PDA

View Full Version : When did Wal-Mart become the microcosim of America?



JediCole
06-05-2003, 05:01 PM
The title of this thread caught my eye as I was uncertain at first as to its content. Within I found the reproduced article posted which left me with a couple of unanswered questions. The first is posed in the title of my reply.

If one closely examines the subtext of the article, its author suggests that Wal-Mart is in someway threatening the freedom of Americans to make self determinate choices. And yet that contention begs the question, what about Wal-Marts right to make choices? Wal-Mart simply exercised its right as a retail establishment (albiet a corporate juggernaut of American retail sales) to accept or reject any product as part of its inventory. Wal-Mart is not the U.S. Government. Their decision to discontinue sales of these magazines on their newsstands does not have the effect of banning said periodicals from the hands of Americans. Lovers of personal liberties, trite articles with no big words, and those oh-so-busty babes are simply forced to purchase them at 7-11 rather than Wal-Mart. The publishers are in no way forced to cease publication of these magazines and no one's ability to choose to purchase them was eliminated. Simply altered if they were buying from Wal-Mart. And according to facts stated in the article, more of the readership of these magazines purchased them from venues other than Wal-Mart anyway!

The other prevailing question is appicable not only to this article but to an alarming trend in journalism. The old apples and oranges comparison. Columnists and news writers in this country have made remarkable strides in the last decade in the art and science of making the apple and the orange seem the same fruit, so to speak. The author of this article attempts to convence the reader that magazines that some may find offensive (due to content) are intrinsicly no different than videos/dvds or computer games with equal potential to offend. Though on the surface that is a simple comparison to make, there is one striking difference. Absent a vehicle (dvd player, computer or gaming console), the bulk of the content of the electronic media is largely inaccessable to the casual observer (in the confines of the Wal-Mart store). A magazine, however, unless it is sheathed in a plastic wrapper, has its content available for all to see. How often have we seen people casually rifling through a magazine while waiting in a long check out line. Now for those who are so insecure with their own sensibilties that they must project them on to our society as a whole, such accessability to content is a veritable Pandora's box. It is far easier for a child to be corrupted in the checkout line of the Wal-Mart by an offensive magazine than by looking at the packaging of a game or DVD. So it all boils down to how effective a scapegoat for societies ills any given item can become. The magazines are just an easier target.

This is not to invalidate any of the points that were made about the more dangerous and offensive items sold by the retail giant. Many points were made about firearms, tobacco, and violent content that were right on the mark. However, the author simply uses these examples to prop up a poorly realized column that serves as little more than a soap box for hyperbole. It is not so much the content as the approach that I decry here. Conjecture and innacurate connections are employed to engineer a story where there was none. Just food for thought from JediCole.

plasticfetish
06-05-2003, 05:33 PM
I'm glad to see you're still using that Abe Lincoln quote in your signature line. It's become one of my favorite things to say to people (my wife in particular) when she starts going on about something new that "people" are doing at work, on TV, etc.

I don't know exactly what article your talking about. I'm assuming it's about Wal-Mart not carrying Maxim Magazine and the like in their "Library" section. It would be one thing to me if Wal-Mart was forcing the publishers to edit their content ... if they were effecting a kind of direct censorship on a magazine. It's completely another to me to see them simply decide to excercise some surprisingly good taste (my opinion) by not selling those magazines.

And Wal-Mart became a "microcosim" when it became one of the single largest employers of americans. Not to mention the largest and most profitable company in the US.

sith_killer_99
06-05-2003, 05:46 PM
Ah yes, why just the other day I was pondering Wal-Mart's business practices.

1. Wal-Mart does not carry any CD's with "Parental Advisory" or "Naughty Words".

2. Wal-Mart has, from what I understand, decided to stop selling Maxim and FHM magazines (though my local Wal-Mart has Blender, which is an off shoot of Maxim and carries the Maxim name) at the behest of some conservative special interest groups. I may be wrong, I have not read the article JC is refering to. So I am just going by word of mouth here.

3. I also noticed the other day that Wal-Mart no longer carries any Ephedra based "Energy Supliments" or "Fat Burners".

With all of this I must ask myself, "Self, why does Wal-Mart seem to give in to every group who finds a product they carry controversial?"

To avoid controversy? But more importantly WHY? Why does Wal-Mart seem to want to avoid controversy at almost any cost?

The answer is simple...Wal-Mart has something to hide?

I believe that Wal-Mart is part of a giant conspiracy toooo .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...---...
...---...
...---...

We now return you to your regularly schedueled program.


There's nothing to see here, move along.
:Pirate:

JediCole
06-05-2003, 07:14 PM
plasticfetish,
Yes, I was refering to the article about Maxim magazine and Wal-Mart. At the time I wrote this I thought I was posting a reply to said post. Only after I finished and posted did I realize my error. Then to my astonishment I found that the post was locked so I could not correct my error. It is nice to see that there are some sharp people in these forums, but then I did not doubt that there were.

However, the point of Wal-Mart being a microcosim was more in response to the author of the article seeming to equat the retailer's choice to cease stocking Maxim and similar magazines with some form of global censorship. The nature of that diatribe seemed to equate Wal-Mart with the entire U.S. As if the lack of these magazines in their "library" subsequently makes them unavailable nationwide. Last time I checked, 7-11 and other sources for such periodicals are not "mebers only" establishments. Freedom of speech was not abolished (nor was Maxim) in this move by Wal-Mart.

As for WM's logic in this move, bear in mind that the public face of the corporation and its stores is very much a part of American life. As the largest retail establishment in the country they are also the largest target in the U.S. for public outcry, bad publicity, and even litigation (Wal-Mart is second only to the U.S. Government as the most sued entity in the country!). So this leads one to question, if bad publicity is bad for your public face, why not remove the guns, dvds, games, and tobacco products? The answer is found in the body of the article we address here. Money. Though it does not come out and say as much. But if you read between the lines, Wal-Mart is proported to comprise only a small fraction of Maxim's sales. Ergo, Maxim comprises only the most miniscule protion of Wal-Mart's day to day sales. A clear choice when seeking a means to "make nice" with the general public. Supporters of the move will be duped into imagining that Wal-Mart has the best interests of good, clean living at heart and those of us who have the sense to see the reality of the situation are largely relegated to voicing our opinions in public forums and go largely unseen.

To further illustrate this point, I will offer up a true story from my days in retail pharmacy in the distant past. I worked for what was then a smaller (not entirely national, if they have spread nationwide today I would not know) pharmacy chain. Their slogan back in those days was, "At <pharmacy name> there's nothing more important than your good health." That certainly puts forth a compelling message to your buying public. Kind of makes you feel like they care about you on an individual level. Anyway, one of the store managers was asked by his young daughter if this slogan was in fact the case, why did this pharmacy chain sell cigarettes? Ah from the mouths of babes! Needless to say that was quite a compelling question, one he felt needed addressing, so he brought it up with one of the district supervisors. And for posing such a question in such a matter of fact way he was told flatly, and in no uncertain terms that he was NEVER to ask such a thing of anyone within the company again. The inference being "if you know what's good for you and I think you do". The bottom line is that if you buy into the public face of any corporate machine out there, from the "Main Street Assassin" Wal-Mart to Starbucks, or even your favorite pharmacy chain then you are living more on the fringe of Fantasy Land than you may realize. The bottom line with all of these companies, no matter what the espouse to their public is, quite frankly, "the bottom line".

I have some thoughts on the classificaton of Wal-Mart as the destroyer of the old-fashioned main street and of small businesses, but I will save that for its own, commited post.

EricRG
06-05-2003, 08:23 PM
Isn't this one of those unholy political threads???????????? For the love of god, hide the women and children!

CloneTrooperMace
06-05-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Isn't this one of those unholy political threads???????????? For the love of god, hide the women and children!

HAHAHAHA......It looks to be that way.RUN & HIDE!!!:crazed:

Dar' Argol
06-05-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Isn't this one of those unholy political threads???????????? For the love of god, hide the women and children!

Ummmm . . . not quite. This thread (at least right now) is focusing more on the company (Wal-Mart) and it's practices and pointed to other things (US Government) to illustrate a point. This thread has not gone political, but if it does, *CLICK*:D.

