Mart be more responsible is paying off.
No, its not! First off, nobody had to 'make' Walmart responsible- they chose to take on the responsibility.
Secondly, Walmart didn't make the site polluted in the first place, so in every context of the word, the only time Walmart 'became' responsible was when the people who were responsible chose to act completely irresponsibility,and Walmart, out of their own freewill, chose to take on the bill because of it. Why do you have no problem with blaming Walmart for pollution they never caused?
And lastly, you aren't making Walmart more responsible, because you've refused to give any support to Walmart- I agree, its completely your choice, but that means since your belief that the only way Walmart can be responsible is to longer exist means that ACTUAL WALMART CUSTOMERS made Walmart responsible- not you- you had nothing to do with it in the least.
>>>I'm just saying that they are not doing it to be altruistic good neighbors.
Exactly- since they do not act like a charity, they should be condemned- even if they do charitable acts. Ignore what they do, and hate them for why they do it.
Posted: 7/31/2008 12:24:51 PM
If they actually do a good deed in the process then the world is a better place. My very own bleeding heart liberal words - I never said they weren't doing a good deed, just that they are not doing it because they care about the environment, they want to create the perception that they do. If the end result is a cleaner planet, then I say AMEN.
First off, nobody had to 'make' Walmart responsible- they chose to take on the responsibility.
Yeah, right... what an amazing coincidence that they just happen to start looking for superfund sites right about the same time the "whiny liberals" start mouthing off and drawing attention to their practices.
Posted: 7/31/2008 12:40:55 PM
|Why should they have to act in a charitable manner to be doing charity? Does it honestly matter if they are helping the environment while helping themselves?|
Are you SURE you've read Atlas Shrugged? Theres a several paragraph portion of the book clearly discussing what we are discussing now- that the flaw in morality is in order to have a morality that dictates sacrifice, you must sacrifice morality.
"'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. 'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. 'Sacrifice' is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't.
"If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is.
"If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
"If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.
"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
"You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
"If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body, It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.
Posted: 7/31/2008 2:15:17 PM
|Oh, merciful heavens, thank you for explaining why you think a work of art like Atlas Shrugged relates to Wal-Mart. |
Maybe I missed something when I read it, but wasn't it about the freedom of the INDIVIDUAL's thought and actions? And wasn't it that the Great Thinkers of this dystopia refused to work under a dictatorship of power that forced them to use their skills for its own benefit? It is the self-sacrifice of the INDIVIDUAL, not a gigantic corporation that Rand is taking about - do you see the difference?
Wal-Mart is not strong in any of the senses that Rand had envisioned even if you could give it human characteristics - it is a bully not unlike the government in Atlas Shrugged.
Posted: 7/31/2008 2:29:21 PM
|>>>t is the self-sacrifice of the INDIVIDUAL, not a gigantic corporation that Rand is taking about - do you see the difference? |
I fail to see if I demand you to sacrifice your home, it opposes Rands philosophy, but if I ask you to sacrifice your business, it is not. Aren't businesses owned by people? Why is it okay to demand that the Walmart CEO's sacrifice, but its not okay to demand it of anyone else?
>>> it is a bully not unlike the government in Atlas Shrugged.
Like how Taggart Transcontinental bullyed the steal smiths to meet their quota on time or they will take their business with someone who will? Like how Rearden demanded companies work to get copper shipments on time or he would take his business elsewhere? Walmart is not doing anything differently- they hold a successful business that many people want to loot, mostly unions and governments.
Atlas Shrugged is entirely about business- you wish us to believe that it has nothing to do about business, meanwhile it argues in the very last page that there should be a constitutional amendment making no laws impeding trade or production?
Posted: 7/31/2008 3:57:54 PM
Atlas Shrugged is entirely about business- you wish us to believe that it has nothing to do about business
It defintely is NOT ENTIRELY about business - there is plenty of boinking going on in the book, if I remember correctly.
I did not say it has NOTHING to do about business - I said it has more to do with the INDIVIDUAL's free will in a future dystopia than WAL-MART's current tactics (except for the bullying parts - that I'll give you. )
20 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)