It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying to get
to the customer what they want the most. If better quality items of a
certain kind sell better than the cheap stuff in one area, they get the clue
real fast. No two Wal-Mart's stock is the same; it varies heavily by the
location.
Walmart is one of the ultimate marketeers in that they provide the
market what they want. I want to buy milk at a good price and Walmart does
it. I need a pair of jeans, and the selection is always good. They sell
what everyone else sells, but in larger selection and quantity. Just as
many of you go to Harbor Freight for an item that you deem good enough for
your needs, so many of us go to Walmart to provide the same thing. I've
noticed on occasion that the cheapest item might be American made.
Competition is good because in the end you the customer win. Walmart has
had a noticeable effect on inflation in that it has slowed the growth of it.
Many of you own Toyotas because you can get a good car at a good price, and
the market obviously determines the quality level. If price was the only
issue, we'd all have Yugo's and Geo Metro's rusting in the streets,
abandoned. Walmart is no different. If Walmart operated according to how
some of you think they should, we'd still be buying domestically made cars
from manufacturers who would be happy to sell us what they think would be
good enough, and that's an old market model that the Japanese proved highly
wrong.
Walmart, when hurricane Katrina hit, was one of the first stores to
open, despite some being heavily clobbered and still not cleaned up. As the
hurricane was slamming the area they were already trucking generators and
emergency supplies to the area, staging them in safe areas waiting to send
it in. Walmart gave more money than any other organization, if I remember
correctly, and they did it without a second thought. In the immediate
aftermath, you could just show up and without any cash get what you needed,
be it a generator or a bottle of soap. Find another American company that
did anything like it at all. They didn't do it because they were trying to
make loyal customers any more than Tylenol pulled all their products to
avoid the lawyers. They did it because it was the right thing to do. That
massive act of generosity and getting the customer what they needed is an
incredible thing for me, and has the secondary effect of creating awesome
brand loyalty. Ironically, they are the largest single donor to education,
yet the teacher's unions despise the company. Go figure.

I'm not a die hard fan of Walmart, but I go there when I know they have
what I need. I have a large family, so my grocery budget has to go far, and
there is where I can do it. I know the quality level of what they sell, and
usually its good enough for my needs. It works the same for millions of
other Americans as well, so I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. You
don't get to be on the top by doing it wrong, but they also know that those
at the top will get a whole lot of flack from those who don't like seeing
capitalism so successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

In a recent radio talk show, in the midst of the anti-Walmart
crank calls, one brave soul said that if he wanted to buy North
American goods, he'd go to Walmart.

The Canadian Hudson's Bay Company chain, apparently, don't carry
anything from this continent, according to that caller.

It just goes back to the entitlement mentality under which floor
sweepers with a ****ty attitude should be paid twice as much as
the ones with a little bit of work-ethic.

I can feel that Nomex underwear ocming...


carl mciver wrote:

It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying to get
to the customer what they want the most. If better quality items of a
certain kind sell better than the cheap stuff in one area, they get the clue
real fast. No two Wal-Mart's stock is the same; it varies heavily by the
location.
Walmart is one of the ultimate marketeers in that they provide the
market what they want. I want to buy milk at a good price and Walmart does
it. I need a pair of jeans, and the selection is always good. They sell
what everyone else sells, but in larger selection and quantity. Just as
many of you go to Harbor Freight for an item that you deem good enough for
your needs, so many of us go to Walmart to provide the same thing. I've
noticed on occasion that the cheapest item might be American made.
Competition is good because in the end you the customer win. Walmart has
had a noticeable effect on inflation in that it has slowed the growth of it.
Many of you own Toyotas because you can get a good car at a good price, and
the market obviously determines the quality level. If price was the only
issue, we'd all have Yugo's and Geo Metro's rusting in the streets,
abandoned. Walmart is no different. If Walmart operated according to how
some of you think they should, we'd still be buying domestically made cars
from manufacturers who would be happy to sell us what they think would be
good enough, and that's an old market model that the Japanese proved highly
wrong.
Walmart, when hurricane Katrina hit, was one of the first stores to
open, despite some being heavily clobbered and still not cleaned up. As the
hurricane was slamming the area they were already trucking generators and
emergency supplies to the area, staging them in safe areas waiting to send
it in. Walmart gave more money than any other organization, if I remember
correctly, and they did it without a second thought. In the immediate
aftermath, you could just show up and without any cash get what you needed,
be it a generator or a bottle of soap. Find another American company that
did anything like it at all. They didn't do it because they were trying to
make loyal customers any more than Tylenol pulled all their products to
avoid the lawyers. They did it because it was the right thing to do. That
massive act of generosity and getting the customer what they needed is an
incredible thing for me, and has the secondary effect of creating awesome
brand loyalty. Ironically, they are the largest single donor to education,
yet the teacher's unions despise the company. Go figure.

I'm not a die hard fan of Walmart, but I go there when I know they have
what I need. I have a large family, so my grocery budget has to go far, and
there is where I can do it. I know the quality level of what they sell, and
usually its good enough for my needs. It works the same for millions of
other Americans as well, so I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. You
don't get to be on the top by doing it wrong, but they also know that those
at the top will get a whole lot of flack from those who don't like seeing
capitalism so successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

"They did it because it was the right thing to do. "

Carl....no company does something "because it was the right thing to
do".

They do it to make money.

That is Walmart did it.

As your discussion points out, they did what they did because of their
logistics being able to be there first and in business that is
everything. Their attempts to buy PR by donations to various "good
causes" is just that....a PR ploy to make you the customer feel good
about leaving your money with them. They want you to have brand
loyalty...to them...while they take your money.

Never forget that Walmart is NOT the best place for the best price for
the best quality....that title belongs to whoever decides to offer a
loss leader for the week to lure you into the store. Many times I have
found Walmart to be higher than their competitors...but what they have
an advantage of currently is sales volume...about 10% of the US retail
market. If you read the business news you will note that Walmart is
having problems with several companies (Target in particular) chipping
away at their sales...that is why this last season they have expanded
into higher profit margin areas like toys and electronics. As you said,
competition is good. Shop at Walmart and its competitors to get the
best price for the best quality and forget about worshipping any
retailer because of their PR efforts.