I read that artical that Stillakid (I think) posted. I found it quite funny. Has anyone actually read a Maxium or FHM mag??? Some of their articals belong in the pages of "Adult" magazines! I cannot even mention some of the articals here. Forget the pictures, the words are worse! So its no suprize to me that they pulled them. Actually it was more suprizing that they even carried those mags. And the referanced to the DVD's, Guns, and Games that are violent in content, but they still sell them. If your local WM is following the guidlines, and I know that always does not happen, those items (DVD and GAMES) that have a R or M rating on them can only be purchased by someone over the age of 18. Most of those items are locked up to begin with so just looking at the case cover is not going to corrupt anyone. And to purchase a firearm, the author of the artical forgot to include that you must go through a waiting period and background check before any firearm will be sold. Besides, like the DVD's and games, these firearms, including the ammo, are not out in the open, they are locked up. So I can't see that corrupting someone.

But how many times have you seen kids up at the magazine area just looking through mags??? And this FHM and Maxium mags are just sitting out in the open. And it matters not if there is a plastic cover over it, that can be ripped open. Trust me, it happens. So they have more access to these mags then they do all the firearms, DVD's, and games in the entire company. Personally I think the author shot himself in the foot by using those items as a comparision point.

The reason though why WM has pulled those mags and other type of items, like the Ephedra based "Energy Supliments" or "Fat Burners" and the Parental Advisory Music is that WM is constantly trying to promote itself as a family orientated company. Never mind the fact that they severly JACK their employees and pay them the lowest possible wages possible, the puplic never sees that! THOSE WAL-MART COMMERCIALS LIE!!!!!! No one is ever that happy to be working, and I've never seen that stinking smilie bouncing around, making a mess by knocking all the prices off!! If I would have caught him, I'd knock him to the floor . . . he he he:D. But I have never been to a WM that their employees have been as "happy" to be working for WM. Ask anyone who has worked there or is currently working there.

And if they are working there, plead with them to get out!!! Tell them its nice out here:D :D :D!!

plasticfetish
06-05-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Isn't this one of those unholy political threads?
I think this one would be classified ... "corporate America" or is it "socioeconomics"?
Not yet banned subjects.

Yeah JediCole, the issue of money is "it" without a doubt. Yet in this case I suppose we win by default (half sarcastic there). I would never consider anything a store like Wal-Mart does to be done merely with the publics best interest in mind. But, I would never look to them for anything more than what they obviously offer ... a big room full of stuff for sale. "Public face", and in this case it's that brainless happy face, is nothing more than decoration. I expect little and am surprised if I get anything in return.

That leads to your "destroyer of the old-fashioned main street" can of worms. Sadly, main street was so run down (at least where I live) that there wasn't much for them to really destroy. When standards get so low that a warehouse full of bargains seems like a big cultural improvement, I suppose we can be happy that we have anything at all. (Or we can think we're happy because the smiley face tells us we are.) :)

... and Dar, congrats on walking out. I hope things work out for you beyond them. I think as a company that they will suffer in the long run for their attitudes and practices. You can't keep good people if you treat them poorly (no matter how badly they need a paycheck) ... and you can't run a profitable business without good people.

2-1B
06-05-2003, 11:26 PM
Dar, as you said they lock up the "adult oriented" DVDs, games, etc. . . . then why don't they just lock up the "adult oriented" magazines as well?

The edited CDs BAFFLE me, they refuse to sell music with some F-bombs but they sold me copies of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc. etc. etc. on DVD. :stupid:

stillakid
06-05-2003, 11:54 PM
So if banning "male" oriented magazines is deemed acceptable to save our children from being corrupted, I trust that the equally malicious "female" oriented magazines (ie, Cosmopolitan) that frequently show more skin and are usually far more sexually explicit (especially on their covers!) will be banned as well?

See, the main source of trouble here is the ludricrous societal double-standard that says that male sexuality and desire is somehow "dirty" and lewd. However, if female oriented discussion includes the exact same discussions and similar photos, it is perfectly acceptable.

What's that all about? Which hypocritical Puritan ethic do we ascribe to this situation? :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that Walmart doesn't have the right to sell whatever they choose, but if someone is going to apply reasoning to this that includes the idea that male sexuality is evil, then it is reasonable to assume that they also object to magazines like Cosmopolitan and should demand that they be removed as well.

Dar Basra
06-06-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Dar' Argol
WM is constantly trying to promote itself as a family orientated company.

Which, in my book, will always be a joke so long as they are the largest seller of firearms in the United States, especially considering that they've been releasing guns before mandatory waiting periods were up, failing to complete background checks and other required procedures, like thumb print checks, and have been found (at least in California, which investigated them) to have sold guns to convicted felons, including a drug dealer and a person convicted of spousal abuse. (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/05/national/main547858.shtml among other sites for story)

"Wal-Mart: The Family Store, where wife-beaters can buy guns."

stillakid
06-06-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
"Wal-Mart: The Family Store, where wife-beaters can buy guns."

...and I think that those "wife beater" shirts are on sale in aisle 5 today. You gotta cater to your market, you know. :D

Dar Basra
06-06-2003, 11:04 AM
So does Rosie O'Donnell still shill for WM, despite taking NRA members to task?

bobafrett
06-06-2003, 11:13 AM
I remember when 7-Eleven corporate stores quit carrying "Adult" magazines. It was a month after I started working for 7-Eleven, and I was working the overnight shift. I lost all of my "reading" materials. The magazines that Wal-Mart has chosen to remove, are much tamer than the ones that 7-11 removed. Of course, if you go into a franchise 7-11, it's up to the store owner if he wanys to sell such magazines. Wal-Marts aren't franchises, so I guess if you want the magazines they no longer sell, go to 7-11!

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 12:18 PM
The only real way to defy stores with these sort of practices is to stop shopping there. Sure, they can take away certain choices you would have in terms of purchases, but, you can take from them your business. If everyone who is angry at wal mart for removing or censoring certain items did this, they might just have to take notice.

I did this with Blockbuster. I refuse to rent or purchase frrom them due to the fact that they refuse to carry certain film titles they deem "offensive" to their "family video store" image. I am thinking specifically about their refusal to carry the controversial film "Priest" due to it's homosexual subject matter (compounded by the fact that it is about a catholic priest dealing with being homosexual). It is a wonderful film with fantastic performances, and definitely worth seeing.

So, while Blockbuster has no problem stocking their shelves with violent bloodfests for the kiddies to peruse, they will not rent a good, thought provoking film with an entirely hopefull message of tolerance that man y adults SHOULD see. In response, I will never frequent a blockbuster again in life.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
06-06-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
So does Rosie O'Donnell still shill for WM, despite taking NRA members to task?

Rosie shilled products for K-Mart, just like another much maligned female, Martha Stewart.

My opinions on various topics regarding Wal-Mart in general:


That it is like a giant octopus. When a Wal-Mart moves into a town, it will slowly unleashes it's tentacles and wraps them around the other departments that have been established for years. They then squeeze the other competitors and cut off the business of the smaller department stores, until they can no longer afford to business. An Ames, Hills, and a K-Mart went belly under a few years after a Wal-Mart appeared in our time. That means I went from a couple of places where I could buy Star Wars to just one. Granted what Wal-Mart is doing, is "The American Way" in terms of competition, and Wal-Mart is a fair place to buy stuff at excellent prices, however, does that mean what they are doing to the smaller businesses out there acceptable? Does this growing business (the nation's number one business employer) have worse negative effects then benefical ones?[/*]

That the weirdest elements of our society can find a place to shop (or be employed). I have been to a few Super Wal-Marts in Florida, in the early morning hours and what a spectacle of people they had.[/*]



Tycho had an excellent post about six months or so detailing the negative effects of the "Wal-Martization" of our country. Of how people figure that it might be acceptable if they do poorly in school, because they know a friend, who didn't graduate from high school or college, that got a decent job at Wal-Mart and makes decent money.

Don't get me wrong, it is nice that we have places like Wal-Marts to employ the masses, and I do know that a couple of our forum users are past/present employees of Wal-Mart, but I feel that our population as a whole suffers, because if more and more stores like these open up, people may feel that they not need to put the effort into an education, have loftier goals, or show an initiave for a more competitive job, because of that Wal-Mart down the street. Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, but that is the way that I see it.

stillakid
06-06-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Lowly Bantha Cleaner
Don't get me wrong, it is nice that we have places like Wal-Marts to employ the masses,

We can't all be kings. ;) If we encouraged everyone to go out and perform to their fullest potential, who would be left to sweep the floors? Walmart helps keep the class system running smoothly. :D

QLD
06-06-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
So if banning "male" oriented magazines is deemed acceptable to save our children from being corrupted, I trust that the equally malicious "female" oriented magazines (ie, Cosmopolitan) that frequently show more skin and are usually far more sexually explicit (especially on their covers!) will be banned as well?

