Jenksismyhero

Those f'n tea baggers. Why can't they be like liberal protesters?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 01:29 PM) There were long lines to get into "Snakes on a Plane" the night it premiered too..... just sayin.... I think you just proved his point

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) I'm being told by my friend the Hinrich + 17 trade doesn't shed enough salary to pursue two maximum contracts. Can someone explain? the radio was just saying the real number is 33 million, and the bulls are at 30. didn't hear why though

anyone else worried that after all this the bulls come out with nothing or overpaying for 2nd tier players? The scenario: Two easy ones: lebron stays, brings in bosh wade stays, brings in amare Then..... new york and or the nets sign lee, johnson and/or boozer At best we get one of those last three, or none at all. Sigh...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) 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. Far enough, but I dunno that anyone is claiming that Wal-mart is going to be a long term solution. Again, that comes down to people, not whether government decides to let a store to be built.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) 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? I think that's putting the cart before the horse. I don't think Walmart would import its goods if it didn't have to. But it has to because of the problem it's currently fighting: unions. It costs too damned much to manufacture goods in this country. See, the auto industry, the steel industry, etc. See above. They're forced to to some extent to keep their prices down. I agree we should change our buying habits and demand better quality, but it's just not realistic anymore to expect companies not to seek out the lowest possible alternative. Why would someone pay 50 bucks for a tshirt that I can get for 15? Why wouldn't a company outsource so that it can maintain that low price? And I think your example makes sense, but now the question is what is government's responsibility in that scenario? Do you continue letting a dying neighborhood die, or do you accept that fact that nothing is really going to change the situation (until people themselves start acting for themselves) so you might as well try to at least provide the community with some means of getting better. I totally agree Walmart isnt the best choice in a general scenario, but unfortunately it is the best choice in a lot of these communities today (simply because of the 1 billion they're agreeing to spend).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 12:20 PM) This: 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. 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. Again, what's the alternative here? Where's the line of potential commercial developers willing to go into those neighborhoods in this current economy. In theory, sure, I'd love a factory or something to go into certain neighborhoods that need jobs, but that's not reality. It can't perpetuate a cycle when it's offering more to people that they had before. No one is arguing that they're suddenly going to become rich because of walmart, but they'll be in a better position. This isn't a company town situation like you're making it. And how is a major grocery store any different? How many convenience stores are they going to put out of business? How do you propose getting local farmers into these areas for a market? So, everyone stop shopping at walmart and don't allow walmart into these areas and the people there will be better off?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 11:28 AM) 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. 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. It's a general comment that you're arguing some big company is taking over and destroying little shops. Destroying little shops and putting people out of business has happened before and will continue to happen. So fine, replace Henry Ford with the founder of all the major banks, grocery stores, electronic stores, etc etc etc. They all put the local mom and pop store out of business, yet, as a city, we're not denying them the opportunity to build stores. I don't care how big Walmart is, all of these chain stores have the potential to destroy local business but we look the other way. Ok. Fine. But you still don't think 8.75 is better than nothing? That's my argument. Stop making it into a bigger philosophical argument. First, it's not minimum wage. It's much more than that. Second, who gives a flying f*** if those people turn around and shop at Walmart. The whole point is that THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO REASONABLE GOODS IN THE AREAS THEY LIVE. Nor do they have the INCOME to do so (other than what is provided to them by the government). So boom, you've just created two benefits for those people that will GREATLY improve their quality of life. You keep ignoring the fact that these people have no access to decent food, and that has led them to be some of the unhealthiest people in the city. And I'm not addressing this tax argument because it's not a good one and it has no relevance to the benefits these people will get from having such a store in their neighborhood. Here, maybe this will help: Currently - person A has no access to decent food, has no job, lives on government assistance Potentially - person A has access to decent food, has a job paying MORE than minimum wage (and MORE than the ZERO dollars he was earning before) and probably STILL is on government assistance. So WTF cares if the taxpayer continues to pay towards their government assistance, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT. It's not something NEW. Now, if you'd like to argue that we should get rid of government assistance all together, and THEN complain about Walmart maybe not providing a high enough wage, that's an argument I'd partake in.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 10:12 AM) 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. 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. As to your second point, again, please sign my petition to sue Henry Ford for ruining my great grandfathers livery stable. That SOB's evil, greedy business model ruined an entire industry. Just like in every other time of history, when businesses close or someone comes out with a better product, those that get left behind have to adapt. As Tex says, big box stores are just better at what they do. There's still room for the mom and pop store. Become more specialized, that's the key. But this is a process that started decades ago. It's not like it just happened. And how you can argue "lack of opportunities" when you yourself are denying them one? I think the disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of a middle class neighborhood (like in your study) whereas i'm coming from the 40% unemployed, highest crime rate, highest obesity rate, lack of any meaningful jobs, and a food desert neighborhood. Let's assume that Wal-mart will crush EVERY business in that area. It's STILL better for those neighborhoods' health and economy because there's nothing there to begin with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) 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. 