HeyBub wrote:
LouB wrote:

Wow I thought the whole world knew. 500+ warehouse stores. IMHO
quality is often better than Sam's club.
http://www.costco.com/

Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.


Only a small percentage of their workforce is and those are the former
price club employees. The main difference between them and sams
(walmart) is unlike sams (walmart) their pay actually raises them out of
official poverty status and they have real health insurance.

LouB wrote:
Master Betty wrote:
"stan" wrote in message
...
On Sep 26, 2:19 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "h"
wrote:

WTF is "Costco"?
Sam's club equivalent.

Sometimes called 'Price Club'?

+++

It was called Price Club. If you try to pull up priceclub on Google it
goes to Costco.

I've never been to BJ's. I went to Sam's club on a free trial and I
didn't like it as much as Costco. That was a very long time ago. Maybe
better now.

Costco services are pretty impressive: Funerals, caskets, houses,
cars, vacations, financial securities, accounting services.... I don't
know what BJ's and Sam's Club have but I've recieved several thousands
off of selling/buying houses through Costco rebates.

Price club and Costco were competitors then merged (or Costco bought
Price Club).
BJ's is also a warehouse club but has more items.
Sam's is very similar to Costco but Costco has better stuff. I read
that Sam's prices may be better on many items. Both have great
rotisserie chicken at about $5.00

Lou
Plus the big difference is Costco employees don't need to immediately
sign up for welfare/"free" medical and other stuff like walmart (sams)
employees do. They actually pay their employees enough to get them out
of official poverty status and have actual real health insurance.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

Sorry, but your account of what happened simply isn't true. You probably
got the fiction from Fox news, or Rush. The real story is far more
interesting. The amount of capital in the world doubled or tripled
within a few short years, while the number of investment opportunities
stayed the same. American home mortgages were the best investment
around, and the world's money demanded more of them. The only way for
mortgage brokers to increase the supply, was to relax the standards for
qualification. And relax they did. It was pure capitalistic greed, not
idealism, that drove us into the dirt.

Neither is yours either. Actually both are right and both are wrong as
both (along with Greenspan's too lax too long money policies, changes in
the way both mortgage and banks were regulated in the early 00s, and
other things too numerous to mention) all put us in the jackpot we are
in today (including to a certain extent nothing worse than returning to
the mean).


From everything I read you are correct. Both "sides" participated in
the "crash".

HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


But, the goal of the liberals was achieved: universal home ownership
was achieved.


Sorry, but your account of what happened simply isn't true. You
probably got the fiction from Fox news, or Rush. The real story is
far more interesting. The amount of capital in the world doubled or
tripled within a few short years, while the number of investment
opportunities stayed the same. American home mortgages were the best
investment around, and the world's money demanded more of them. The
only way for mortgage brokers to increase the supply, was to relax
the standards for qualification. And relax they did. It was pure
capitalistic greed, not idealism, that drove us into the dirt.

You actually believe two Democratic administrations, with bills authored by
Barney Frank, were trying to do a favor for investment bankers?

That really doesn't pass the giggle-test. Really.


So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't responsible
for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed super mega
mergers of banking and investment institutions with minimal regulation
had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You might want to hit the
red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

George wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

Sorry, but your account of what happened simply isn't true. You
probably got the fiction from Fox news, or Rush. The real story is
far more interesting. The amount of capital in the world doubled or
tripled within a few short years, while the number of investment
opportunities stayed the same. American home mortgages were the best
investment around, and the world's money demanded more of them. The
only way for mortgage brokers to increase the supply, was to relax
the standards for qualification. And relax they did. It was pure
capitalistic greed, not idealism, that drove us into the dirt.

Neither is yours either. Actually both are right and both are wrong
as both (along with Greenspan's too lax too long money policies,
changes in the way both mortgage and banks were regulated in the early
00s, and other things too numerous to mention) all put us in the
jackpot we are in today (including to a certain extent nothing worse
than returning to the mean).


From everything I read you are correct. Both "sides" participated in
the "crash".

I called my bank a few days ago to check on a transaction. In their
typically very friendly way, they added a little promotion to the
conversation - offering savings accounts. Starting at one-half of one
per-cent interest. Methinks we and our banking system are insane.

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

There is no tax on the increase as long as you take the money and
reinvest in another home within a certain period of time.