See, the main source of trouble here is the ludricrous societal double-standard that says that male sexuality and desire is somehow "dirty" and lewd. However, if female oriented discussion includes the exact same discussions and similar photos, it is perfectly acceptable.

What's that all about? Which hypocritical Puritan ethic do we ascribe to this situation? :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that Walmart doesn't have the right to sell whatever they choose, but if someone is going to apply reasoning to this that includes the idea that male sexuality is evil, then it is reasonable to assume that they also object to magazines like Cosmopolitan and should demand that they be removed as well.


Well stillakid, it appears that Wal-Mart heard you somewhat. They announced that they are going to be covering up copies of 4 womens magazines, including Cosmo.

However, they will still SELL them..... :rolleyes:

Master ToNone
06-07-2003, 01:06 AM
To all you "Raymonds" out there I only have one thing to add from one of the greatest movies of that last 25 years:

"Walmart sucks." -Charlie Babbit.

or maybe he said Kmart, but it doesn't matter because they are both the same.

I shop there sometimes and somethings are best bought there, however what they sell is a lot of crap. If you buy your cloths there and you are over age 12 you are a dork (retirees can get their stuff there too, that is reasonable). Anyone whose ever lived on their own knows- you need a lot of cheap crap to live and you can get that at Walmart, Target-Mart, or K-world. But if you need something important or need to look at dirty magazines, you didn't go to Walmart before and there latest moves haven't changed that. Come on now people, discuss something more meaningful and practical - like the latest Simpson's episode or who is cuter - Mary Kate or Ashley...

bobafrett
06-07-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Master ToNone
If you buy your cloths there and you are over age 12 you are a dork (retirees can get their stuff there too, that is reasonable).

You can say that again. Even when I worked there, I wouldn't buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I'm not exactly a fashion plate, but the clothes that Wal-Mart sells for the most part look like something old people wear in the nursing homes.

And if they are covering up the women oriented magazines, why can't they just do that with the male magazines they no longer sell?

sith_killer_99
06-07-2003, 11:57 AM
If you buy your cloths there and you are over age 12 you are a dork (retirees can get their stuff there too, that is reasonable).


You can say that again. Even when I worked there, I wouldn't buy my clothes at Wal-Mart.

I resent those remarks. Wal-Mart is fine for buying, Hanes Boxer-briefs, plain white socks, plain black(or white) T-Shirts and (I may be wrong here) don't they sell sports team apparel (i.e. Broncos Superbowl Back to Back Champions, NJ Devils Stanley Cup Champs, etc...) You know, the stuff you wear for 1-2 weeks after your team wins a championship and then put it back in the closet never to be worn again.;)


I'm not exactly a fashion plate, but the clothes that Wal-Mart sells for the most part look like something old people wear in the nursing homes.

Well, for the most part, I guess you're right.

:crazed:

Kidhuman
06-07-2003, 08:28 PM
Actually I bought a few clothing items from Wal-Mart two weeks ago. I needed some cheap, decent looking ties and pants for work and they had them. It isn't spectacular but they do the job. 9 dollars for some dress pants is alot better than 45 at the Gap or something.

Dar' Argol
06-07-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Lowly Bantha Cleaner
My opinions on various topics regarding Wal-Mart in general:


That it is like a giant octopus. When a Wal-Mart moves into a town, it will slowly unleashes it's tentacles and wraps them around the other departments that have been established for years. They then squeeze the other competitors and cut off the business of the smaller department stores, until they can no longer afford to business. An Ames, Hills, and a K-Mart went belly under a few years after a Wal-Mart appeared in our time. That means I went from a couple of places where I could buy Star Wars to just one. Granted what Wal-Mart is doing, is "The American Way" in terms of competition, and Wal-Mart is a fair place to buy stuff at excellent prices, however, does that mean what they are doing to the smaller businesses out there acceptable? Does this growing business (the nation's number one business employer) have worse negative effects then benefical ones?[/*]

See there is such a jaded look on this topic, as a consumer. But to a buisness person its a different perspective. What WM is doing is trying to get the compition to be better. Better in their service, better in their merchandise, better in their prices. Its compition, and only compition will bring out the best in ppl/companies. Imagine if there was no compition for WM. Then they can charge whatever price they deem fit b/c there is nothing else to compare to. But the reason that they are the lowest prices in town is because they shop their competitors. They want to have the lowest price to bring in the most buisness. Their resoning is that if you can move more units for a lower price, you generate more sales. Even if you are selling the same item for .75 cents cheeper, you will most likely move more units, and still make profit. That are not "cutting off the buissess's", the consumers are. WM is just offering a alternative to what you have been use to for so long. Is it right that they kill a lot of the "Mom and Pop" stores? No. Is it right that they force major competitors out of buisness?? Hey, if they can't hack WM, how well are they running their buisness????


Of how people figure that it might be acceptable if they do poorly in school, because they know a friend, who didn't graduate from high school or college, that got a decent job at Wal-Mart and makes decent money.

DECENT JOB!?!?!?!?! DECENT MONEY!?!?!?!!? HA HA HA HAH AH HAHAH HA HA HA HAH HA HA HAH AH HA!!!!!! That's a joke!!! What WM has a decent Job or even decent money??? HA HA HA!!!


Don't get me wrong, it is nice that we have places like Wal-Marts to employ the masses, and I do know that a couple of our forum users are past/present employees of Wal-Mart, but I feel that our population as a whole suffers, because if more and more stores like these open up, people may feel that they not need to put the effort into an education, have loftier goals, or show an initiave for a more competitive job, because of that Wal-Mart down the street. Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, but that is the way that I see it.

Well, lets just say that a high school drop out is not going to make it far in WM. People Greeter maybe, but to get into some of the "higher" positions (i.e. Department Manager, Assistaint Manager, Store Manager, District Manager) you need more smarts then 2+2=4.


Originally posted by Caesar
Dar, as you said they lock up the "adult oriented" DVDs, games, etc. . . . then why don't they just lock up the "adult oriented" magazines as well?

The edited CDs BAFFLE me, they refuse to sell music with some F-bombs but they sold me copies of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc. etc. etc. on DVD.

WM does not sell "Adult Oriented" DVD's. They lock up all their DVD's over the price of $14.96, and all Games are locked up because it would be stupid not to. It would be impractical to lock up magiznes b/c you would need someone to open the case just to look at them, and we all know how long it takes to get someone to help you:D. The CD issue you can thank Tipper Gore. Back in the late 80's she was on the panel that spearheaded the Parental Advisory Label campain. And since those types of things (CD's and Tapes) are not locked up, it would be too difficult to monitor who purchased what. At least with the DVD's and what not, someone has to open the case:rolleyes:. So just as artists edit their songs for radio, WM has said they either do the same for them, or they will not sell their albums. Pretty impressive buying power if you ask me.


Orgiginally posted by stillakid
So if banning "male" oriented magazines is deemed acceptable to save our children from being corrupted, I trust that the equally malicious "female" oriented magazines (ie, Cosmopolitan) that frequently show more skin and are usually far more sexually explicit (especially on their covers!) will be banned as well?

I think you might be missing the point here stilla. If they are going to ban "Male" Oriented mags, then they need to take out RC magazines, Hot Rod and car magazines, Weight Lifting Mags, Sports Illustrated, Guns and Ammo, Motorcross mags, Skateboarding mags, etc cause they are all "Male Oriented" magazines. Cosmo and the ilk have nothing in them that compares them to FHM, and Maxium. Even as a guy I was very surprised to see them on our shelves. Have you ever taken a look in one of those magazines?? While Cosmo and their kind give very vauge answers to "adult" questions, FHM and Maxium are VERY descriptive. I'll never be able to look at Alkaselzer(sp) the same way again:eek:. That is the reason WM pulled them. Would you want your kids reading about that????


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The only real way to defy stores with these sort of practices is to stop shopping there.

And trust me, they will really notice:rolleyes:.


If everyone who is angry at wal mart for removing or censoring certain items did this, they might just have to take notice.