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. And I think you're assuming these people are professional career oriented people. They're not. But maybe, hopefully, their kids can be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 09:49 AM) I'm asking you to define that difference. Where is the cutoff? And no one is demanding that everyone makes $50k, just that we work towards improving things for the working poor instead of status quo or worse. Why does it matter? We're not talking hypotheticals here. $8.75 is what they've agreed to pay. I don't think that approaches poverty levels in anyway.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 06:30 AM) How many times do I have to explain it? Manufacturing was once a good career for lower-skilled workers to move into. A Walmart job could be considered a stepping stone between a literal McJob and something more. Walmart is a big part of manufacturing going overseas. Their purchasing power allows them to dictate price cuts to their suppliers, and the price cuts they dictate force the suppliers to look to cheap, exploitable overseas labor. Walmart's market share forces others to follow similar patterns or go out of business to Walmarts "always low prices". And why not take a look at the report I posted showing that Walmart didn't add any jobs to Chicago when it came in? And that, nationally, they eliminate 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. And that they cause others to go out of business, leaving them the only game in town. Do you see why it's cyclical? It's low pay. Most employees are part-time. There's no advancement. They eliminate other opportunities. They become the only store available, so their employees only shop there. By the way, where's your cutoff for "better than nothing" rationale? Are sweatshops ok because, hey, $.50 a day is better than the $0 they were making before? If not, where is the acceptable point and how do you determine it? It hasn't been that way for YEARS, and again, how is Walmart different than any other big box store in that way? SO they're bigger. Fine. It's not like the Targets and Best Buys of the world are mom and pop shops. Their goods aren't made 2 blocks away by locals either. And that report was based on a completely different area of the city than what I've been talking about. I'm talking about a barren wasteland of commercial development. I'm sure I can find you a study that shows that when a Walmart goes into a new development area, it also brings in tons of other businesses that want to be in the same area (think strip malls with a Gamestop, a Starbucks, a cell phone store, etc). I get your concern that Wal-mart sucks business out of the local establishments. But again, (1) where's the outcry for any other big box store moving into Chicago and (2) I'm talking about neighborhoods that don't have those establishiments in place, so that's not a concern. Clearly there's a difference between sweatshop pay and a retail job. When did this country get so damned high and mighty about $8.75 an hour?! Not everyone can make 100k a year. Not everyone chose a proper career path to be able to do that. Sometimes 8.75 starting is the best someone can do, and that's just life. It's not societies responsibility to make sure those people get paid 50k a year becasue that's what middle class is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) Do you honestly not see how every other sentence in that paragraph contradicts the previous one? They're at a baseline of zero because of jobs going overseas. Jobs have gone overseas thanks in large part to Walmart. So, Walmart coming in after destroying any real job opportunities for domestic low-skilled workers and offering them retail jobs isn't some great net gain. And, yes, if there were actually jobs available that paid a decent wage (oh, say, all of the manufacturing/ factory jobs we've shipped away in order to drive down prices!), they wouldn't be on government assistance. It is far from a net gain on all fronts, and simply asserting that doesn't make it true. edit: you're assuming that the high rate of unemployment isn't due, at least in part, to Walmart. Dude, we're talking about the extreme ghetto here, not some pure middle class neighborhood. There are few mom and pop shops that would be concerned with Wal-mart's influence. They don't even have grocery stores. The people are not ones that would work in those types of jobs anyway (the ones supposedly being lost overseas), and even they were, I dunno why Wal-mart is the only cause of it. It's EVERY major chain in EVERY major industry of commercial goods. With this argument we should ban any new Best Buy, Target, CostCo, Sams, Kohls, etc from coming into any neighborhood. And how can the rate of unemployment be due to Walmart when it doesn't exist there?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) No, you're not. Maybe because you simply refuse to understand it. 8.75 is poverty. Do you not consider $18200 a year poverty? Or is it not poverty because those making that much can rely on government assistance to get by? And, through their business practices, they drive out any sort of higher-paying job for low-skilled workers. They're stuck in retail making poverty level wages. You haven't even begun to address that. Walmart "saves the poor money" by shipping the jobs they could get paying more than $8.75 overseas. That is the problem. And if you're going to consider Walmart goods as low price for yourself (I'm assuming you're better than poverty and pay more in taxes than any refunds, services, etc.), you need to factor in all of those tax breaks and the government assistance all of their employees need. They've found an economically brilliant way of exploiting that system. Well, it's not poverty unless you're assuming there's a family of 4 being provided for with that income. I paid for part of my first year of college on a $5.15/hr job (2000-2001). As someone else said, you're not going to do much better working at a fast food joint anyways. We're not talking about building an entire industry full of professional level jobs here. That's just not going to happen. This is the best alternative (especially adding in the fact that they're also providing these neighborhoods with an actual source of decent food) And besides, as I've said from the beginning, in the areas I'm talking about, ANY job = wealthy. You're viewing this on a national scale, which isn't realistic. You're saying that Wal-mart isn't necessarily a good thing because they don't provide enough. You need to compare it to what's already in these poor areas, which is basically nothing. 40% unemployment man. That's a ridiculous amount. Again, everything you're talking about, your forgetting that we're starting at a baseline of zero here. These people i'm talking about HAVE NOTHING and MAKE NOTHING. So who cares that Wal-mart ships jobs overseas or that their also on government assitance (as if that fact is going to change even when they get a job)? It's a net gain on all fronts, hence why I'm a big fan of it.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) Blasphemy You think? I mean, it had such a Sixth Sense vibe, but they gave it away in the trailer. And the pacing was go go go from the start. I will give Scorcese this though - unlike 95% of his movies, this one I didn't feel like 45 minutes needed to be cut.