That is so old and forgotten that I can't remember when that was phased
out. Now it is 500K more than basis (price paid plus improvements) is tax
free. Real conditions apply, and you better consult qualified tax help.
It was phased out in '97, but since I sold a couple homes prior to
'97, I still have to keep all of the information. You are right, I
forgot about that change because it did not apply to me. Thanks for the
clarification.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

In article ,
"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" wrote:

WRONG. That law was replaced with the $500K limit with no requirement to
buy another house about 10 years ago or so.

It was replaced for those selling a house AFTER 1997, since I did same
BEFORE and have a house that I bought prior to the change, I still have
to keep the paperwork. That is where I got confused.
You should keep records to prove your home's adjusted basis.
Ordinarily, you must keep records for 3 years after the due date for
filing your return for the tax year in which you sold your home. But if
you sold a home before May 7, 1997, and postponed tax on any gain, the
basis of that home affects the basis of the new home you bought. Keep
records proving the basis of both homes as long as they are needed for
tax purposes.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

In article ,
George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't responsible
for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed super mega
mergers of banking and investment institutions with minimal regulation
had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You might want to hit the
red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

You think the Democratically controlled Congress did not agree to
go along with these. The NYT "Nobel Laureate" Friedken a few weeks ago
was tearing his hair out and Raining Fire And Brimstone down on RR
because of a bill that was passed changing the regs. Never did hear
from him when I looked in Thomas and noted that that particular bill had
passed both Houses of Congress nearly unanimously. (Although credit
where due, Barney Franks has actually voted against it at least three
times (once in committee, once when the House passed it the first and a
third time when the final conference committee bill was passed).
Real CONVENIENT memories some people have.
You might want to consider cutting back on your Kool-Aid
consumption, too.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
Don't know about relative store counts, but there aren't any within an
hour of here, and some states seem to be skipped entirely. They seem
to be cherry-picking their store placements. Nothing wrong with that,
of course- you go where the money is. But that means a large
percentage of the population will never hear of you, much less walk
through your door.

There are no Walmarts in:
* New York City
* Boston
* San Francisco
* Detroit
* Chicago
* Washington, D.C.
* There's one Walmart in Los Angeles and two in Philadelphia

Meanwhile,
* There are 17 Walmarts in Houston

There may be more to store locations than cherry-picking by the management.
Can anyone guess another reason?


Pay attention- we were talking about Costco, not Wally World. Wally
World sites stores based on where they think a customer base with cash
is, where they can cheaply get enough land for one of their asphalt
lakes, and where the local government and unions won't mordida them to
death with BS extra expenses. (Yes, I know the stores aren't unionized,
but you can't build, maintain, and stock a store in an older urban area
without dealing with unions. Not all the stock comes on a Walmart
truck.) Built-up older cities often fail on one or more of those points.
I'm no fan of Walmart, but there is no need to paint them as EVIL, when
they are simply following basic money-grubbing 101 rules.

--
aem sends...

HeyBub wrote:

* There's one Walmart in Los Angeles and two in Philadelphia

Los Angeles definitely has more than one Wal-Mart store. The city
limits extend beyond what the post office refers to as "Los Angeles."

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't responsible
for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed super mega
mergers of banking and investment institutions with minimal regulation
had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You might want to hit the
red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

You think the Democratically controlled Congress did not agree to
go along with these.

Absolutely, read my post a little further up in this thread where I
state both sides were complicit. There are definately whores (people who
will do anything for money)on both sides. I don't believe any extremism
is correct and I certainly don't blindly cheer for one team. I am simply
responding to "Heybub" who keeps mindlessly telling us what Limbagh told
him as if it was supposed to be gospel.

The NYT "Nobel Laureate" Friedken a few weeks ago
was tearing his hair out and Raining Fire And Brimstone down on RR
because of a bill that was passed changing the regs. Never did hear
from him when I looked in Thomas and noted that that particular bill had
passed both Houses of Congress nearly unanimously. (Although credit
where due, Barney Franks has actually voted against it at least three
times (once in committee, once when the House passed it the first and a
third time when the final conference committee bill was passed).
Real CONVENIENT memories some people have.
You might want to consider cutting back on your Kool-Aid
consumption, too.

George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LouB wrote:

Wow I thought the whole world knew. 500+ warehouse stores. IMHO
quality is often better than Sam's club.
http://www.costco.com/

Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.


Only a small percentage of their workforce is and those are the former
price club employees. The main difference between them and sams
(walmart) is unlike sams (walmart) their pay actually raises them out
of official poverty status and they have real health insurance.

