12Footer
Fleet Admiral
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2001
- Messages
- 8,217
Re: wall mart
<br /><br />Let the free market decide. <br /><br />A little sidenote:I seldom go into the wallmart two miles down the road from me. I don't like the crowds, the parking lot, the time it takes to pick up a dozen eggs,or the layout of the store in general. They have lost much potential profits from me, by not catering to my personal shoppng preferences at the expense of their bulk sales. Trust me tho -- they won't miss it!<br />And this too, is as it should be.
<br />"They" would be the governemnt of Mary land, thus, the people of the state. In a representative replublic (a form of government that even allows for socialism via popular vote from it's citizenry), such socialist forms of "Robyn Hood" funding schemes are popular in places like Maryland, California,and Maine. They can exist, and if the individual wants their state to provide their toilet paper, so be it. Let them do so without Wallyworld and me.<br />In the end, it is Wally's deicision to make, not Maryland politicians. <br />I was just stating my opinion, and what I would do given the position of "CEO/Wallyworld". <br /><br />Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> I am so glad that it is just your opinion 12footer. Because it's so full of c**p. Socialist? isn't socialist where the government is so expansive because it takes care of everything for everyone? If I am not misunderstanding you, then if "They ... pay the price instead of the buisness." then isn't that the socialist attitude?
<br />No buisness should be dictated to by the govermnment, unless it is harmfull in any way to anyone. Call it what you will, but personally, i see what Maryland has "forced" Wallyworld into the position of, as no less a form of wealth redistribution, AKA socialism. Words do mean things.<br /><br />They have the right, as does Walmart, to tell them to stick it, and pull-out to friendlier states.<br />If the employees are not happy with their benefits package, they should not settle for them, and find employment elsewhere. After all, I did (literally, too).<br /><br />Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br />Maryland passed this issue to force Walmart to provide some type of health benefits for it's worker, with Walmart as it's major focus, then YES it's wrong, IMHO. But otherwise, someone has to pay for healthcare, and as it is currently with Walmart, it is you and me through our taxes. And was pointed out in the past WW bashing threads, we also pay for the low wages through welfare, medicaid, various accounts default and other unpaid costs that we all then get to pay through higher prices and higher taxes.
I'll get off my high horse when and where i please, as allways. The state has yet to assemble a posse to "force" me out of the saddle.So until then, deal with it.<br /><br />Baby Bush has not done a single thing for wallmart at all. He has not "stepped-in" to "force" them to do anything iether,(or against wallmart). Perhaps, that is what you're seeing as the alleged "aid"? Interesting that you would appear to support the fed to step-in, to force them if the state fails?Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /><br />So for once, get off your high-horse, see the reality and constructively use what gray matter you have, which evidently is sufficient, just misused.<br /><br />As for the post's question, it will be curious to see if the requirement sticks. Baby bush has aided Walmart in it's quest to crush any union attempts and I suspect he will side with corporate money again, as opposed to protecting the interests and Constitutional rights of the American people.