TMT

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip-----

Walmart

Well done, Carl.

Harold

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:46:42 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:

"carl mciver" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip-----

Walmart

Well done, Carl.

I'll heartily second that, Harold.
Kudos, Carl.

--
A lot of folks can't understand how we came
to have an oil shortage here in America.

Well, there's a very simple answer...nobody
bothered to check the oil; We just didn't
know we were getting low.

The reason for that is purely geographical
- our OIL is located in Alaska, California,
Oklahoma and Texas.

Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington, DC.

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
.. You
don't get to be on the top by doing it wrong, but they also know that
those
at the top will get a whole lot of flack from those who don't like seeing
capitalism so successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

Walmart is one of the most unethical retailers in the US. Costco, on the
other hand, does not force employees to work overtime for free, etc., etc.,
yet offers better quality at lower prices and is a profitable firm. Costco
also provides decent benefits which reduces taxpayer funded health care
costs.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
"They did it because it was the right thing to do. "

Carl....no company does something "because it was the right thing to
do".

They do it to make money.

That is Walmart did it.

As your discussion points out, they did what they did because of their
logistics being able to be there first and in business that is
everything. Their attempts to buy PR by donations to various "good
causes" is just that....a PR ploy to make you the customer feel good
about leaving your money with them. They want you to have brand
loyalty...to them...while they take your money.

That doesn't diminish the value of their contribution to the cause. I
can't help but think that the folks that benefited from their actions are
quite grateful.

Harold

"That doesn't diminish the value of their contribution to the cause.
I
can't help but think that the folks that benefited from their actions
are
quite grateful.

Harold "

I would agree....but do not lose sight of WHY they did it....it's
strictly for business purposes.

There are many disasters around the country every year....and Walmart
in part used Katrina to help their PR image which has been seriously
lagging of late.

And consider because of their size their actual contribution to "good
causes" is a significantly smaller portion of sales than many other
companies....and it was definitely tax deductible...which all good
companies scramble for. In part that means that the tax burden is
shifted more to the private individual for this good deed...and tax
money will be the basis for rebuilding in these areas....your tax
money.

It is very likely that your local business that donated to help those
who were in need made a much greater real sacrifice in donation/sale
volume than Walmart did but again they have more to lose than a
multinational corporation who can shut their doors and move on....and
do.

Again, never forget WHY they did it....it was not because they CARED.

TMT

WM spends $25bn a year on a computer system that tracks inventory and
sales trends in real time -- that is why they are so successful. They
save big money on the fact that a large chunk of their inventory never
sees a warehouse, it's in a trailer en route from the port to a store.
Something like 70% of their stuff is sold to a customer before they pay
the bill to their supplier!

There is no way a small retailer can compete with that kind of
efficiency, and that is why most eventually fail when WM comes to town.


carl mciver wrote:
It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying to get
....

One thing that we tend to forget is that companies are run by people.
I am sure that Walmart recognized that their actions would be good PR
and that anything that decreases their profit decreases their taxes.
But I believe that the decisions were also made because there are
people who work for Walmart that did care.

Do you really believe that Walmart made more money by donating to the
relief? If that really works, how can I give all my money away so that
I end up richer than ever?


Dan

wrote in message
ps.com...
One thing that we tend to forget is that companies are run by people.
I am sure that Walmart recognized that their actions would be good PR
and that anything that decreases their profit decreases their taxes.
But I believe that the decisions were also made because there are
people who work for Walmart that did care.

Do you really believe that Walmart made more money by donating to the
relief? If that really works, how can I give all my money away so that
I end up richer than ever?

Start your own religion. It worked for L. Ron Hubbard. And, if Mother
Theresa had an ounce of entrepreneurship in her bones, and had left the
Catholic Church to start her own consulting operation, she could have gotten
rich as Croseus.

Don't knock it. There's big money in coming up with a new way to slice the
God pie.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Don't knock it. There's big money in coming up with a new way to slice the
God pie.

Heck Ed, reading this thread you would think walmart *is* god.

Ever see that movie _Leap_of_Faith_?

Steve Martin as a preacher showman.... and not
your usual steve martin character, either.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Competition is good, but there's more to it in Walmarts case. I think its
wrong when WalMart tells Rubbermaid "Either move production to China and
lower the "price point" of your product, or we will find someone who will."
And when 40% of Rubbermaid sales are to WM, they are beholden to WM.

Now does Walmart want lower prices to benefit consumers? No, they want to
fatten their margin, and give the customer a token cheaper price.

Tony

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying to
get
to the customer what they want the most. If better quality items of a
certain kind sell better than the cheap stuff in one area, they get the
clue
real fast. No two Wal-Mart's stock is the same; it varies heavily by the
location.
Walmart is one of the ultimate marketeers in that they provide the
market what they want. I want to buy milk at a good price and Walmart
does
it. I need a pair of jeans, and the selection is always good. They sell
what everyone else sells, but in larger selection and quantity. Just as
many of you go to Harbor Freight for an item that you deem good enough for
your needs, so many of us go to Walmart to provide the same thing. I've
noticed on occasion that the cheapest item might be American made.
Competition is good because in the end you the customer win. Walmart has
had a noticeable effect on inflation in that it has slowed the growth of
it.
Many of you own Toyotas because you can get a good car at a good price,
and
the market obviously determines the quality level. If price was the only
issue, we'd all have Yugo's and Geo Metro's rusting in the streets,
abandoned. Walmart is no different. If Walmart operated according to how
some of you think they should, we'd still be buying domestically made cars
from manufacturers who would be happy to sell us what they think would be
good enough, and that's an old market model that the Japanese proved
highly
wrong.
Walmart, when hurricane Katrina hit, was one of the first stores to
open, despite some being heavily clobbered and still not cleaned up. As
the
hurricane was slamming the area they were already trucking generators and
emergency supplies to the area, staging them in safe areas waiting to send
it in. Walmart gave more money than any other organization, if I remember
correctly, and they did it without a second thought. In the immediate
aftermath, you could just show up and without any cash get what you
needed,
be it a generator or a bottle of soap. Find another American company that
did anything like it at all. They didn't do it because they were trying
to
make loyal customers any more than Tylenol pulled all their products to
avoid the lawyers. They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That
massive act of generosity and getting the customer what they needed is an
incredible thing for me, and has the secondary effect of creating awesome
brand loyalty. Ironically, they are the largest single donor to
education,
yet the teacher's unions despise the company. Go figure.