Anyone else see Shutter Island? Gotta say I was kinda disappointed. Saw the ending a mile away, and I just never got hooked into it. Felt like with a different director that could have been a really, really good movie.

They're heeeeeeeeeeerrrreee... http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06...way-system.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) Huh? Yeah, I find lots of sales listed online. They're almost never better than grocery stores. Beyond that though, every year or two some group does the survey and finds that for most items, Walmart's prices are fairly easily beat. The classic example is when Walmart lost the suit about their former slogan "always the lowest price" and had to change it to "always low prices". The comb is another example. Random link Hmm. Interesting. I mean, i didn't think they'd be the lowest price for everything, but I did for most things. I'll have to check out that report.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) Because they also have this nasty habit of creating a large number of poor people by putting what businesses do exist out of business. Also...they're often not the cheapest place for basic goods. I never shop at Walmart, because I can constantly get better prices at other stores, aside from any ideological reason. Walmart's game is to try to have the lowest price on enough core items, on the handful of "rollback" items that they advertise or on a few items that people know the price of, that they can charge you a lot more for other items and you'll still think you're getting a good price. That said, compared to the costs of having large traveling distances for any sort of quality item or fresh produce, there are inherent advantages as well. Someone sue Henry Ford because my great grandfather's livery yard went out of business as soon as he invented the Model T. That's a crap argument IMO, unless you extend it to any business that doesn't sell about 10 items total - grocery stores, electronic stores, shoe stores, blah blah blah. They all put the "little guy" out of business. Even still, there are PLENTY of examples of mom and pop shops that still survive, despite having every large box store within a 5 mile radius. And that doesn't even apply to the situations i'm talking about, where there are no small businesses to put out of business. And where are you finding these prices at actual retail stores? Online doesn't count.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) that is not my position and that's not what I'm advocating. You erected a strawman of what I was saying to easily knock it down. You keep ignoring what I'm actually saying. If you keep committing glaring logical fallacies instead of addressing someone's argument, I'll continue to point that out to you. It's hard to have a discussion when you won't honestly address what the other person is saying or keep trying to shift your arguments. 8.75 is poverty. Walmart moving in and paying 8.75 isn't going to break poverty and it isn't going to give additional marketable skills or significant advancement opportunity. That's why is simply perpetuates the cycle. Walmart's business practices are a major factor in non-poverty level jobs for low-skilled workers going overseas, and there's a variety of other reasons why, generally, Walmart has a negative effect for the poor in this country. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to expand on that. But, in the mean time, can you actually address the issue I brought up instead of lying about what I'm saying? I'm addressing it! I'm arguing that you can't perpetuate a cycle of poor when you're being offered more than you were previously. Even if you consider 8.75 per hour a wage below the poverty line (which I don't), it's still putting that person in a better position. That's my point. Wal-mart is providing not only those people, but also the city, financial incentives, which apparently the union just ignores. If you want to argue that they should be paid more than that, fine, make that argument. But you can't discredit my point by simply saying "well, 8.75 still isn't very good" which is basically what you're doing. We're starting from a point of zero here - there's no property, sales or income taxes being generated, there are no wages being earned (assumption here obviously, but i'm assuming some of these stores will be going to poorer areas where access to even "poor" jobs like this are difficult), there's nothing. The minute the deal is signed Wal-mart and the city have employed thousands of laborers, and thereafter tens of thousands of retail workers. Cash will be spent, taxes will be generated, and most importantly, people will have access to decent food (Yes, I consider Wal-mart's produce equally as good as most Jewel/Dominick's in the city....not as good as your produce-only market, but for a gigantic supermarket chain, yes) and a decent job. The hope is that their standard of living increases just a tad. And I would like to know how Wal-mart's have a negative effect on the poor. They're the cheapest place around for basic goods. It saves the poor money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 02:43 PM) I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you cannot follow an argument without turning it completely into a strawman. as per usual, you give no argument, you just like to categorize/label responses. "Straw man! Shifting goal posts! Look at