I seriously doubt that. With over 3000 stores nation wide, and 2000 global, I don't think even half a million ppl not shopping there would make much of a dent. Mainly because more and more ppl shop there every day.


I did this with Blockbuster. I refuse to rent or purchase frrom them due to the fact that they refuse to carry certain film titles they deem "offensive" to their "family video store" image.

Awwww, did they miss you??? Did they send a letter asking where you went and why you haven't stoped by recently?? ;) :D :crazed: he he he

So since they would not carry this "Offensive" film due to their "Family Image", you deemed them not worthy enough. Hmmmm . . . . .would you let you grandmother watch this movie?? How about your kids?? How about your boss??? Would you sit down with them and feel completely comfortable letting tham watch this "Offensive" movie??? Offensive is a POV. What one person deems fine, somone else will alway find offensive. Kinda like the Prequels. Some ppl here think they are fine, others find them offensive. So Blockbuster, being a buisness, decided not to tick off a majority of the public (which unfourtunatly they would have, I can see all kinds of organizations writing letter now:D), and made a buisness decision not to carry this particlular movie. Is that wrong??? No, its good buisness. If you offend a good majority of you customers, how much longer will you remain in buisness???

Everyone looks at this as a racial/repressive/sexist/what ever else you want to place here thing, but no one is looking at it for what it really is, a BUISNESS THING. Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and every other comapny out there who has ever ticked you off b/c they stopped carring something or censored something all did it mainly for one reason, it made good buisness sense. That's all. They were not out to purposefully tick you of, it was the best thing for their buisness.

EricRG
06-07-2003, 11:53 PM
:rolleyes: Wal-mart brainwashes their employees.

bobafrett
06-08-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by sith_killer_99
I resent those remarks. Wal-Mart is fine for buying, Hanes Boxer-briefs, plain white socks, plain black(or white) T-Shirts and (I may be wrong here) don't they sell sports team apparel (i.e. Broncos Superbowl Back to Back Champions, NJ Devils Stanley Cup Champs, etc...) You know, the stuff you wear for 1-2 weeks after your team wins a championship and then put it back in the closet never to be worn again.;)



Well, for the most part, I guess you're right.

:crazed:

Hey, I'm sorry, I forgot about the fine selection of underwear and socks thay have in the store. I haven't seen any good quality sports apparel in quite some time. I'd rather pay a little more at a sports store to get something that will last more than 20 washes. Maybe I'm still miffed about being fired from the store. But if I was still working there, I wouldn't be posting here at this hour.


Wal-mart brainwashes their employees.

Well, I used to be a team player, but I just lost that when our store shifted the ways we unloaded trucks and started hiring people who couldn't speak english or read labels, just making twice the work for those of us who do. I have nothing against hiring those who just came to the US, but give them tasks that they can handle instead of having them stock shelves putting items in spaces where they don't belong.

sith_killer_99
06-08-2003, 11:07 AM
Well, I used to be a team player, but I just lost that when our store shifted the ways we unloaded trucks and started hiring people who couldn't speak english or read labels, just making twice the work for those of us who do. I have nothing against hiring those who just came to the US, but give them tasks that they can handle instead of having them stock shelves putting items in spaces where they don't belong.

WOW, you guys have that problem to.

My mom stopped shopping at her local Wal-Mart because 3 times she went into the store and was told by, stockers and cahiers (CASHIERS!!!) no english. She was pretty upset, here she was trying to ask a question and the people who should have been able to help her didn't even speak english...or claimed not to.

A while later we found out that it was Wal-Mart's hiring practice not to discriminate against non-english speaking people. Later it became a serious problem, and Wal-Mart decided that english was a requirement.

However, they couldn't fire all of their non-english speaking employees, because english wasn't a requirement when they were hired originally. Basically, Wal-Mart was afraid of a law-suit, so the solution was to pay (out of Wal-Mart's pocket) to teach these employees english. Which I think is a good idea, as long as it works.

At least that's the basic story I got from my mother. I haven't seen to much of a problem with that here in Kentucky. I happen to believe that if a person is going to work with customers they should be able to speak english, or at least the chopped up bas%@*dized American version of it. It's called customer service, and I rank it right up there with being polite and good mannered, when it comes to customer service.:Pirate:

BTW, Dar I have boycotted, and continue to boycott, many stores for my own reasons. It may not hurt them significantly, but it makes me feel better about who is getting my money. To me, that is the point of a boycott. (no Wal-Mart isn't one of them...not completely anyway):Pirate:

bobafrett
06-08-2003, 11:29 AM
Well, I was mad that we had several Bosnian people who came to work for our store. They are great, and work hard. They had one person of the 8 we hired who could both read and speak English. This one person took the tests for all 8 of them, instead of translating the questions and answers for them. I would think this was illegal, yet the Store manager allowed it to happen. So you end up with 7 people who don't have a clue on how to match labels, and UPC's nor any of the other functions required to run a store smoothly.

This doesn't even start to address the problem at least at the store where I worked of the group that would go take their 15 minute break, and would stay on break for up to an hour. You would address it with the management team, and they wouldn't do a thing about it. I worked my A** off for that store and I get fired for pushing a guy who made fun of my limp. At least they fired me with the possibility of rehire.

sith_killer_99
06-08-2003, 12:05 PM
At least they fired me with the possibility of rehire.

:confused:

Fired, with the possibility of rehire? What is that? There are levels of "Fired" now!?!?!

"You're FIRED!"

six months later:

"Fired? Oh no, there was just a misunderstanding. You're hired!"

six months later:

"You're FIRED! But we mean it this time, you are really fired."

Oh brother, what is this world coming to? It used to be that when a person was fired they couldn't come back to their old job.

Stop the world, I wanna get off.:crazed:

Hey, I think I found my new sig line.

Kidhuman
06-08-2003, 02:05 PM
Well it means that he was fired, but if he wanted to come back he could. Some companies won't take anyone back. It basically means he was a good employee and had an unfortunate circumstance. I was fired from Home Depot with a rehire on it because I was injured on the job and they didn't have a postion for me to work light duty. My doctor said not to go back. So there is a situation where I just didn't screw up royally.

2-1B
06-08-2003, 03:49 PM
I'm sorry Dar but this post makes no sense :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
WM does not sell "Adult Oriented" DVD's.

Right . . . and my examples of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are NOT ''adult oriented'' ? Would you let your kids watch those? I doubt it. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
They lock up all their DVD's over the price of $14.96, and all Games are locked up because it would be stupid not to.

Nope, I've been to several Wal-Marts where the DVDs are not locked up at all. However, the games are.


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
It would be impractical to lock up magiznes b/c you would need someone to open the case just to look at them, and we all know how long it takes to get someone to help you:D.


Then why is it not impractical to lock up the DVDs? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
The CD issue you can thank Tipper Gore. Back in the late 80's she was on the panel that spearheaded the Parental Advisory Label campain.

Yes, I can "thank" her for the labels but not for Wal-Mart's hypocritical editing policy. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
And since those types of things (CD's and Tapes) are not locked up, it would be too difficult to monitor who purchased what.

Gosh! Here's a genius idea, why not lock up the CDs just like they do the DVDs ? :stupid: Or better yet, why not treat parental advisory stickers just like an R-rating ? I've seen the cash register computer bring up an age verification command for DVDs, don't tell me they couldn't EASILY do the same for CDs. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
At least with the DVD's and what not, someone has to open the case:rolleyes:.

Even if they are locked up, what good would that do? If a kid got a hold of an R-rated movie in the store, to buy it he/she would still have to get past the register anyway. How is that different than selling a CD with a parental warning? :confused:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
So just as artists edit their songs for radio, WM has said they either do the same for them, or they will not sell their albums. Pretty impressive buying power if you ask me.

So just as artists edit their movies for television, WM has said they either do the same for them, or they will not sell their movies.

Oh wait, no they didn't. :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid:

James Boba Fettfield
06-08-2003, 04:09 PM
Do those cd's have to put a parental warning on them? Godsmack's self titled album didn't have one (maybe it does now, but not when it was new) and I purchased it at Wal-Mart and everytime Sully said those words that begin with f and s they were heard clearly. Made quite a bit of stir, too, when a father found out his son had the album uncensored which he bought from Wal-Mart.