I'm not a die hard fan of Walmart, but I go there when I know they
have
what I need. I have a large family, so my grocery budget has to go far,
and
there is where I can do it. I know the quality level of what they sell,
and
usually its good enough for my needs. It works the same for millions of
other Americans as well, so I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. You
don't get to be on the top by doing it wrong, but they also know that
those
at the top will get a whole lot of flack from those who don't like seeing
capitalism so successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

"Heck Ed, reading this thread you would think walmart *is* god.
Ever see that movie _Leap_of_Faith_?
Steve Martin as a preacher showman.... and not
your usual steve martin character, either.
Jim "

Good movie....educational movie...should be required viewing.

Religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand in the majority of my
experiences.

When anyone reaches for the cross or the flag, one should always give
them an extra hard lookover before commiting to their cause.

TMT

"One thing that we tend to forget is that companies are run by people.
I am sure that Walmart recognized that their actions would be good PR
and that anything that decreases their profit decreases their taxes.
But I believe that the decisions were also made because there are
people who work for Walmart that did care.
Do you really believe that Walmart made more money by donating to the
relief? If that really works, how can I give all my money away so that

I end up richer than ever?
Dan "

Dan, you are entitled to your own opinion and I do respect that...what
you are seeing me discuss is my opinon based on dealing with large
corporations for decades.

I know what I have seen in the past working for and with large
corporations...they don't do ANYTHING unless it benefits them (and the
CEO in particular) financially.

The "Walmart Katrina relief effort" was a carefully crafted PR
event....and yes, Walmart did it to get PR to help mend its battered
public image. It was a bargain compared to what they would have to
spend otherwise. Since it was known that a major population area was
going to be hit with a hurricane, it is even believeable that the
logistics were planned prior to the disaster waiting to be put into
place when the opportunity presented itself.

If Walmart has such a big heart and we know it has deep pockets, why
isn't Walmart still helping those in the disaster area today? They have
the resources, the infastructure and the money. Could it be that the
television crews have gone home? No, they are there to make money as
is any other company.

In my experience, a company only cares about your money and only until
they can record it as a sale. As the customer, it is not in your best
interest to forget that.

TMT

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Don't knock it. There's big money in coming up with a new way to slice
the
God pie.

Heck Ed, reading this thread you would think walmart *is* god.

Ever see that movie _Leap_of_Faith_?

Steve Martin as a preacher showman.... and not
your usual steve martin character, either.

Jim

'Haven't seen it. My wife has, and, as she often does, she just recited to
me the entire cast. g She says it's good.

I'll look for it.

--
Ed Huntress

In the local Walmart. there were cash collection jars for "Victims of
Katrina".

You don't suppose that Walmart could have used the $ for 'giving generators,
shampoo, etc.' for the needy and taking the credit for doing so - with your
money - do you? What a wonderful company!

I did not contribute because I'm offended that Walmart benefits with their
customers generosity without acknowledgement of where the money is coming
from.

Walmart is not the only corporation that uses its' customers in this manner.

JMiller
"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying to
get
to the customer what they want the most. If better quality items of a
certain kind sell better than the cheap stuff in one area, they get the
clue
real fast. No two Wal-Mart's stock is the same; it varies heavily by the
location.
Walmart is one of the ultimate marketeers in that they provide the
market what they want. I want to buy milk at a good price and Walmart
does
it. I need a pair of jeans, and the selection is always good. They sell
what everyone else sells, but in larger selection and quantity. Just as
many of you go to Harbor Freight for an item that you deem good enough for
your needs, so many of us go to Walmart to provide the same thing. I've
noticed on occasion that the cheapest item might be American made.
Competition is good because in the end you the customer win. Walmart has
had a noticeable effect on inflation in that it has slowed the growth of
it.
Many of you own Toyotas because you can get a good car at a good price,
and
the market obviously determines the quality level. If price was the only
issue, we'd all have Yugo's and Geo Metro's rusting in the streets,
abandoned. Walmart is no different. If Walmart operated according to how
some of you think they should, we'd still be buying domestically made cars
from manufacturers who would be happy to sell us what they think would be
good enough, and that's an old market model that the Japanese proved
highly
wrong.
Walmart, when hurricane Katrina hit, was one of the first stores to
open, despite some being heavily clobbered and still not cleaned up. As
the
hurricane was slamming the area they were already trucking generators and
emergency supplies to the area, staging them in safe areas waiting to send
it in. Walmart gave more money than any other organization, if I remember
correctly, and they did it without a second thought. In the immediate
aftermath, you could just show up and without any cash get what you
needed,
be it a generator or a bottle of soap. Find another American company that
did anything like it at all. They didn't do it because they were trying
to
make loyal customers any more than Tylenol pulled all their products to
avoid the lawyers. They did it because it was the right thing to do.
That
massive act of generosity and getting the customer what they needed is an
incredible thing for me, and has the secondary effect of creating awesome
brand loyalty. Ironically, they are the largest single donor to
education,
yet the teacher's unions despise the company. Go figure.

I'm not a die hard fan of Walmart, but I go there when I know they have
what I need. I have a large family, so my grocery budget has to go far,
and
there is where I can do it. I know the quality level of what they sell,
and
usually its good enough for my needs. It works the same for millions of
other Americans as well, so I know I'm not alone in that sentiment. You
don't get to be on the top by doing it wrong, but they also know that
those
at the top will get a whole lot of flack from those who don't like seeing
capitalism so successful.