Ah, thanks for the update.

So, then, they pay their workers more and cannot buy merchandise as cheaply
as the scale of Walmart provides.

Are prices higher at Costco?

Bob wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

* There's one Walmart in Los Angeles and two in Philadelphia

Los Angeles definitely has more than one Wal-Mart store. The city
limits extend beyond what the post office refers to as "Los Angeles."

Here's their list:
http://www.walmart.com/storeLocator/...e=&x=27&y =10

Some of the stores are probably within the city limits and some are
definitely within the "Greater Los Angeles Metro Area."

Still, I'm sure the folks living in San Diego would take umbrage at being
called "Angelenos."

George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't
responsible for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed
super mega mergers of banking and investment institutions with
minimal regulation had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You
might want to hit the red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of the WRONG KIND of
regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending institutions serve
"underserved" areas.

Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a Bank of America
branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in neighborhoods
where the only other retail businesses on the street are hookers and crack
dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington Mutual opened those
branches because of rational business decisions?

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LouB wrote:
Wow I thought the whole world knew. 500+ warehouse stores. IMHO
quality is often better than Sam's club.
http://www.costco.com/
Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.


Only a small percentage of their workforce is and those are the former
price club employees. The main difference between them and sams
(walmart) is unlike sams (walmart) their pay actually raises them out
of official poverty status and they have real health insurance.

Ah, thanks for the update.

So, then, they pay their workers more and cannot buy merchandise as cheaply
as the scale of Walmart provides.

Thats quite a leap. They aren't greedy like walmart so they don't load
as much money into the truck to take back to headquarters and instead
pay their employees wages above poverty level. Not sure why you are so
overjoyed about the wages walmart pays its employees.


Are prices higher at Costco?


No.

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't
responsible for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed
super mega mergers of banking and investment institutions with
minimal regulation had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You
might want to hit the red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of the WRONG KIND of
regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending institutions serve
"underserved" areas.

That what Limbagh told you. None of this would have worked if there also
weren't massive opaque institutions who could manufacture the CDOs and
other paper to keep the scam running as long as it did.


Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a Bank of America
branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in neighborhoods
where the only other retail businesses on the street are hookers and crack
dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington Mutual opened those
branches because of rational business decisions?



Banks have always made money from the poor.

on 9/27/2009 8:20 AM (ET) HeyBub wrote the following:
Bob wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


* There's one Walmart in Los Angeles and two in Philadelphia

Los Angeles definitely has more than one Wal-Mart store. The city
limits extend beyond what the post office refers to as "Los Angeles."


Here's their list:
http://www.walmart.com/storeLocator/...e=&x=27&y =10

Some of the stores are probably within the city limits and some are
definitely within the "Greater Los Angeles Metro Area."

Still, I'm sure the folks living in San Diego would take umbrage at being
called "Angelenos."

At least they are in the same State. How about the "New York
Metropolitan Area" which includes cities and areas areas in New Jersey,
Connecticut, and Pennsylvania?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't
responsible for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed
super mega mergers of banking and investment institutions with
minimal regulation had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You
might want to hit the red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of the WRONG KIND of
regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending institutions serve
"underserved" areas.

The biggest problem from the regulation standpoint was that the law
making the changes in bank regulation never got around to appointing ONE
lead agency. Thus, some regs that probably should have been put in
place, no one thought they had the authority or that some other agency
had it. In other areas, two or three different agencies thought they had
authority and either squabbled over who should do it or else all the
agencies came up with their own (often contradictory if not flat out
mutually exclusive) regs. COngress is preparing, from everything I have
seen, to compound the inefficiencies and pretty much fracture the
regulation to an even greater degree.
And don't EVEN get me started on current rumblings about trying to
get the executive more in tune with the shareholders since the tax law
changes that largely put us in this pay mess were instituted
specifically to do that.


Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a Bank of America
branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in neighborhoods
where the only other retail businesses on the street are hookers and crack
dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington Mutual opened those
branches because of rational business decisions?

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:

So you actually believe the drop all the regulations because we can
trust everyone to do the right thing Reagan thinking wasn't
responsible for dropping numerous banking regulations which allowed
super mega mergers of banking and investment institutions with
minimal regulation had nothing to do with last year's implosion? You
might want to hit the red kool-aid a little less if you don't.

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of the WRONG
KIND of regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending
institutions serve "underserved" areas.