Dar' Argol
06-08-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Right . . . and my examples of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are NOT ''adult oriented'' ? Would you let your kids watch those? I doubt it. :rolleyes:

No those are not "Adult Orientated". Those are Rated R movies. I'm talking along the lines of Rated A movies;)


Nope, I've been to several Wal-Marts where the DVDs are not locked up at all. However, the games are.

Its suppose to be company policy to lock up all DVD's over $14.96 including new releses. There are some stacks in the dept that are open, like the $14.96 - 5.96 movies. But all the sets, and any movies over that price range are suppose to be locked up.


Then why is it not impractical to lock up the DVDs? :rolleyes:

Because of theft. DVD's cost on adverage 3-4 times more then a magazine. So looking from a stand point of loss prevention, it is more pratical to lock up the DVD's then magazines. It would just not be cost effective either. You've got to spend the money for thousands of stores to get these magazine cases, install them, then make sure someone is there to open the cases everytime someone wants to buy a $4 magazine. Your spending more money on the cases and man hours then you are making on the magazines, just so you can have you "Downgraded Playboy" magazine.


Yes, I can "thank" her for the labels but not for Wal-Mart's hypocritical editing policy. :rolleyes:

Well then take that up with Home Office. 1-800-WAL-MART.


Gosh! Here's a genius idea, why not lock up the CDs just like they do the DVDs ? :stupid: Or better yet, why not treat parental advisory stickers just like an R-rating ? I've seen the cash register computer bring up an age verification command for DVDs, don't tell me they couldn't EASILY do the same for CDs. :rolleyes:

One of the reasons why they don't lock up CD's is because while most ppl know what the movies are about or what feature come with it, not everyone knows what songs are on a certain CD. So they need to look at the backs to determin what is on that CD. Of course they need to do the same with DVD's, but there again, price differance. They use to have CD's locked up at one time, but then the price of those items started to come down a bit, so it was no longer cost effective.


Even if they are locked up, what good would that do? If a kid got a hold of an R-rated movie in the store, to buy it he/she would still have to get past the register anyway. How is that different than selling a CD with a parental warning? :confused:

Because CD's can be played almost anywhere. DVD's and VHS are kinda restricted to where they can be played. And I don't know too many kids under the age of 18 that have their own portable DVD players. But just about any kid has a CD player of some sorts.


So just as artists edit their movies for television, WM has said they either do the same for them, or they will not sell their movies.

So MTV can do it and that's ok??? MTV and VH1 have instructed artists for years to change certain parts of their songs or they would not get air time. But no one raises a stink about that?? There have been how many songs who's lyrics where changed just to get air time. But just because WM wants the same, everyone must beat them down for it?? That's a little hipocritical to me.

And anyways, its no reason to come smack me down for what I say. All I am doing is trying to explain to you why WM does the sometimes stupid things they do. You only look at it as a consumer. You don't see the inner workings. I'm trying to shed some light on that, but all you can do is come up with some pitiful arguments on why WM should do everything you say. And unless you've got about 1 million ppl beating down the doors of Home Office in Bentonville, AR they are not going to notice. So you can cry and whine here all you want, but its not going to do anything.

Beast
06-08-2003, 04:29 PM
None of the DVD's at my Wal-Mart stores are locked up. Even the $70-$80 box sets are on the shelves. Having them locked up was the very reason I never shopped there for DVD's. Atleast now I can go in, pick up what I want, and get out of there. Even though I prefer to buy my DVD's from a retailer who doesn't force censorship on it's consumers. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-08-2003, 04:36 PM
[i]

My opinions on various topics regarding Wal-Mart in general:

[list]
That it is like a giant octopus. When a Wal-Mart moves into a town, it will slowly unleashes it's tentacles and wraps them around the other departments that have been established for years. They then squeeze the other competitors and cut off the business of the smaller department stores, until they can no longer afford to business. An Ames, Hills, and a K-Mart went belly under a few years after a Wal-Mart appeared in our time. [/*]

That the weirdest elements of our society can find a place to shop (or be employed). I have been to a few Super Wal-Marts in Florida, in the early morning hours and what a spectacle of people they had.[/*]
[/B]


Ah, c'mon now, of all the Hills, Ames, and K-Mart stores i've been to, i'd say more than 98% of them were complete dumps. In fact, i don't think i've been into an Ames or Hills that wasn't dirty, had no selection and high prices. I could be wrong, but i'm just going on my experience. I've been in a few nice K-marts in my time, but nothing worth noting.

As for wal-mart causing stores to close, that's why the US has this great free-market thing going on. If a new store com comes into town and is killing your business, by God, do what you can to get it back: you lower prices, you bring in better products and you make that extra step to keep people coming back to your store. I'm tired of hearing about, "Oh, wal-mart came into my town and everything else closed" oh, boo freakin' hoo, the reason wal-mart is doing so well is cause they have a lot of products are decent prices and their stores are "most of the time" very well kept. The only thing i saw K-Mart do when wal-mart started killing them was keep their prices higher and let their stores get worse in maintenance. I don't agree with all of wal-marts practices, but i must give them props for beating everybody else. They know what to do and until these other chains get their act together, they will continue to go out of business due to Wal-Mart. :D

Kidhuman
06-08-2003, 05:57 PM
I recently bought a CD form Wally World that wasn't censored. It was like 3 weeks ago. All you have to do is look at the price tag. It will say edited if it is and it won't if it isn't.

BTW JMG, what the heck is Hills? I never heard of them before.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
06-08-2003, 06:01 PM
Kid- Hill is another incarnation of Ames. I think they're done by the same company. Like, when the Hills by me closed, Ames opened up. It was basically Hills, Jr. No selection, dirty store and crappy prices. They lasted not even a year and were shut down. :D

Dar Basra
06-08-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Jedi_Master_Guyute
They know what to do and until these other chains get their act together, they will continue to go out of business due to Wal-Mart. :D

It's not always a question of getting your act together. Wal-Mart has the size and leverage to squeeze its wholesalers, landlords ... everyone that it deals with ... to an extent that no one else can. Consequently, no matter what a competing store can do, Wal-Mart will always be able to undercut them in price. Maybe not every day on every item, but often enough that over the long term, those shoppers who care more about price than anything else will move to Wal-Mart.

The trick is not to compete with them - by finding a niche market, and covering every aspect of it, not just the mainstream stuff sold at Wal-Mart, or going over the head of the typical Wal-Mart shopper and selling class-A goods that Wal-Mart wouldn't stock.

2-1B
06-08-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Dar' Argol
No those are not "Adult Orientated". Those are Rated R movies. I'm talking along the lines of Rated A movies;)

Senseless killing and vulgar language don't count as "adult themed" ? :confused: Okay . . . a magazine with sex tips is sooooooo dirty but a guy named Marvin getting his head blown off accidentally thus requiring Harvey Keitel to come in for a cover up, well that's acceptable in the eyes of Sam Walton's minions? :confused:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
Because CD's can be played almost anywhere. DVD's and VHS are kinda restricted to where they can be played. And I don't know too many kids under the age of 18 that have their own portable DVD players. But just about any kid has a CD player of some sorts.

And ? :confused:
Would that not be solved by checking IDs like they do with videos? :confused:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
So MTV can do it and that's ok??? MTV and VH1 have instructed artists for years to change certain parts of their songs or they would not get air time. But no one raises a stink about that?? There have been how many songs who's lyrics where changed just to get air time. But just because WM wants the same, everyone must beat them down for it?? That's a little hipocritical to me.

Um . . . hello? :rolleyes: MTV is just like any other network - they have to meet certain standards.

The point was that if a network wants to show movies, it has to meet certain guidelines. Same with radio. Same with MTV which is just the SAME as a network.

The DIFFERENCE here is that Wal-Mart says "you must be censored" to one medium (CDs) and "you don't have to be censored" to another medium (DVDs). There's the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

If MTV showed R-rated movies but censored videos, they would be just as guilty as Wal-Mart. :stupid:


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
And anyways, its no reason to come smack me down for what I say. All I am doing is trying to explain to you why WM does the sometimes stupid things they do.

That would be cool, except you are taking their "stupid" policy and trying to make a reasonable excuse for it.


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
You only look at it as a consumer. You don't see the inner workings. I'm trying to shed some light on that, but all you can do is come up with some pitiful arguments on why WM should do everything you say.

