Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: katiedidit1
total bs.
I am guessing that global warming scientists were the ones that researched this.
To: katiedidit1
Unions making shiite up and feeding it to the media through a stooge in academia. Say ANYTHING!
3 posted on
02/03/2011 2:41:15 PM PST by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
To: katiedidit1
Near the bottom of the 1st page it says:
Planned Wal-Mart stores have long met opposition in places such as Chicago, where last year Wal-Mart secured approval to build two new stores after agreeing to use union labor.
I don't believe this is true. With regard to the article, Walmart tends to benefit the poor directly with low prices.
4 posted on
02/03/2011 2:41:43 PM PST by
scan59
(Markets always regulate better than government can.)
To: katiedidit1
Just watched an interview on Fox News in which Neil Cavuto is very supportive of Walmart. Union thugs and Mom & Pop business’ are opposed and protesting...would be a loss to Brooklyn if Walmart does not open a store there..how dumb are New Yorkers?
To: katiedidit1
If this Walmart were to unionize, all the bitching would stop.
8 posted on
02/03/2011 2:43:10 PM PST by
philled
(Lay on, Macduff! And damned be him that first cries “Hold, enough!”)
To: katiedidit1
...is a tax burden because it does not give health and other benefits to many part-time employees... When I was in school, many places did not offer benefits unless you worked more than 28 hrs in a pay period. I don't remember my place of employment at that time (a prominent Baltimore hospital) being labeled a tax burden.
9 posted on
02/03/2011 2:43:56 PM PST by
edpc
(It's Kräusened)
To: katiedidit1
The decline of America is roughly coincident with the as ascendancy of Walmart. And sealed with Starbucks.
To: katiedidit1
Low-income people in Brooklyn will not tolerate being supplied with the things they use every day at low prices.
They're too smart for that.
13 posted on
02/03/2011 2:48:07 PM PST by
Steely Tom
(Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
To: katiedidit1
I have to admit, I have very mixed feelings about Walmart. On one hand, I love them primarily because the unions hate them - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, kind of thing.
On the other hand, I'm getting sick of cheap Chinese-made crap. We can't import our way into prosperity. Yes, I appreciate that Walmart, by-in-large provides better access to merchandise in greatly under-served rural communities. I just wish they'd source more of their merchandise from US vendors.
I went to a Walmart last week (in south Florida) to buy some groceries. When I got home, I looked at the bag of garlic I purchased, and on the label were the words, "product of China". Walmart can't find a US supplier for fresh garlic?
To: katiedidit1
SEIU funds anti-WalMart "studies?"
Who knew?
15 posted on
02/03/2011 2:48:49 PM PST by
E. Pluribus Unum
("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
To: katiedidit1
Liberals.
Trying to stop a fundamentalist religion from building is un American!
FNYC
18 posted on
02/03/2011 2:54:25 PM PST by
NoLibZone
(Five time DNC backed candidate Fred Phelps: "God sent the shooter".)
To: katiedidit1; All
I wonder if the Free Trade Communists who praise Wal Mart so much....are ever going to admit that Wal Mart is one of the biggest supporters of ObamaCare and Socialized Medicine?
21 posted on
02/03/2011 2:57:25 PM PST by
UCFRoadWarrior
(Michelle Bachmann would make an excellent President)
To: katiedidit1
Woow... Heyaaaahhhh...
I do expect next a prohibition on NY to have New Yorkers...
Whooowwww...
To: katiedidit1
The never ending war against the evil non-union Wal-mart.
24 posted on
02/03/2011 2:58:22 PM PST by
ColdOne
To: katiedidit1
Sam Wall is dead and buried. The company is far from conservative and in recent years has contributed far more to Democrats and liberal causes than Republicans and conservative causes.
28 posted on
02/03/2011 3:02:37 PM PST by
bwc2221
(.)
To: katiedidit1
I find it ironic that Wal-Mart, a retail enterprise that is often a source of employment for the unskilled and that has grown and prospered for almost 50 years by offering basic necessities at low prices to a largely lower-income clientele is berated and harassed by the left, who always claim to be champions of the poor. Of course, to justify opposing Wal-Mart, the left has to downplay the union angle and pretend that not offering full benefits to it's (mostly) part-time workers is a virtual crime against the poor and of course, the usual argument, apparently 'supported' by 'studies' (forgive my cynicism here) that Wal-Mart 'drives out 'neighborhood stores' that either don't really exist due to crime and the poor economy or simply are not competitive and, like any business, cannot sustain their high prices when competition arrives in the form of Wal-Mart. Gee, I thought that the left would be glad to see residents in poor neighborhoods have an opportunity to purchase needed goods at a lower price than the 'local' stores offer them.
However, just as the left opposes school vouchers and would rather see poor kids in failing schools than oppose the powerful teachers unions, so they oppose Wal-Mart to appease the retail unions and too bad if the poor people they pretend to care so much about get hosed in the process. That they can even convince some of these same folks to come out in the cold and protest Wal-Mart speaks volumes about the utter corruption of the political left in America and the hopelessness for those they pretend to 'help' by denying them the opportunity for a better life via saving what little they have by being able to buy necessities at Wal-Mart or obtaining a much-needed job there - or both, in most cases.
To: katiedidit1
"The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impact of Wal-Mart stores ... shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and labor benefits ... pushes out more retail jobs than it creates, and results in more retail vacancies," the report concluded.I can see that as being true but only as far as it goes. Any study based on that alone would be woefully incomplete. WalMart might very well be displacing high paying high benefit union jobs. Furthermore, the economies of scale of a big box store would cause many smaller high-priced retailers out of business.
But what of the increased purchasing power of the community served? How much gets shaved off the average grocery and clothing bills? Where are those savings spent and how many jobs are created or saved as a result.
32 posted on
02/03/2011 3:08:29 PM PST by
NonValueAdded
(Palin 2012: don't retreat, just restock [chg'd to comply w/ The Civility in Discourse Act of 2011])
To: katiedidit1
This is a “report” by - — - who? Anonymous?
Maybe the Egyptians targeting reporters are onto something.
34 posted on
02/03/2011 3:16:46 PM PST by
RoadTest
(Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
To: katiedidit1
The tax burden part is a legitimate bust. They also strain the infrastructure more than they make up for. My theory is that when they have water or sewer problems it should be put on a list with the rest of the problems and fixed as it comes to the top of the list.
37 posted on
02/03/2011 3:21:03 PM PST by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.8)
To: katiedidit1
“The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impact of Wal-Mart stores ... shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and labor benefits ... pushes out more retail jobs than it creates, and results in more retail vacancies,” the report concluded.
And obesity, hair loss, peeling paint, ring around the collar, engine knock, etc.
41 posted on
02/03/2011 3:31:14 PM PST by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson