StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:26 AM) And the Paulites don't? No, not really imo. The Palinites are going to support the new Texas GOP platform, the paulites tend towards paleoconservative or libertarian actual small government views.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) Then he should have said how WELL it will work, not just how it will work. It may have been poorly phrased, but in context I think it's clear what he meant. I'm in agreement here.

tea baggers come in two flavors--paulites and palinites. The paulites are your classic libertarians, but your palinites are not fighting against government intervention. They just want their own brand of it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) God I wish I were, but I'm not. Read the article. I believe he's talking about efficacy of their regulations, ie how well it will work, not that nobody understands the bill they wrote.

I'm pretty sure you're taking that out of context.

So why can't teams trade before the draft? And everyone is amped up because the bulls may or may not have made cap room, but nothing has actually happened for sure yet?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) And about all the battery talk, it's a shame battery technology is still back in the 80s and not keeping up with computer/cell phone technology. As far as the Android OS, the new 2.2 release is supposed to be more efficient and should help preserve battery life. Is that really true? My guess is we're just sucking down more and more power. See the same thing with car engines--MPG has stayed flat or crept up a little while power increases have gone through the roof.

Another Sox winner, but Floyd gets screwed out of another win opportunity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) No, they want it out of your ass, thank you very much...

Limited economic governance. Extremely high levels of social and individual governance.

As you shop different stores, you should be building a mental map of what costs what and where. You can go to store A week 1, store B week 2 etc. and stock up on what's good there to avoid having to go to all of them on the same day.

Jenks, I'll concede that, in the short term, this may help community residents (I'd like to see a follow-up study to the Loyola/ UIC one a few years from now, but they may be very difficult due to various economic factors). But long term, no, this won't help them or communities like it across the country.

Texas GOP platform: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and pornography Religious fundamentalism is bad.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) Even "American" products aren't made in America anymore. A friend of mine was just looking at a Chevy that's assembled in Canada with an engine from China and a transmission from Japan. You can find things legitimately made in America. They cost more and aren't nearly as plentiful on store shelves.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) There's nothing else in the foreseeable future coming into those areas. You're eseentially arguing that Walmart isn't good enough, and that maintaining the status quo is better. I just fundamentally disagree with that. No I'm not: Finally, you're assuming that the only way to get reasonable goods and food to an impoverished area is Walmart. We could, instead, bring in actual grocery stores, farmers markets, food co-ops, etc. etc. that could also provide employment benefits. You know, like the programs proposed that started this thread. But the tax breaks go to those with bigger pockets and bigger influence.. I'm arguing that Walmart-as-savior apologia only ensures that the situation continues to get worse across this country. And why isn't manufacturing in this country a reality? Could it be big box retailers, led by Walmart, using their purchasing power to drive their suppliers to overseas workers? Yes, it can perpetuate a cycle of poverty when they're paying them poverty-level wages and their business practices make sure decent jobs they could reasonably obtain keep getting sent away instead. That's the cycle. A grocery store doesn't need to have the outsourcing demands placed on suppliers. They may not drive jobs out of the country. Walmart doesn't need to do this, either, but they chose to. Everyone change shopping habits from buying cheap crap imported all over the world to actually supporting our own citizens and yes, in the long run, things will be better off. With the Walmart system, things will only continue to get worse. 1.Person A is growing up and sees relatives and neighbors working good manufacturing jobs. They're not wealthy by any means, but they make a good living for their family. 2.Company B comes in and forces all of its suppliers to look to overseas work. 3.Person A sees the factories closing, people losing jobs and the neighborhood declining. After graduating HS, they have no employment prospects in their area and little way to get out. they're stuck in poverty. 4.Company B comes in and SuperStore in Person A's impoverished neighborhood. Person A should be thankful that Company B is willing to pay them less than $20,000 a year because, hey, it's better than nothing! 5.Person A gets a job at Company B's store making little money. Being the only store around, he also shops at Company B. And hey, they have decent food and reasonable prices. This doesn't seem so bad, except that this step reinforces step 2. Hence, a feedback loop or a cycle encouraging the removal of decent jobs and replacing them (1:1 at best, usually lower) with bad ones. It's happened all over this country and it's not sustainable. Not everyone can get into a professional career like lawyer, doctor, business manager etc., and it's especially difficult when coming from poverty.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:34 PM) Are these mom-and-pop shops that are disappearing really offering better wages, more opportunity for advancment and better benefits? I've barely mentioned local small businesses. It's the manufacturing/ industrial jobs that have disappeared from this country that are bringing down the lower and middle classes, and Walmart's business practices are a part of that. Remember when they used to proudly advertise "Made in America"?