Pitiful? :D
I'll cite your MTV comparison as a prime example of a pitiful argument. ;)


Originally posted by Dar' Argol
And unless you've got about 1 million ppl beating down the doors of Home Office in Bentonville, AR they are not going to notice. So you can cry and whine here all you want, but its not going to do anything.

They can do whatever they want, I just don't understand why you are so defensive of Wal-Mart. You've taken several jabs at them since you left . . . so it perplexes me that you find it necessary to come to their rescue on a policy which is so obviously flawed to begin with. :rolleyes:

bobafrett
06-08-2003, 11:32 PM
I have been to Wal-Marts in different towns all over my area. Some have the higher priced DVD's locked up, others don't. I guess it would depend on the neighborhood you build your store in. The higher crime stores are more likely than not to have such things under lock and key.

scruffziller
06-09-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
They can do whatever they want, I just don't understand why you are so defensive of Wal-Mart. You've taken several jabs at them since you left . . . so it perplexes me that you find it necessary to come to their rescue on a policy which is so obviously flawed to begin with. :rolleyes:

Because it has nothing to do with WM itself. In order for things to happen in this world certain things have to happen good and evil alike. But NOTHING happening.......that is the true evil of all.
Credit must be given where credit is due, even if it means you have to splice the entity up a bit. WM does alot of bad things. Tell me of one business that hasn't sometime in its existence. If you can think of one, you probably don't know the whole story. When Dar puts the smack down on WM it is in the tone of an adult who is scolding the child that they love. When he left WM, it was because he had outgrown it. Like a person who has been living with their parents too long. I think Dar in his new job will start to feel the pinch of what it has to offer after time. I hope different for him but I am afraid that won't be the case. All the jobs I had were great in the begining but slowly morphed into something else. The only job I can say that was bad in the begining to the end was the job I had at a grocery store named Fareway, mainly exclusive to Iowa. I was there for 6 1/2 years. I worked in the meat department and it was an old style meat department. You wrap the meat as it is ordered. That system was fine for the old days but with real large crowds, that gets insane. But overall WM is the best place that I have worked for. I think in comparison because of the other jobs I have had.
It has its moments good and bad. But I take it all and I don't complain because I was raised better than that.


Originally posted by Jedi_Master_Guyute
but i must give them props for beating everybody else. They know what to do and until these other chains get their act together, they will continue to go out of business due to Wal-Mart. :D

Right on.:) Why the heck do we feel the need to punish success in this country.:rolleyes: And anytime I say that, people try to snap back with some lame argument of the entity being unethical or criminal.:rolleyes: Oh how convenient!!!! One thing I can say, is that Sam Walton was an integral man to the core and did great things for the company and for the communities. He even had a rule that he didn't want a WM built in a large city. Also he did not want these Supercenters. His kids suggested it to him and he said "Over my dead body." Well here we are. WM is not the evil entity, the people who run it are.

stillakid
06-09-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Dar' Argol
See there is such a jaded look on this topic, as a consumer. But to a buisness person its a different perspective. What WM is doing is trying to get the compition to be better. Better in their service, better in their merchandise, better in their prices. Its compition, and only compition will bring out the best in ppl/companies. Imagine if there was no compition for WM. Then they can charge whatever price they deem fit b/c there is nothing else to compare to. But the reason that they are the lowest prices in town is because they shop their competitors. They want to have the lowest price to bring in the most buisness. Their resoning is that if you can move more units for a lower price, you generate more sales. Even if you are selling the same item for .75 cents cheeper, you will most likely move more units, and still make profit. That are not "cutting off the buissess's", the consumers are. WM is just offering a alternative to what you have been use to for so long. Is it right that they kill a lot of the "Mom and Pop" stores? No. Is it right that they force major competitors out of buisness?? Hey, if they can't hack WM, how well are they running their buisness????

That's a misleading assessment of their business model. Take a hypothetical (sadly) little town with a corner grocery, a hardware store, and a flurry of other mom & pop's that Walmart has "departments" for. They all survive doing their one thing and do it well.

In marches Walmart and undercuts them by margins large enough that results in them having to close down. How do they do this? Loss Leaders. They can afford to cut their prices on the competitions prices by taking a calculated loss on some other items. This gets the customers in the stores to buy the cheapy things that the store actually loses money on betting that the customer will stay to buy the tools that he otherwise would have bought down at Mr. Hoopers store on Main Street.

Walmart's clear intentions are to go to small towns and/or areas, wipe out small business and then decide later whether to stay or not. In a lot of cases, after they've wreaked their havoc, they've pulled up the stakes and left the towns with nothing at all. No stores, no jobs...nothing.

Capitalism? Sure. Hypocrytical coming from a "moral" company? Absolutely.

scruffziller
06-09-2003, 09:43 AM
But even WM had its humble beginnings. And they are one of the few entities out there where they got big from being humble, integral, and doing things the best way. Reference to the South Park ep of the coffee wars in SP. It just so happens that after the founders die that the people who inherit the entity take the power and abuse it. I know of several companies locally that that has happened.

plasticfetish
06-09-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
That's a misleading assessment of their business model. Take a hypothetical (sadly) little town with a corner grocery, a hardware store, and a flurry of other mom & pop's that Walmart has "departments" for. They all survive doing their one thing and do it well.

I have never seen a Wal-Mart move in and push out businesses that were doing perfectly well. Wal-Mart "smells the blood in the water" when it comes to towns with small poorly run businesses that have terrible selections and prices that are anything but competitive. I could use scruffziller's town as one example ... floundering small town shops and no decent choices for merchandise ... or we could simply look at Los Angeles. How can Wal-Mart roll into LA and take over? Because, in most cases the neighborhoods that they are moving into are desperate for commerce and Wal-Mart is a no brainer. Then, how badly does it suck having to drive all over LA looking for a bunch of things that you could find under one roof ... and for a competitive price. Fine ... the "mom and pop" stores are gone, but frankly they were gone 20 years ago because that's when mom and pop retired and moved to Arizona. And don't think that the kids wanted to run their hardware stores or their markets ... the kids couldn't afford the insurance or the other insane expenses that have systematically killed off small businesses in towns all over the country. So, fine ... Wal-Mart is a big bland monster ... but if the "little town" wants their small businesses to survive, they'll support them in spite of Wal-Mart.

The Overlord Returns
06-09-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Dar' Argol



And trust me, they will really notice:rolleyes:.


I could care less if they notice. The point is one of principle. I would rather give my business to companies that don't censor or try to dictate to me what I can and cannot look at.



Originally posted by Dar' Argol


I seriously doubt that. With over 3000 stores nation wide, and 2000 global, I don't think even half a million ppl not shopping there would make much of a dent. Mainly because more and more ppl shop there every day.


I am fairly sure the number of people worldwide who might be fed up with WalMarts censorship policies would be a little higher than half a million. However, again it is a matter of principle.



Originally posted by Dar' Argol


Awwww, did they miss you??? Did they send a letter asking where you went and why you haven't stoped by recently?? ;) :D :crazed: he he he


Don't mind me, I'm just watching the point sail right over your head.



Originally posted by Dar' Argol

Hmmmm . . . . .would you let you grandmother watch this movie?? How about your kids?? How about your boss??? Would you sit down with them and feel completely comfortable letting tham watch this "Offensive" movie???


I would most definitely let my grandmother(s) watch the film, if they were still alive. Ditto for my boss. It's a great film that can actually teach people a few things, and that's a rare thing these days. As for kids, when they hit an age I felt was appropriate to view and discuss the issues in a film like Priest, I would certainly sit down and watch the film with them.



Originally posted by Dar' Argol


Blockbuster, being a buisness, decided not to tick off a majority of the public (which unfourtunatly they would have, I can see all kinds of organizations writing letter now:D), and made a buisness decision not to carry this particlular movie. Is that wrong??? No, its good buisness. If you offend a good majority of you customers, how much longer will you remain in buisness???


Hey that's fine. I don't remember any big broohaha being made over other video chains carrying the film (which they do, atleast up here). It is absolutely Blockbusters right to censor. It is also my right to dissaprove and respond by not renting or buying films there.



Originally posted by Dar' Argol



Everyone looks at this as a racial/repressive/sexist/what ever else you want to place here thing, but no one is looking at it for what it really is, a BUISNESS THING. Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and every other comapny out there who has ever ticked you off b/c they stopped carring something or censored something all did it mainly for one reason, it made good buisness sense. That's all. They were not out to purposefully tick you of, it was the best thing for their buisness.[/COLOR]

If it is indeed purely a business move, they should be honest about it as opposed to wrapping themselves in a hyprocritical morality "blanket". However, I suppose it's this morality myth that gets them through when they sella rifle to a kid that then goes into his school and blows 20 people away.....