I'm off my soap box now.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
"One thing that we tend to forget is that companies are run by people.
I am sure that Walmart recognized that their actions would be good PR
and that anything that decreases their profit decreases their taxes.
But I believe that the decisions were also made because there are
people who work for Walmart that did care.
Do you really believe that Walmart made more money by donating to the
relief? If that really works, how can I give all my money away so
that

I end up richer than ever?
Dan "

Dan, you are entitled to your own opinion and I do respect that...what
you are seeing me discuss is my opinon based on dealing with large
corporations for decades.

I know what I have seen in the past working for and with large
corporations...they don't do ANYTHING unless it benefits them (and the
CEO in particular) financially.

The "Walmart Katrina relief effort" was a carefully crafted PR
event....and yes, Walmart did it to get PR to help mend its battered
public image. It was a bargain compared to what they would have to
spend otherwise. Since it was known that a major population area was
going to be hit with a hurricane, it is even believeable that the
logistics were planned prior to the disaster waiting to be put into
place when the opportunity presented itself.

If Walmart has such a big heart and we know it has deep pockets, why
isn't Walmart still helping those in the disaster area today? They
have
the resources, the infastructure and the money. Could it be that the
television crews have gone home? No, they are there to make money as
is any other company.

In my experience, a company only cares about your money and only until
they can record it as a sale. As the customer, it is not in your best
interest to forget that.

TMT

You might want to actually check because Wal~Mart IS STILL donating
money and supplies to folks hit by Katrina. They donate MASSIVE amounts
of money into the communities they are in and they also have many
unpublished events where they donate money/time/supplies to families,
and communities. They also take an active interest in helping out others
(for instance when our church started doing a meals program we went to
different food stores ((from mom&pops up to Wal~Mart)) the only store
even willing to talk about discounts was Wal~Mart, who ended up just
donating the food each week) No publicity and nothing but a sheet of
paper from the church with a thank you on it. I know that they also
donated at least two fully equipped ambulances to N.O. (about 125,000.00
each).




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

And they expect the supplier to have the inventory IN STOCK. So the
supplier has to carry the cost and risk of the inventory.

Tim Killian wrote:

WM spends $25bn a year on a computer system that tracks inventory and
sales trends in real time -- that is why they are so successful. They
save big money on the fact that a large chunk of their inventory never
sees a warehouse, it's in a trailer en route from the port to a store.
Something like 70% of their stuff is sold to a customer before they pay
the bill to their supplier!

There is no way a small retailer can compete with that kind of
efficiency, and that is why most eventually fail when WM comes to town.


carl mciver wrote:

It has always been my impression that each Walmart store carries what
sells in each region. You don't see swamp coolers for sale here in the
Pacific Northwest (although Home Depot did try and sell them!) Each
store
and its management troll for considerable time over sales data trying
to get

...

"Ignoramus29068" wrote in message
...

The result is that there will be different market segments, one is
people who buy crap not realizing its pitfalls (and possibly not
having enough money). These people would buy tools at Walmart.




I have a friend who says "If I can't find it at Walmart, then I don't need
it." My response to him is usually "If you bought it at Walmart, you'll
likely be needing to buy it quite a few times because it probably won't last
very long."

Shawn

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Dan, you are entitled to your own opinion and I do respect that...what
you are seeing me discuss is my opinon based on dealing with large
corporations for decades.

I know what I have seen in the past working for and with large
corporations...they don't do ANYTHING unless it benefits them (and the
CEO in particular) financially.


In my experience, a company only cares about your money and only until
they can record it as a sale. As the customer, it is not in your best
interest to forget that.

TMT

I am a migratory aerospace worker, and as such have pretty much only
worked for large companies. But my experience is different from yours.
When I was working for Boeing in Huntsville, NASA consolidated a lot
of contracts and Boeing lost the contract I was working on. They had a
three month phase over to the new contractor. Boeing did what they
could to help people find other jobs. They would have moved me up to
Seattle to a job there. But instead I kept looking for a job somewhere
else. They kept me on the pay roll ( and working ) until I found
another job. And then coordinated my layoff so that I was laid off on
the Friday before I started the new job.

I don't think that benefited the CEO, or the company. It was done by
the local people that wanted to do what they could to make the layoffs
as painless as possible.

I am sorry that you have not had better experiences. But my experience
is that companies are run by people. And those people are not all the
same. Some really care for their employees. Some don't. But the
companies reflect the people running them. All companies are not the
same. Don't know if you read one of my posts about the steel company
Nucor. No layoffs since about 1962. They have put people on reduced
work weeks when times were bad, but no layoffs. And in 2004 paid all
employees two bonuses of $1000. Iverson, the CEO from about 1962 to
recently, always flew coach on company business.

Dan

RoyJ wrote in article
t...
And they expect the supplier to have the inventory IN STOCK. So the
supplier has to carry the cost and risk of the inventory.


This is trickling into other industries......

Auto Zone has propsed a POS (Pay On Scan) scheme where the manufacturer
owns the stock on the A.Z. shelf until it is scanned through the register.

No A.Z. money tied up in inventory whatsoever.........

"*" wrote in message
news:01c61f87$89fad140$d2a2c3d8@race...
| RoyJ wrote in article
| t...
| And they expect the supplier to have the inventory IN STOCK. So the
| supplier has to carry the cost and risk of the inventory.
|
|
| This is trickling into other industries......
|
| Auto Zone has propsed a POS (Pay On Scan) scheme where the manufacturer
| owns the stock on the A.Z. shelf until it is scanned through the register.
|
| No A.Z. money tied up in inventory whatsoever.........

