- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I see. So you are not a Marxist yourself.It's not my argument, merely what I assume their logic to be. You would have to ask them that question.
Practical question: What will they do with the buildings should they decide to not open the stores?
They could simply leave them empty, but I don't see that happening.
They could be even more aggressive than usual in their predatory pricing to drive others out of business, then raise prices more than usual to cover the cost of the extra wages. They can afford to do that. Yeah, that'll help the community.
The claim from you has continually been that they benefit the poor, which included arguments on employment. As I showed, WM has a negative effect on ALL employment within the community.
You are just going in circles, I already documented the effect WM has on manufacturing, I documented the effect WM has on employment.
All you have you have is a cynical argument on price....but you ignore the cost.
...which is documented in the case of WM....but not of "others".
Wow, speaks volumes.
Bullchit, the manufacturing argument DIRECTLY countered your argument to the contrary, the employment points countered your "benefits to the poor" argument.You have documented only claims about employment and manufacturing, neither of which relates to any point I made in any case.
FFS, there has always been retail targeted to lower quintile earners, Woolworths, where Walton worked, was one....as was TG&Y, Woolco, FedMart, KMart, Target.....My point was and remains that Wal-Mart serves well those downscale consumers ignored by others.
Um, the interests include employment both in retail and manufacturing.....and you lost those arguments.Self-styled "progressives" sacrifice the interests of those downscale consumers in order to thump their own chests about their superior social consciences. Hypocrisy in full flower.
A nonsequitur, again, if you have no job by being displaced from a walmart, what price they offer is pointless.
You still don't get it, that was never my argument to prove...it was yours......and now you don't care....yet you are still trying to argue the point on bribery.And you know this how?:shock:
Bullchit, the manufacturing argument DIRECTLY countered your argument to the contrary, the employment points countered your "benefits to the poor" argument.
Your arguments did not hold up......so sorry.
FFS, there has always been retail targeted to lower quintile earners, Woolworths, where Walton worked, was one....as was TG&Y, Woolco, FedMart, KMart, Target.....
Um, the interests include employment both in retail and manufacturing.....and you lost those arguments.
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Uh.....huh.Having no job is different from having no money
You still don't get it, that was never my argument to prove...it was yours......and now you don't care....yet you are still trying to argue the point on bribery.
Round and round...
Look who is running!You will do well so long as you keep your own score. Your claims about our discussion are as baseless as your documentation of claims.
Wait...your previous standard was retail.Odd, I don't see Wal-Mart mentioned here.
Look who is running!
Mr. Idon'tcare.
Uh.....huh.
Wait...your previous standard was retail.
Are these retail?
No.
But..you don't care....and yet you still are trying to make an argument.....and you can't even remember your OWN ARGUMENT!
To hell with your debate tactics, Jack, you previously accused me of "running" from not backing up documentation that documented itself.The descent into incoherence is complete.
You already showed you believe it is unimportant, but here you are bringing it up again without the context, comparing it bribery for purchasing of products.You seemed to think Wal-Mart's bribery was important. I was just trying to look into your claim. Turns out to be more fantasy.:lamo
What sort of "democracy" forces people to join?
You missed the point of logic. Your rant has none.
He owes the union nothing. What if he got his job before the union negotiated a new contract, and the union members got the same package he did? By your thinking, then everyone else owes him dues.
You already showed you believe it is unimportant, but here you are bringing it up again without the context, comparing it bribery for purchasing of products.
You were better off letting it go, ignoring it.....you just keep on showing your dishonest debate tactics.
I already documented how WM shrinks the job market, it is not due to their efforts to increase min wage.
Yes, since retail employment would be higher with higher wages, decreasing SNAP dependency.
They did that here in Michigan - simply left empty buildings when moving to bigger ones. The buildings were left to deteriorate, weeds infesting the parking lot, and it became eyesores in the community.
Sure, they have for sale signs up but in Michigan in this economy, such availability is more common that tatoos in a prison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?