2-1B
06-09-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Don't mind me, I'm just watching the point sail right over your head.

Join the club. :D


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I would most definitely let my grandmother(s) watch the film, if they were still alive. Ditto for my boss. It's a great film that can actually teach people a few things, and that's a rare thing these days. As for kids, when they hit an age I felt was appropriate to view and discuss the issues in a film like Priest, I would certainly sit down and watch the film with them.

I was raised Catholic and I watched that movie with my mom. :)
Pretty cool flick, it raised alot of questions. :)

stillakid
06-09-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
I have never seen a Wal-Mart move in and push out businesses that were doing perfectly well. Wal-Mart "smells the blood in the water" when it comes to towns with small poorly run businesses that have terrible selections and prices that are anything but competitive. I could use scruffziller's town as one example ... floundering small town shops and no decent choices for merchandise ... or we could simply look at Los Angeles. How can Wal-Mart roll into LA and take over?

Walmart took over LA? When did that happen? In a consumer market this big, Walmart has its work cut out for it. While they do attract business, there are still a gazillion mom and pops that haven't been forced to close their doors here. Nor Target, nor Mervyn's, nor Sears, nor any other major chains. In fact, Kmart still has managed to keep some of its outlets open in the area despite being run out of other areas by the common "next door" tactics of Walmart.

I wish I would have kept a tape of it, but some years ago, a news mag show like 20/20 or something like it ran a story on this very topic...how Walmart plops into unsuspecting little towns, descimates the mom and pops, then in many cases, picks up and leaves when they don't get the profit margin they were looking for. This is documented fact (unfortunately I don't have the copy here to refer you to, but with some checking, you could probably dig it up without too much problem).

This being the case, the question was whether or not Walmart reflected the values and ambitions of America (the USA). I said yes, in terms of their hell-bent capitalistic drive. In terms of "fairness" (whatever that means), I find their strategy to be hypocritical when on one hand, they claim to be superior and moralistic by not selling "Male Magazines" and other "dirty stuff," and on the other hand by unthinkingly destroying small business and in some cases, entire communities, in a take-no-prisoners bid for dominance. Point being, if they really "cared," they wouldn't be so determined to either A) maliciously hurt the "little guy," or B) be so anxious to spread their Puritanical version of morality everywhere they can.

But, looking at it that way, I suppose Walmart is the perfect model of a hypocrytical and greedy America.:greedy:

JediTricks
06-09-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Um . . . hello? :rolleyes: MTV is just like any other network - they have to meet certain standards.

The point was that if a network wants to show movies, it has to meet certain guidelines. Same with radio. Same with MTV which is just the SAME as a network. Actually, I believe only broadcast stations - independent and network affiliates - are subject to FCC content regulations, cable stations are only subject to their own "standards and practices" which are generally in place to ensure their advertisers and/or cable providers won't drop them. There are no governmental regulations controlling the content of cable stations at all. MTV has shown the "scared straight" sequel special and it's full of swearing yet devoid of advertising.

scruffziller
06-09-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
I could use scruffziller's town as one example ... floundering small town shops and no decent choices for merchandise

I'm not sure how long it has been since you were in Indianola PF, but suprisingly enough the presence of WM has not really affected any of the small biz base at all really. There seems to be a real nice balance for all of it. The little biz guys have made good biz desciscions and cut themselves a niche in the economy of the town because they offer certain things that WM doesn't really deal in. WM won't carry certain hardware items but the local hardware will.

plasticfetish
06-09-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by scruffziller
I'm not sure how long it has been since you were in Indianola PF, but suprisingly enough the presence of WM has not really affected any of the small biz base at all really.
It's been about a year and a half ... so not that long. You're right though, but your town has always held itself together really well. The little downtown is and always has been a really nice place. Every time I come back I cross my fingers and hope that it hasn't changed too much. In the case of Wal-Mart ... I can remember back when there wasn't a place like it anywhere near there. Wal-Mart has been just another convenience that makes Indianola a decent place to live. But like I said, small towns and small businesses can survive just fine in spite of the "threat" of Wal-Mart ... they just have to want to. Indianola wants to and in this case I'd say the competition has been healthy.

stillakid ... as far as Los Angeles goes ... I suppose I can only really make observations with regard to my own area. We've had a half dozen stores open up in our region (probably more) and it's no coincidence that K-Mart was finally (perhaps deservedly) pushed over the edge. Target has been forced to remodel itself as a kind of "hip" version of what it used to be to compete. The Long Beach area was seriously hurting 10 years ago and stores like Wal-Mart and now Kohl's have moved in to take advantage of that slump. The city wants their tax dollars and the growing/changing local population wants more selection when it comes to shopping. Now fine, it is an exaggeration to say that Wal-Mart is taking over, but I do certainly think they've helped to stir things up a little. Gee ... does capitalism work after all?

2-1B
06-10-2003, 12:25 AM
JT, it's still the same idea. :)
If MTV wanted to show Oliver Stone's "The Doors" there is no way they would play it uncut . . . just like they won't play songs uncut.

What is "scared straight" ? :confused: Is it a reality based show to show kids the hard reality of a particular issue? :confused: If so, I can see how that would not affect S&P in light of it's "social value." That's just a guess on my part, I would be curious to learn more. :)




You have Kohl's in LA ? Herb Kohl is a senator in my state and owner of the Milwaukee Bucks. Well, that is until he sells the team to Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. :D
Good for Herb, I'm glad to see he got his meathooks into Cali. :crazed:

plasticfetish
06-10-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
You have Kohl's in LA ?
Yeah, they just had a huge launch and opened ... I think it was ... 9 stores in the LA area. They've been pushing super hard with the advertising ... I can't say if they're doing well or not yet. They knocked down a crummy movie theater and built their store right across the street from Wal-Mart in my neighborhood.

JediTricks
06-10-2003, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
JT, it's still the same idea. :)
If MTV wanted to show Oliver Stone's "The Doors" there is no way they would play it uncut . . . just like they won't play songs uncut. But that's a choice on MTV's part, not a federal regulation. Just as Wal-mart has chosen not to carry these magazines, MTV chooses to force artists and labels to modify their songs and/or videos to suit their chosen standards and practices. They certainly could play the film "The Doors" unaltered if they wanted to, but they choose not to so as not to offend their advertisers and possibly a significant portion of their audience; however, no government body tells them that they cannot play the film. Wal-mart has made a choice of what content to promote just as MTV has, there is nothing holding MTV back from playing "The Doors" except their desire to not offend their customers - whether that be their general viewing audience or their paying advertisers.


Originally posted by Caesar
What is "scared straight" ? :confused: Is it a reality based show to show kids the hard reality of a particular issue? :confused: If so, I can see how that would not affect S&P in light of it's "social value." That's just a guess on my part, I would be curious to learn more. :) Scared Straight was a documentary from the '70s (IIRC) where kids who were heading deep down a path of trouble with the law or whatever were taken into a prison and exposed to the harsh realities of prison life without the glamourizing it gets from entertainment - straight from the prisoners themselves. The sequel that MTV aired I believe showed what happened to some of the kids from that special and then showed a new generation of kids who falling towards a life of crime being exposed to the program.


Originally posted by Caesar
You have Kohl's in LA ? Herb Kohl is a senator in my state and owner of the Milwaukee Bucks. Well, that is until he sells the team to Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. :D
Good for Herb, I'm glad to see he got his meathooks into Cali. :crazed: Yeah, but so far in my part of town, nobody has noticed them.

BTW, Wal-mart has all but completely avoided doing business in LA city thus far, all the LA-area WMs are in outskirt cities like Panorama City and such - I think this is for tax purposes or something.

stillakid
06-10-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Gee ... does capitalism work after all?

I never suggested that it didn't. What I did say was the Walmart was hypocritical in claiming moral superiority (by banning dirty magazines) while, at the same time, having no qualms about wiping out small towns by first destroying the mom and pops, then pulling up stakes leaving the people with nada.

