OK, my responses to each of these points. 1, it isn't the right of employees to receive health care from their employer. It is a benefit of employment. Government forcing companies to offer such benefits makes it a part of minimum wage, and is only a step closer to socialized medicine.
2, In many cases the land is paid for by wal-mart or private investors, but in many cases it isn't. This is something that is standard with almost every large corporation. Amazon, Toyota, and Sykes all got similar deals in Kentucky. 3, This is an opinion, one that I disagree with based on personal experience. I've seen wal-mart come in to areas only improve the area. For instance. Wal-Mart recently (10 years ago) built a store in an area of Lexington near our house. The store was built in an area that was going down. Retail space was empty, and the store quality in the area was low. Now that area is very busy, new shops have gone in, very nice, locally owned shops that specialize in niche markets that wal-mart in general doesn't compete with. Twice this has happened in Lexington. Wal-mart came in, helped with traffic by placing stores in areas closer to the people. Created shopping centers where new shops were able to thrive because of the traffic generated by wal-mart. Sure this is anecdotal, but it is true. I bet this has happened in more places than one. 4, Numbers? There is no arguably, this is something that you should be able to prove. The quality of the goods goes both ways. Sure maybe it won't last as long, however it gives people the ability to try it out for a lower price. The xBox 360, same one everybody else sales. Wal-mart sells it for less. A pair of dance shoes, sure wal-mart sells a lower quality, however for somebody getting in to it, they probably don't want to spend top dollar for shoes they don't know if they will use. > Meanwhile, consumers have access to cheap goods, yes, but the benefit of > this is also debatable if the goods have a much shorter lifetime than > those that could be bought elsewhere. > > None of the above even touches on the costs to the public purse of the > litigation caused by the company's environmental practices, discrimination > or wage and hour practices (over 40 complaints based on the company's own > website). > > You are right in saying that the ultimate solution to this is for people > to stop shopping there. In the meantime though, while the public is being > educated, governments can stop putting food in the trough. > > Dana ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192884 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