This: QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) WTF does this matter?!?! I'm not arguing that having a walmart on EVERY street corner in the country is a good thing. I'm limiting it to these incredibly poor areas that have no other similar options for jobs OR goods. I don't give a s*** about a philosophical argument about where you and I think the poverty line is. As I said 14 pages ago, we're not talking about putting an entire industry of 15k professional level jobs there, we're talking reality, which is a company that is bring JOBS to a place with LITTLE TO NOT JOBS and LITTLE HOPE FOR JOBS. So wtf cares that they're not getting a "reasonable" wage (according to you), what they're being offered is ABOVE the minimum wage, and IMO more than reasonable. There’s no other point in debating this topic because you and I just differ on what the responsibility of a company should be in its pay to people. Fine, agree to disagree. My whole point is that their current offer is immensely better than what they currently have. There’s no need to define where that grey line fits. And this: Don't make sense. The whole argument is over what level of wage is "better than nothing." I don't think $8.75 and continuing the path we're on is better than nothing in the long run, you do. So, there is a deeper question that needs to be addressed: what level is acceptable? That's what the argument really is about and that's what needs to be addressed because it gets to the assumptions and underlying factors of what that wage really represents. You need to justify why that $8.75 and everything that comes with further expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores is better than trying to fight against expansion of Walmart and Walmart-like stores and business practices. You can't just look at $8.75>$0 and walk away, pretending that's actually solving any real issues. I'm arguing against jobs disappearing and being replaced 1 to 1 at best with low-paying, no-advancement retail jobs. That is not the same as assembly lines or new technology that replaces old jobs with new, better or equal jobs. And yeah, this argument can be applied against a lot of big box stores, but Walmart gets targeted because they're the biggest and probably the worst. First, $8.75 is not "much more" than $8.00, the current IL minimum wage. Second, you're supporting my claim of the poverty cycle. Walmart (and others) drive out industrial jobs -> poor, unemployed people should be thankful to Walmart for coming in and giving them $8.75/ hour -> they have to spend their money at the only store in town - > Walmart gets stronger, driving out more and more industrial and even decent retail jobs as well as small businesses. Finally, you're assuming that the only way to get reasonable goods and food to an impoverished area is Walmart. We could, instead, bring in actual grocery stores, farmers markets, food co-ops, etc. etc. that could also provide employment benefits. You know, like the programs proposed that started this thread. But the tax breaks go to those with bigger pockets and bigger influence. You're right, the taxpayer burden is tangential to the issue of whether or not this really helps the poor. I think it's a reasonable argument against middle class shopping at Walmart for artificially low prices, but it doesn't have bearing on Walmart's direct effect on poor urban areas.

Also, is North and Kilpatrick really a middle class neighborhood? http://www.wildonions.org/ChicagoResource/...Information.htm edit: No, not really: http://www.uicni.org/page.php?section=neig...bsection=austin According to statistics from the Chicago Public Schools' lunch program, 90% of the children who attend Austin public schools are from poor families, 6% are working poor and 4% are lower-middle income. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the per capita income in Austin is approximately $12,823. So, that previous UIC/ Loyla study is directly applicable to poorer neighborhoods in Chicago with low median incomes and high unemployment.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) Aren't these people already relying on government programs? Yes. And Walmart relies on them remaining on government programs to keep their prices superficially low.

hey, jenks paid for part of a year of college on less than that! what are these poor people complaining about! We end up paying the real costs of these goods through all of the government programs their employees rely on and the tax breaks they get. Walmart just gets to make big profit in the middle.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 11:25 AM) I would argue that you might be paying a little more on some items but you are saving on time and gas and sometimes convinience if you have to run out at 3AM and no other place is open. In more metropolitan areas, sure, but study after study shows a new Walmart significantly increases the odds of small businesses going under for a 20 or 30 mile radius in rural areas. So now your local grocer is closed and you've got to drive 20 miles to the store one way. It's in the literature review section of the study I posted up thread, and you can follow the cite to the original studies. edit: and you also have to drive that much further to work because Walmart's one of the only stores for miles and miles now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) IT DOESN'T MATTER. I deal in the world of reality, and in that world, we're talking about $8.75 an hour, which is plenty. End of debate. It does matter, because that's the heart of the damned argument. It's a philosophical difference between what's acceptable or not. I reject your "it's better than nothing" argument and I'm asking you to define where on the continuum between sweatshops and low-paying dead end jobs you find that argument to fail. Extremely low wages are "real world' and hey, guess what, Walmart relies on them to sell their products so cheap. That is not comparable. Henry Ford's methods replaced jobs with new and different ones. What jobs are Walmart adding to our economy? They're removing manufacturing and best-case scenario are 1 for 1 on retail. I don't consider $8.75/ hr to be a real opportunity at a career with decent pay. You're redefining terms. Do we have evidence of Walmart creating an entire economy on its own? That's what you're arguing for here. Walmart's going to come into an area with no jobs and no business, employ people for minimum wage and then those people will turn right back around and spend all of their money at Walmart. Great 'company store' model for Walmart, but will it really improve the quality of life? And you're still not addressing the tax issue. Why should the taxpayer support Walmart's low wages so they can keep bringing in large profits?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) I'll go with at or under the current minimum wage for a single person, given all of the government assistance those people can also get. Well, then we're right back to my original point: Walmart shoves the true cost of employment on to the taxpayers, so their "low prices" really aren't as low when you figure out the tax support for their millions employees they underpay. Oh, and of course, the Waltons continue to rake in billions thanks to this. If we eliminate the government assistance, then we're right in the thick of poverty or Walmart has to actually pay reasonable wages instead of relying on the tax payers to do so. Still, you haven't really answered the question clearly. Would $4 be ok, because hey, it's better than $0? $2? $6? Where's the cutoff? I'm assuming any hope of a career making a decent wage the working poor may have had, such as in the once-large manufacturing sector, is gone, thanks in large part to Walmart (and companies like them) sending everything overseas. And, because of the crushing cycle of poverty and lack of opportunities, their kids probably won't be able to escape.

I'm asking for your definition of poverty, and you keep being evasive. What level of wages and benefits (or lack thereof) is truly considered a positive over unemployment? We both seem to agree sweatshop-like conditions are not as that is flagrant exploitation of the poor (hey guess what Walmart relies on for a lot of overseas cheap labor!). Also consider the impact Walmart has on their future employment/ career opportunities outside of low-paying retail jobs.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) Lower prices compared to Mom and Pop. Every national retailer, Target, Jewel, Costco, Sams, Best Buy undercut the locals. So a few jobs are lost but all their customers are paying lower prices, improving their quality of life. This is the ugly side of our economy. Walmart and others found a better way to distribute goods and kicked local asses. Yes, and that's by paying people in developing countries very little money and generally not giving a s*** about them or their environment. Also, Jewel is a regional store.