That what Limbagh told you. None of this would have worked if there also
weren't massive opaque institutions who could manufacture the CDOs and
other paper to keep the scam running as long as it did.


Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a Bank of
America branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in
neighborhoods where the only other retail businesses on the street are
hookers and crack dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington
Mutual opened those branches because of rational business decisions?


Banks have always made money from the poor.

Sure, you think they're making money off you're checking account
balance? Well, they are, maybe a few fractions of a cent. But they're
really making money off of overdraft fees, credit card interest
(especially "penalty" rates) etc.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


Sure, you think they're making money off you're checking account
balance? Well, they are, maybe a few fractions of a cent. But they're
really making money off of overdraft fees, credit card interest
(especially "penalty" rates) etc.

nate

Which are, for the most part, voluntary on the part of the user.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Sure, you think they're making money off you're checking account
balance? Well, they are, maybe a few fractions of a cent. But they're
really making money off of overdraft fees, credit card interest
(especially "penalty" rates) etc.

nate

Which are, for the most part, voluntary on the part of the user.


Pretty much, yes. However poor people, or people living paycheck to
paycheck, are much more likely to pay those fees, esp. the high credit
card interest which sometimes is not voluntary (e.g. emergency medical
or auto repair expenses that need to be paid for somehow.)

for instance, maybe 10 years ago I got a fix-it ticket for a cracked
windshield on my car. It wasn't dangerous (despite what the officer
said) but I had to get it fixed somehow. Because my car was older and
uncommon, a new windshield was $500ish, and because I'd received a
ticket that had to be cleared within a week, I didn't have time to call
around to a bunch of junkyards to find a used one. I didn't have $500
in my bank account. What's the solution to that, other than a) drive
illegally or b) use credit card? (I'm doing much better financially
these days, thanks for asking...)

Now whether that is fair or not to charge high interest rates to someone
whose only fiscal fault is not having a considerable amount of personal
savings, that's another discussion. Personally I think it's far better
to try to make oneself indispensible at work, advance to a higher paying
position while not greatly increasing one's personal expenses, etc. but
like I said, that's a separate topic.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Much the same with health care in NYS. They passed some kind
of "universal insurance" thing that forced the companies to
insure everyone. So, the insurance companies pulled out of
NYS. Of course, it would never occur to legislators to
return some freedoms to the citizens.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of
the WRONG KIND of
regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending
institutions serve
"underserved" areas.

Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a
Bank of America
branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in
neighborhoods
where the only other retail businesses on the street are
hookers and crack
dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington Mutual
opened those
branches because of rational business decisions?

That's what NPR told you.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"George" wrote in message
...

None of this would have worked if there also
weren't massive opaque institutions who could manufacture
the CDOs and
other paper to keep the scam running as long as it did.

Clark Howard has been telling how bank debit cards, they
allow overdraft sales, and then soak your money up, with
overdraft fees. He reccomends writing the bank and declining
the overdraft protection. Better to get "sale declined" at
the terminal than a $30 ++ over draft fee on your statement
later.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Banks have always made money from the poor.

Sure, you think they're making money off you're checking
account
balance? Well, they are, maybe a few fractions of a cent.
But they're
really making money off of overdraft fees, credit card
interest
(especially "penalty" rates) etc.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

top posting fixed

Stormin Mormon wrote:


"George" wrote in message
...

None of this would have worked if there also
weren't massive opaque institutions who could manufacture
the CDOs and
other paper to keep the scam running as long as it did.





That's what NPR told you.


So in your Limbaugh is the only absolute truth world who created all of
the CDOs and other financial instruments that played a huge part in
scamming everyone and led to the collapse?

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:05:37 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
wrote Re OT - Bank of America:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" wrote:

In the USA, there is no tax on the increased value of the home when you
sell
up to US $500,000 more than the purchase price. Also, you can subtract
from
your sales value all costs to improve your home during ownership. If you
invest US $100,000 to improve your home, you can sell it for up to US
$600,000 more than the purchase price without incurring tax on the gain.
If
you still sell for more, you only pay tax on the excess. Pretty hard to
do,
especially in this market, except for a tiny fraction of extremely
high-priced homes.

There is no tax on the increase as long as you take the money and
reinvest in another home within a certain period of time. You only owe
taxes if you decide not to reinvest in another single family home within
that time frame AND the total profits from first home to last don't go
over the $500,000, a little easier to do, but not much.