me, I see what you're doing!" I said 8.75/hr is better than 0. You responded by saying that's just continuing a perpetual cycle. When I asked why, you answered because Walmart doesn't pay good enough wages. I'm still waiting for you to answer how in some of these areas, with crazy high unemployment (40%), where Walmart will provide a job to those that don't have one, how exactly is it perpetuating the cycle for poor people? They're being paid a wage that they weren't being paid before. Edit: I should say they're being offered that wage. They actually have to apply for a job and get it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Actually, 0 times anything is still zero. And 8.75 is still poverty level. But, I'll just repeat: They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies. Walmart drives out other employment opportunity for low-skilled workers. They're stuck making poverty-level wages and relying on government support while Walmart makes large profits. That's why it's a perpetual poverty cycle. edit for your edit: Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with? Reduced property taxes due to large tax breaks; incredibly high amounts for government assistance for Walmart employees because they'd rather instruct their employees on how to use government benefits than to actually provide said benefits or increased pay. I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out. I'm not talking about situations where you're putting a Wal-mart in the middle of lincoln park or lakeview (although how wal-mart is any different than the 100 Targets in the city is beyond me), i'm talking about putting them in the poorest neighborhoods of the city (or on the edge of them....anywhere in the vicinity of them) and how that'd be beneficial to the people there, regardless of any benefit Wal-mart might get from that. Like I said, they're the only store willing to build in those areas. There's nothing else coming down the pipeline. The unions are arguing that a couple bucks more would be better. Yeah, it'd be better, but it's not better than having a worse job or no job at all. As to the tax burden, who cares if they pay less property taxes? You're starting from zero. So ANY taxes would be a gain. And gov't assistance? Now you have a problem paying out government assistance? To people who actually work? So confused... Also, Rex, even if propping up current businesses is an option (in these areas i'm talking about, they probably don't exist anyway), that's you and me paying for that, not a big company. Where do we fit that into the budget? Raise taxes?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) It supports a perpetual cycle of poverty and shovels a lot of the cost burden onto the tax payer while Walmart rakes in big bucks. Why should they be receiving large tax breaks on both real estate tax and on paying their workers? A lot of stores sell crap with little regard for how or where it was manufactured. Walmart is one of them. Supports a perpetual system?! It's 8.75 times BETTER than what they currently have. How is that perpetuating the cycle? Seems to me it's breaking the cycle. Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with? And they should be given breaks because they're the only game in town offering a BILLION dollars of investment into the city (and hundreds of millions of new tax revenue every year). You guys are arguing as if the situation now is perfect. The city is losing money left and right and a lot of the poorest areas of the city lack ANY interest in commercial development.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:21 PM) Sure there's an argument against them. They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies. Walmart passes the buck on to the taxpayer*. They also sell a whole lot of crap with bad manufacturing practices and exhibit little to no care for how and where their products are produced, so long as they get them cheap, cheap, cheap! *edit: and as rex points out, they rely on huge tax breaks to come in and build in the first place. I consider an $8.75/hr job more liveable than $0.00/hr lack of a job. But maybe I'm crazy. And who cares if they get tax breaks? They'd bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new tax revenue, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs they'd create. And they don't sell crap. That's such a false statement. They sell "crap" like every other store sells crap. It all comes from the same source.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) Walmart doesn't put themselves in those neighborhoods. Trenton, where I live now, has some of the worst neighborhoods and some of the poorest neighborhoods in the state. They also have an Urban Enterprise Zone which cuts sales tax in half and plenty of areas to make something like that happen. So where is the Walmart? In Lawrenceville, 15 minutes by car away in a city where a lot of people rely on a poor bus system for transportation. It's funny, this isn't exclusive to Walmart either. Seemingly every supermarket in my city sits literally just across the city limits in a neighboring municipality. If Chicago asked Walmart to come in - do you think they'd open shop in the 9th ward? My money would be on "not a chance." They've offered to build several dozen stores. I find it highly unlikely an alderman would be advocating for those stores so strongly if he wasn't going to get one in the ward he represents.