Grocery stores have been doing this for a really long time. You can
also call it consignment. As long as I can recall, beverage companies have
been doing the delivery and stocking of the shelves for just about any kind
of event/enterprise that sells their products.
There's all kinds of arcane rules that define "inventory" when it comes
to taxes, so any way companies can avoid these arcane tax rules I'm all for,
since in the end you wind up paying for it anyway. Some areas/states tax
inventory a whole lot more heavily than others, so if a business in one
state has inventory in another, he doesn't have to pay taxes on it,
similarly, if the business with that inventory in its store isn't the owner,
they don't pay taxes on it either. These taxes are another reason JIT (Just
In Time) logistics have come about, in addition to reducing the real estate
required to let it gather dust. A well implemented JIT scheme is well aware
of the push/pull arrangements necessary to keep production at the pace it
needs to be to maintain no more and no less inventory in the pipe than
necessary. This reduced overhead contributes greatly to you paying less for
products because the built overhead expenses tend to be considerably less.
On the other hand, when I head down to the Ford dealer for a part for my
vehicle, I expect them to have everything I could possibly need on hand or
easily available, so this highly inefficient necessity is the main reason
dealer items are so expensive, and I quit whining about it when I realized
the main reason why. Wal-Mart is heavily involved in the JIT process, and
expects their suppliers to work the same way. In fact, few sane businessmen
will attempt to do otherwise in the face of stiff competition. Wal-Mart
works closely with its suppliers to both push and pull them into efficient
logistics, which is one of the reasons you would be hard pressed to find a
Wal-Mart warehouse anywhere, since all of their inventory is almost always
in transit from the manufacturer to the stores. Except for near Christmas,
when every Wal-Mart rents dozens of shipping containers for storage to keep
up with the massive flow of goods flying out of the stores.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:51:48 GMT, "carl mciver"
wrote:

Wal-Mart
works closely with its suppliers to both push and pull them into efficient
logistics, which is one of the reasons you would be hard pressed to find a
Wal-Mart warehouse anywhere, since all of their inventory is almost always
in transit from the manufacturer to the stores. Except for near Christmas,
when every Wal-Mart rents dozens of shipping containers for storage to keep
up with the massive flow of goods flying out of the stores.

I won't comment on the good or bad of WalMart. But I can't let this
incorrect statement stand unchallenged.

The latest info I could find was 2001. There were 78 WM distribution
centers in operation. The only states not within a 200 mile radius
were Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:51:48 GMT, "carl mciver"
| wrote:
|
| Wal-Mart
| works closely with its suppliers to both push and pull them into
efficient
| logistics, which is one of the reasons you would be hard pressed to find
a
| Wal-Mart warehouse anywhere, since all of their inventory is almost
always
| in transit from the manufacturer to the stores. Except for near
Christmas,
| when every Wal-Mart rents dozens of shipping containers for storage to
keep
| up with the massive flow of goods flying out of the stores.
|
| I won't comment on the good or bad of WalMart. But I can't let this
| incorrect statement stand unchallenged.
|
| The latest info I could find was 2001. There were 78 WM distribution
| centers in operation. The only states not within a 200 mile radius
| were Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

I'll take your word for it. In all my travels, I think I've only seen
one, and I don't think it was that big. I would imagine that the stock
contained inside is in constant movement and most stuff stays only long
enough to transfer from one truck to another. I would bet they'd give UPS a
run for their money in that kind of operations, for sure!

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:51:48 GMT, "carl mciver"
| wrote:
|
| Wal-Mart
| works closely with its suppliers to both push and pull them into
efficient
| logistics, which is one of the reasons you would be hard pressed to
find
a
| Wal-Mart warehouse anywhere, since all of their inventory is almost
always
| in transit from the manufacturer to the stores. Except for near
Christmas,
| when every Wal-Mart rents dozens of shipping containers for storage to
keep
| up with the massive flow of goods flying out of the stores.
|
| I won't comment on the good or bad of WalMart. But I can't let this
| incorrect statement stand unchallenged.
|
| The latest info I could find was 2001. There were 78 WM distribution
| centers in operation. The only states not within a 200 mile radius
| were Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

I'll take your word for it. In all my travels, I think I've only seen
one, and I don't think it was that big. I would imagine that the stock
contained inside is in constant movement and most stuff stays only long
enough to transfer from one truck to another. I would bet they'd give UPS
a
run for their money in that kind of operations, for sure!


LOL

The ones I've seen [Dallas, Kansas City?, elsewhere] have all been HUGE!

At least 2 stories high, at least 3 blocks long and a block wide - city
blocks, that is.

The roll-up doors - big enough for 3 semis side by side - look like window
openings in the average warehouse.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the same floorplans that Boeing
developed for B-52 modifications at Wichita. (They look to be the same
size.)

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
"That doesn't diminish the value of their contribution to the cause.
I
can't help but think that the folks that benefited from their actions
are
quite grateful.

Harold "

I would agree....but do not lose sight of WHY they did it....it's
strictly for business purposes.

There are many disasters around the country every year....and Walmart
in part used Katrina to help their PR image which has been seriously
lagging of late.

And consider because of their size their actual contribution to "good
causes" is a significantly smaller portion of sales than many other
companies....and it was definitely tax deductible...which all good
companies scramble for. In part that means that the tax burden is
shifted more to the private individual for this good deed...and tax
money will be the basis for rebuilding in these areas....your tax
money.

All business expenses are "deductible" for any business. They could just
as easily have spent the money for additional trucks or another location.

Tim Killian wrote:
WM spends $25bn a year on a computer system that tracks inventory and
sales trends in real time -- that is why they are so successful. They
save big money on the fact that a large chunk of their inventory never
sees a warehouse, it's in a trailer en route from the port to a store.
Something like 70% of their stuff is sold to a customer before they pay
the bill to their supplier!

All distributors operate on that principle. If it weren't for having to
maintain their retail stock, Wal-Mart would be over 100%

There is no way a small retailer can compete with that kind of
efficiency, and that is why most eventually fail when WM comes to town.

No retailer in any business can do that, unless he can turn his
inventory 10-12 times per year. That's pretty good numbers for most
businesses. In the retail parts bidness, 4 turns is the Holy Grail.
Most get about 2.5, if they are good. That means they "own" their
inventory, which is a very inefficient use of money.

Tony wrote:
Competition is good, but there's more to it in Walmarts case. I think its
wrong when WalMart tells Rubbermaid "Either move production to China and
lower the "price point" of your product, or we will find someone who will."
And when 40% of Rubbermaid sales are to WM, they are beholden to WM.