WRONG. That law was replaced with the $500K limit with no requirement to
buy another house about 10 years ago or so.

That was in 1987.
--
I filter all messages from google groups.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Much the same with health care in NYS. They passed some kind
of "universal insurance" thing that forced the companies to
insure everyone. So, the insurance companies pulled out of
NYS. Of course, it would never occur to legislators to
return some freedoms to the citizens.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Yep. It wasn't the LACK of regulation, it was too much of
the WRONG KIND of
regulation. Specifically the requirements that lending
institutions serve
"underserved" areas.

Cruise through the worst parts of your town. You'll find a
Bank of America
branch sandwiched between a pawn shop and a Stop-&-Rob in
neighborhoods
where the only other retail businesses on the street are
hookers and crack
dealers. Do you think BoA or Wachovia or Washington Mutual
opened those
branches because of rational business decisions?

No they didn't! I live in NY and no insurance company is required to insure
every/anyone. What NY did was to require that all insurance be an "HMO or
all-inclusive" insurance. That means that I, as a self-employed person with
no employees am not legally allowed to purchase JUST catastrophic health
coverage. I MUST purchase full-boat HMO-style coverage or none at all. Since
I only see a doctor when something (blood, bone, etc.) is sticking out, I
refuse to pay 35% of my gross income for "insurance" which I will never,
ever use. The cheapest insurance I can find is 35% of my gross income with a
$2K yearly deductible. In the past 10 years I've spent a total of $1500 on
healthcare. Since I pay 100% of my own healthcare costs I haven't cost the
taxpayers a single penny, either.

I'm in my 50s, childfree (had a tubal at 25), and completely healthy, with
no family history of ANYTHING except one grandfather who got lung cancer
from smoking. I work out everyday, I am a non-smoker, am a healthy weight,
etc., but because I'm still considered "childbearing" my insurance quotes
are through the ceiling. Now the gubmint is going to tax me for not buying
insurance. Great, fine, they'll ding me an extra $1k for not being insured.
I would be insured if I could afford it, but now they'll take my fine money
and use it for some breeder with too many kids. Perfect.

All I want to do is to buy into Medicare. I'm willing to pay THE TOTAL
amount I cost (no gubmint subsidy) to be insured, but it's not allowed.
What's up with that?

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:14:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LouB wrote:

Wow I thought the whole world knew. 500+ warehouse stores. IMHO
quality is often better than Sam's club.
http://www.costco.com/

Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.


Only a small percentage of their workforce is and those are the former
price club employees. The main difference between them and sams
(walmart) is unlike sams (walmart) their pay actually raises them out
of official poverty status and they have real health insurance.

Ah, thanks for the update.

So, then, they pay their workers more and cannot buy merchandise as cheaply
as the scale of Walmart provides.

Are prices higher at Costco?

Not necesarily, the wally mart execs. keep most of the money so they
can keep their yachts and rolls.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
LouB wrote:

Wow I thought the whole world knew. 500+ warehouse stores. IMHO
quality is often better than Sam's club.
http://www.costco.com/

Another difference: Costco is unionized - Sam's is not.


Only a small percentage of their workforce is and those are the former
price club employees. The main difference between them and sams
(walmart) is unlike sams (walmart) their pay actually raises them out
of official poverty status and they have real health insurance.

Ah, thanks for the update.

So, then, they pay their workers more and cannot buy merchandise as
cheaply as the scale of Walmart provides.

Are prices higher at Costco?


The price per unit, pound, ounce, gal...etc is usually cheaper and the
quality is usually higher.

The warehouse store profit margin is built around volume.

When you buy something like tp you get a 6 month supply.

The Costco house brand, Kirkland, is very high quality.

Even if I did have to pay the membership fee I'd still pay the $50. Lower
prices, good return policy and higher quality is worth it. There are
literally so many benefits you have to try it to understand.

HeyBub wrote:

Here's their list:
http://www.walmart.com/storeLocator/...e=&x=27&y =10

Some of the stores are probably within the city limits and some are
definitely within the "Greater Los Angeles Metro Area."

Of the 20 locations listed, only Los Angeles (90008) and Panorama City
are in the Los Angeles city limits. In addition, Porter Ranch and West
Hills are in the city of LA. Other stores may be in other political
jurisdictions friendly to (or adjacent to jurisdictions hostile to) such
"big box" stores. They definitely have a presence in Los Angeles.