I doubt that's how it played out. It was probably more like:

WM buyer: We have an offshore company bidding on your segment. They are
25% lower on the same quality, Asia-sourced. Would you like to revise
your current bid?
RQ: We have our costs cut pretty fine already. We could not match that
with U.S. production.
WM: We have a good relationship and would like to continue that, but my
boss is going to ask some tough questions if I don't give this bid
serious consideration.
RQ: Let me talk to our BOD and get back to you in a week.
---------
RQ: OK, the BOD has voted to acquire manufacturing facilities in Asia.
We will have a new bid to you as soon as we finalize the numbers.
WM: Of course, we prefer to source U.S.-made, but offshore is acceptable
if the quality is maintained.

"Rex B" wrote in message
...
Tony wrote:
Competition is good, but there's more to it in Walmarts case. I think
its
wrong when WalMart tells Rubbermaid "Either move production to China and
lower the "price point" of your product, or we will find someone who
will."
And when 40% of Rubbermaid sales are to WM, they are beholden to WM.

I doubt that's how it played out. It was probably more like:

WM buyer: We have an offshore company bidding on your segment. They are
25% lower on the same quality, Asia-sourced. Would you like to revise
your current bid?
RQ: We have our costs cut pretty fine already. We could not match that
with U.S. production.
WM: We have a good relationship and would like to continue that, but my
boss is going to ask some tough questions if I don't give this bid
serious consideration.
RQ: Let me talk to our BOD and get back to you in a week.
---------
RQ: OK, the BOD has voted to acquire manufacturing facilities in Asia.
We will have a new bid to you as soon as we finalize the numbers.
WM: Of course, we prefer to source U.S.-made, but offshore is acceptable
if the quality is maintained.

I can't help but think that we're now paying the price for the fat cat wages
we've come to expect, wages that are, for the most part, unrealistic in the
scheme of things.

Seems to me that most folks have lost sight of the fact that we live in a
world economy------an economy that is struggling to achieve equilibrium.
It makes no sense that some poor fool in China works for a nickel/hour, no
more than it makes sense for an unskilled laborer to "earn" $15.00/hr in
the US. Never mind the bleeding heart response that everyone deserves a
living wage. Why is that? I don't recall any guarantees in life, aside
from death and taxes. Seems to me we should be encouraged to achieve a
level of education such that we can *earn* a living wage. Gee---what an
original thought!

As much as Ed seems to think that my thinking is skewed when I say it, we've
had too much too long in the US, but the day of the free lunch is over.
The harsh reality is that any job that is paying unreasonable wages is going
to be gone for ever, assuming it can be shipped over seas. When all of
those jobs are gone, the balance of the people that are still being paid
more than their worth will find they have no one to serve----because those
that remain won't have the income to pay unreasonable fees for their
services.

Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than a fond
memory. As it should be.

Harold

"Ignoramus19860" wrote in message
...
snip---------

In the past, there were many economic changes that make skillsets
obsolete, with economic dislocations of varying severity. They all
became sorted out eventually, to our benefit, although perhaps too
late for some people who were actually dislocated.

i

Good point. The makers of buggy whips come to mind. Any maybe wagon
builders.

Harold

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Rex B" wrote in message
...
Tony wrote:
Competition is good, but there's more to it in Walmarts case. I think
its
wrong when WalMart tells Rubbermaid "Either move production to China and
lower the "price point" of your product, or we will find someone who
will."
And when 40% of Rubbermaid sales are to WM, they are beholden to WM.
I doubt that's how it played out. It was probably more like:

WM buyer: We have an offshore company bidding on your segment. They are
25% lower on the same quality, Asia-sourced. Would you like to revise
your current bid?
RQ: We have our costs cut pretty fine already. We could not match that
with U.S. production.
WM: We have a good relationship and would like to continue that, but my
boss is going to ask some tough questions if I don't give this bid
serious consideration.
RQ: Let me talk to our BOD and get back to you in a week.
---------
RQ: OK, the BOD has voted to acquire manufacturing facilities in Asia.
We will have a new bid to you as soon as we finalize the numbers.
WM: Of course, we prefer to source U.S.-made, but offshore is acceptable
if the quality is maintained.

I can't help but think that we're now paying the price for the fat cat wages
we've come to expect, wages that are, for the most part, unrealistic in the
scheme of things.

Seems to me that most folks have lost sight of the fact that we live in a
world economy------an economy that is struggling to achieve equilibrium.
It makes no sense that some poor fool in China works for a nickel/hour, no
more than it makes sense for an unskilled laborer to "earn" $15.00/hr in
the US. Never mind the bleeding heart response that everyone deserves a
living wage. Why is that? I don't recall any guarantees in life, aside
from death and taxes. Seems to me we should be encouraged to achieve a
level of education such that we can *earn* a living wage. Gee---what an
original thought!

As much as Ed seems to think that my thinking is skewed when I say it, we've
had too much too long in the US, but the day of the free lunch is over.
The harsh reality is that any job that is paying unreasonable wages is going
to be gone for ever, assuming it can be shipped over seas. When all of
those jobs are gone, the balance of the people that are still being paid
more than their worth will find they have no one to serve----because those
that remain won't have the income to pay unreasonable fees for their
services.

Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than a fond
memory. As it should be.

Harold


Should have been that way all along. You sound like a manager of some
sort. Managers are simply looking for TODAY'S bottom line. If they see a
way to reduce costs by dumping jobs to overseas competition, they'll do
it. They could make better attempts to be more COMPETITIVE but they're
too busy trying to be more PROFITABLE & many see TODAY'S highest dollar
as more important than being in business tomorrow. Managers are looking
for IMMEDIATE answers. I feel that reducing over-priced wages should
allow more jobs to theoretically stay where they are but only
temporarily. I don't see that simply increasing the population's
education level will allow the population to *earn* a living wage. Where
are all these educated people going to work? So I'm educated, so what -
the jobs are going overseas to unregulated & government subsidized
companies. A complete lifestyle change will have to occur as well. I
don't see that happening easily or overnight. I also see this as
increasingly more difficult to sell to the population while they watch
completely outlandish salaries & bonuses continue to increase for CEO's,
upper level management, etc. Not to mention the pay raises & perks (huge
pensions & no S.S. crap) our U.S. government continually receives &
votes for themselves. Ahhhh, but this is where the higher level
education will take us, right? How many CEO's, business unit managers,
does this world need? Millions & millions? Watch what's happening to
Delphi in Michigan. Those employees realize a pay cut is coming. How
many of us could take a 60% pay cut and continue to live the way they've
been accustomed to live? A complete lifestyle change would come with
that kind of pay cut. Of course you'd be resistant that THAT radical of
a change. Management allowed wages to get this high because of their own
GREED. Blue collar employees DO NOT run the company.

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

As much as Ed seems to think that my thinking is skewed when I say it, we've
had too much too long in the US, but the day of the free lunch is over.
The harsh reality is that any job that is paying unreasonable wages is going
to be gone for ever, assuming it can be shipped over seas. When all of
those jobs are gone, the balance of the people that are still being paid
more than their worth will find they have no one to serve----because those
that remain won't have the income to pay unreasonable fees for their
services.

Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than a fond
memory. As it should be.

I guess you can say goodby to your social security check. Once all those
wages go away, and nobody is there to tax, to pay into your fund, the
thing's gonna collapse.

Remember, each one of those $15 hr burger flippers is paying into
*your* check!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Stephen Young says...

Should have been that way all along. You sound like a manager of some
sort. Managers are simply looking for TODAY'S bottom line. If they see a
way to reduce costs by dumping jobs to overseas competition, they'll do
it. They could make better attempts to be more COMPETITIVE but they're
too busy trying to be more PROFITABLE & many see TODAY'S highest dollar
as more important than being in business tomorrow. ....

This is the pizza theory, as discussed by the head of, what, Continental
Airlines?

The idea is, if you make pizzas, and you are a manager rewarded for
cutting costs, eventually you will come up with the bright idea for
leaving the cheese off the pizza.

Makes sense, right? Think of how much money you can save doing that,
all the raw materials costs, all the labor, takes less time to cook,
and so on.

So you do that, and you will get all kinds of brownie points for
saving a few bucks for the company. Great stuff, right?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:57:10 -0600, RAM^3 wrote:

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:51:48 GMT, "carl mciver"
| wrote:
|
| Wal-Mart
| works closely with its suppliers to both push and pull them into
efficient
| logistics, which is one of the reasons you would be hard pressed to
find
a
| Wal-Mart warehouse anywhere, since all of their inventory is almost
always
| in transit from the manufacturer to the stores. Except for near
Christmas,
| when every Wal-Mart rents dozens of shipping containers for storage to
keep
| up with the massive flow of goods flying out of the stores.
|
| I won't comment on the good or bad of WalMart. But I can't let this
| incorrect statement stand unchallenged.
|
| The latest info I could find was 2001. There were 78 WM distribution
| centers in operation. The only states not within a 200 mile radius
| were Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

I'll take your word for it. In all my travels, I think I've only seen
one, and I don't think it was that big. I would imagine that the stock
contained inside is in constant movement and most stuff stays only long
enough to transfer from one truck to another. I would bet they'd give UPS
a
run for their money in that kind of operations, for sure!


LOL

The ones I've seen [Dallas, Kansas City?, elsewhere] have all been HUGE!

At least 2 stories high, at least 3 blocks long and a block wide - city
blocks, that is.

The roll-up doors - big enough for 3 semis side by side - look like window
openings in the average warehouse.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the same floorplans that Boeing
developed for B-52 modifications at Wichita. (They look to be the same
size.)

The Walmart Distro center in Porterville California is about that
size..and it only supports Californias rural central valley

Gunner

That's something of a non sequiter. Wal Mart doesn't usually carry the
"best quality" anything. Clothing? Electronics? Kitchen appliances?
I can find better quality stuff easily.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Never forget that Walmart is NOT the best place for the best price for
the best quality....that title belongs to whoever decides to offer a
loss leader for the week to lure you into the store.

"Ignoramus19860" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jan 2006 13:36:36 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

I guess you can say goodby to your social security check. Once all those
wages go away, and nobody is there to tax, to pay into your fund, the
thing's gonna collapse.

Remember, each one of those $15 hr burger flippers is paying into
*your* check!

This is, indeed, true, although it is hard to outsource burger
flipping.

snip

Well, maybe it's hard to outsource burger flipping, but at some McDs in
Oregon, the person taking your order at the drive up microphone is in North
Dakota. They might try to move that to Bangalor...

RAM^3 wrote:

LOL

The ones I've seen [Dallas, Kansas City?, elsewhere] have all been HUGE!

At least 2 stories high, at least 3 blocks long and a block wide - city
blocks, that is.

The roll-up doors - big enough for 3 semis side by side - look like window
openings in the average warehouse.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the same floorplans that Boeing
developed for B-52 modifications at Wichita. (They look to be the same
size.)

The distribution building south of Albuquerque is also MONSTROUS. Even
from I25 it looks to be close to a quarter mile square. Thats a lot
of room if all they do is swap stuff between trucks. :-)
...lew...

"Stephen Young" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
snip--

Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than a
fond
memory. As it should be.

Harold



Should have been that way all along.

Absolutely! I've long maintained that people should be paid what they
earn, their real worth. Unearned money costs the consumer, raising prices
unreasonably. It's only a matter of time until it's top heavy and tips
over.

You sound like a manager of some
sort.

Wrong! I've never been in the position of management, aside from having
worked for myself, alone, for 26 years. For your information, I did this
earning, in my very best year, only $52,000 gross. I charged a reasonable
fee for my time------and didn't expect anything more. I earned the
money--which is my point. I'm just trying to not sound hypocritical, as if
it was fine for me to make unearned money, but not the other guy. Anyone
that knows me knows I've always practiced what I preach in that regard.

My position comes from the reality of having had to deal with the economics
of manufacturing, and coming to terms with the idea that you can't get much
more than a job is worth if you want to stay in business. There's plenty
of people willing to work for a reasonable fee that are competing for the
same contracts. Never lose sight of the fact that there is no free lunch.
Someone, somewhere, pays the tab.

Managers are simply looking for TODAY'S bottom line.

Heh! Sears took that approach years ago. Damn near put them out of
business.

I, for one, quit patronizing them for many years, until I had few options,
having moved to a small community where there are few stores from which to
pick. Seems they learned a lesson of sorts, however. They are doing
better. They still sell some low quality junk, but at junk prices.

If they see a
way to reduce costs by dumping jobs to overseas competition, they'll do
it. They could make better attempts to be more COMPETITIVE but they're
too busy trying to be more PROFITABLE & many see TODAY'S highest dollar
as more important than being in business tomorrow. Managers are looking
for IMMEDIATE answers. I feel that reducing over-priced wages should
allow more jobs to theoretically stay where they are but only
temporarily.

Given a reasonable wage scale, and workers with reasonable expectations, it
would be less advantageous for management to move operations-----possibly
insuring longevity of jobs. As it stands, who can blame any corporation
for wanting to move operations to a different country? Yeah, management is
greedy, but workers aren't endearing themselves to management, either.

Did you happen to hear the report today on Public Radio about the impending
layoffs at Ford? The average wage is $27/hr, and does not include
benefits. Sorry to say, I don't recall the name of the woman being
interviewed, but she explained that keeping the employees on the payroll was
costing Ford over $100,000/year/employee, including benefits. While
they'll continue to be paid a high percentage of their wages when the job is
gone, until the contract under which they've been working expires, in the
long haul, Ford will benefit. They'll have eliminated wage earners that
have no particular skills, and are earning outrageous wages. Don't be
surprised when you see the work they've been doing show up in another
country.

I don't see that simply increasing the population's
education level will allow the population to *earn* a living wage. Where
are all these educated people going to work? So I'm educated, so what -
the jobs are going overseas to unregulated & government subsidized
companies.

I agree. Being educated isn't the answer, not in the sense of formal
education. What I'm talking about is preparing one's self to make a living.
It need not be with a college degree, although it would be nice to have one.
How about learning a skill, then working for a reasonable fee? Instead, we
have, in many instances, fools that have dropped out of high school, no
qualifications of any kind, taking jobs that can be filled by most anyone
off the street, then demanding (and often getting) wages far and away beyond
value. They want a "living wage", but didn't do anything to prepare
themselves to earn one. For this, we are now paying the price of reality.
Business will stand still for such abuse only so long. Eventually, as I
stated above, it tips over because it's top heavy. It's safe to say it's
tipped over, folks. The Chinese and Indians have taken the jobs. They're
willing to work for modest pay. We're not. It never ceases to amaze me
that many American workers would rather have no job, than one with pay in
keeping with one's qualifications.

A complete lifestyle change will have to occur as well. I
don't see that happening easily or overnight.

A agree, in both cases. Sadly, the lifestyle change should have never been a
part of the equation. If workers had been somewhat smarter about their
jobs, taking more pride and turning out a top quality product, *for
reasonable pay*, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. None of us
should have ever been paid unearned money. Maybe, just maybe, had we kept
our demands reasonable, it wouldn't have taken the turn it has taken.
Could be it would have happened anyway, but one thing is for sure. It is
happening.

I also see this as
increasingly more difficult to sell to the population while they watch
completely outlandish salaries & bonuses continue to increase for CEO's,
upper level management, etc. Not to mention the pay raises & perks (huge
pensions & no S.S. crap) our U.S. government continually receives &
votes for themselves. Ahhhh, but this is where the higher level
education will take us, right? How many CEO's, business unit managers,
does this world need? Millions & millions? Watch what's happening to
Delphi in Michigan. Those employees realize a pay cut is coming. How
many of us could take a 60% pay cut and continue to live the way they've
been accustomed to live? A complete lifestyle change would come with
that kind of pay cut. Of course you'd be resistant that THAT radical of
a change. Management allowed wages to get this high because of their own
GREED. Blue collar employees DO NOT run the company.

I agree, but I'm afraid I'd have to say that unions have played a huge role
in where we are today as well. They've encouraged workers to demand more
pay, often for less effort, and have driven wages to the point of no longer
being competitive in a reasonable world market. Couple that with ever
escalating medical costs and the incentive for industry to abandon the
American worker is greater than many can resist. Like it or not, there
will be equilibrium-----it's being driven by us, the people.

I'm not sympathetic towards management. I'm totally revolted by the income
of many of these dudes. When we contribute to any charitable association,
one of the things we research is the pay scale of the CEO. If they're
making a ton of money, our contributions go elsewhere. I don't have a
clue what we can do about the money they receive, but I don't like it any
better than you do.

How do we address this problem?

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

As much as Ed seems to think that my thinking is skewed when I say it,
we've
had too much too long in the US, but the day of the free lunch is over.
The harsh reality is that any job that is paying unreasonable wages is
going
to be gone for ever, assuming it can be shipped over seas. When all of
those jobs are gone, the balance of the people that are still being paid
more than their worth will find they have no one to serve----because
those
that remain won't have the income to pay unreasonable fees for their
services.

Just like cheap oil, over-priced wages will soon be nothing more than a
fond
memory. As it should be.

I guess you can say goodby to your social security check. Once all those
wages go away, and nobody is there to tax, to pay into your fund, the
thing's gonna collapse.

One big difference, like it or not. I earned my social security check. I
paid into the fund for years, and I paid both halves (remember, I was self
employed), unlike most people. I do not make, nor am I willing to make,
an apology for recovering money that was taken from me for years without my
consent. DO NOT BLAME ME for SS. I, too, was a victim.
..

Remember, each one of those $15 hr burger flippers is paying into
*your* check!

And I'm for ever grateful for their contribution. Too bad they've priced me
out of their offerings. Minimum wage in Washington is now over $7.60/hr,
Don't recall the exact amount. This for kids flipping burgers? The
results are that it now costs a family of four about $25 for burgers. I
recall buying a cheese burger, order of fries and a medium coke for 72
cents. You could also buy a gallon of gasoline for 22 cents. Sigh.

Harold