And that is the perfect microcosm of American society...a bunch of Puritanical hypocrites marching around claiming that men are pigs and losers for having sexual desire while at the same time having no trouble trouncing the next guy as long as it is the name of "capitalism." It's the American Way! :D

2-1B
06-10-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
But that's a choice on MTV's part, not a federal regulation. Just as Wal-mart has chosen not to carry these magazines, MTV chooses to force artists and labels to modify their songs and/or videos to suit their chosen standards and practices. They certainly could play the film "The Doors" unaltered if they wanted to, but they choose not to so as not to offend their advertisers and possibly a significant portion of their audience; however, no government body tells them that they cannot play the film. Wal-mart has made a choice of what content to promote just as MTV has, there is nothing holding MTV back from playing "The Doors" except their desire to not offend their customers - whether that be their general viewing audience or their paying advertisers.

JT, I'm not even talking about magazines anymore, my criticisms are based on the CD vs. DVD editing policy. :D

Yes it is a choice for MTV to do that but my point is that there is no way they would choose to play an uncensored cut of The Doors while playing a censored cut of a music video later on.

The absurd analogy of MTV was brought up because "we" apparently don't care that MTV does it while "we" slam Wal-Mart for doing the same. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that IF MTV were to show the same hypocrisy that Wal-Mart does in censoring music but not movies, well YES it would be very hypocritical of MTV and I would surely say so. :)


Thanks for the info regarding Scared Straight. :cool:

Kidhuman
06-10-2003, 12:25 PM
before you know it, music will have ratings like video games and movies. They will sell the G-rated for the kids and R-rated for us adults. I am sorry but I don't like to hear edited music. I don't like the sound effects they use to cover up the words. And they way they do it know, you pretty much can hear what they are saying anyway because they just slur the word. So just rate them accordingly with video games and get on with it.

JediTricks
06-11-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
JT, I'm not even talking about magazines anymore, my criticisms are based on the CD vs. DVD editing policy. :D I believe that issue is about power, the music industry has less power than the movie industry. But look at The Osbournes - Season 1 DVD set, WM will only sell the censored version of that. True, it's only TV, but it's a big step, and why? Because WM has massive control, almost a monopoly even, on the retail market.


Originally posted by Caesar
Yes it is a choice for MTV to do that but my point is that there is no way they would choose to play an uncensored cut of The Doors while playing a censored cut of a music video later on.

The absurd analogy of MTV was brought up because "we" apparently don't care that MTV does it while "we" slam Wal-Mart for doing the same. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that IF MTV were to show the same hypocrisy that Wal-Mart does in censoring music but not movies, well YES it would be very hypocritical of MTV and I would surely say so. :) Actually, they have in the past played edited versions of videos during the day and then less-edited versions after 10pm, but that was back when they played videos at all. :p Sure, it's a little "apples vs oranges" at one level, but on a broader level there are some similarities. WM is a retailer selling multiple types of entertainment while MTV is an "entertainment" provider (pardon my scoffing) centered around a specific type of entertainment; but in a broader sense they both restrict the content they display to the public yet WM gets slammed for it while MTV goes relatively unscathed.

Why is it that nobody cares about AMC editing movies for sexual content and langauge when they didn't used to? (Aside from the fact that they are now a horrid channel that puts commercial breaks into these "classics" - many of which aren't even close to being so - thus abandoning their original station mission) Because WM is big potatoes and wields more power than most countries while AMC is just some crummy sell-out cable station.


Ratings and content editing - whether on movies, music, or video games - do censor the product; however, that censorship is committed not by a government atrocity but by economic realities within that industry and its audience. It's a fact that movies often get edited to guarantee a specific rating - but this is no longer to appease some phoney baloney Hays act, instead it is at the behest of the studio paying for and releasing the film who fears too high a rating will reduce the paying audience.

Basically, money talks and WM has a lot of control over it. It's a level of control that probably subverts the economic system of capitalism by overriding the concept of "supply and demand" through a modern day version of mercantilism. Why is it that WM and Microsoft get slammed in the public eye for this sort of thing when others like K-Mart and Apple don't? Economic power, other companies respect and fear it at the level WM and MS have it and - whether incidentally or on purpose - this economic power translates into major economic and sociological affects.

The average American doesn't even notice or care about the power they wield every time they choose to go to WM instead of Target. The world's not fair and capitalism isn't perfect, we the people gave WM this power and they are using it to make decisions that aren't always fair-minded or equally-enforced, but thems the breaks - after all, we supplied the parts for the monster and we encouraged it to run amok, we shouldn't expect it to only destroy one neighboring village.

stillakid
06-11-2003, 10:17 AM
While each and every retailer has the absolute right to carry whatever product they wish, I think that it is a huge moral and ethical issue whenever "censored" material replaces the original intention.

(Though not so much an "ethical" problem), this is in the same neighborhood as Pan & Scan or "edited for content" on broadcast and airplanes. Either sell or exhibit the work in its entirety the way the creators intended, or don't offer it at all.

Far too often, the unwashed masses just blindly watch or buy whatever is on sale in the $10 bin without proper and obvious warning that what they are spending money on is not what the author/filmmaker/artist intended them to see.

One cut, one line of dialogue replacement, one element left unseen due to hacking off the sides of a movie, and the entire storyline could change. It's a criminal act against artistic integrity...all in the name of hypocrytical evangelical morality. :mad:

JediTricks
06-11-2003, 08:34 PM
These are the risks you take when you mix art with business. Some might say that pure artistic content isn't sold at Wal-mart for $6 in a bin. Pure artistic content doesn't accept the MPAA telling them what they must cut in order to receive a rating. Pure artistic content doesn't concern itself with product placement or the studio's desire to add a sexy blonde to appeal to the key demographic. The system ain't fair, there's no 2 ways around it, but if you want to play in their game then you have to accept that is the first rule.

stillakid
06-12-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
These are the risks you take when you mix art with business. Some might say that pure artistic content isn't sold at Wal-mart for $6 in a bin. Pure artistic content doesn't accept the MPAA telling them what they must cut in order to receive a rating. Pure artistic content doesn't concern itself with product placement or the studio's desire to add a sexy blonde to appeal to the key demographic. The system ain't fair, there's no 2 ways around it, but if you want to play in their game then you have to accept that is the first rule.

I draw the line at the point the "work" is finished and shown for the first time. Yes, the concessions that must be made during production (be it for time, budget, morality, whatever...) are part and parcel of every creative work. Even Michelangelo had limitations (he only had certain paint to work with...no digital preplanning).

So every "artist" deals with those obstacles and then releases that "work" out into the world, theoretically as the best it can be given the production process. This shouldn't give post-release "exhibitors" and/or "resellers" the right to make adjustments to it as they see fit. It's not their place to make those creative decisions, just like it isn't proper for the Craft Service guy to be the final word on whether a shot is in the can or not.

JediCole
06-12-2003, 02:31 PM
Well, from humble beginings indeed! When last I looked at this thread I started there were a handful of replies. And now it has turned into a full blown forum! And I applaud all who have posted their thoughts and to the Moderators for leaving this one alone, despite earlier concerns that it may turn into a dangerous political discussion. So far it has not.

I found so many replies that I would love to quote, but at the same time it seemed that quote inflation had set in, so I thought I'd just launch into things right off the bat. I was quite pleased to see how reasonable and thought out the bulk of the replies were in this thread. I suppose I am still stinging from the days when such threads would digress into rampant character assassination when disagreements occured. Frankly, disagreements are going to be a givin in a public forum. The key is not to take them personally. And it seems that I can discuss my thoughts on Wal-Mart after all as this has become more a forum about the company than just the article that inspired my initial thoughts.

I've seen a lot of great discussion here on both sides of the Wal-Mart issue. The bottom line is that there is no simple black or white to the issue. What WM has become is at once the best and worst thing to happen in the competitve marketplace. To say that Wal-Mart has choked out the mom and pop companies is to turn a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of such places that not only exist (or start up each year) but many of whom thrive, even in the shadow of corporate juggernauts like WM. But this is not to say that a great many (perhaps an equal or greater number) of such small businesses suffer or have disappeared as a result of the Wal-Mart presence. Yet to point at one or the other reality and ignore the one that does not support one's contention is to do a great disservice to your convictions. The truth is that Wal-Mart has destroyed some and perhaps improved others. The dynamic has changed, but it was changing long before Wal-Mart went national.

To understand this, you have to go back a few years, quite a few years. Back in the late 70's and early 80's (in the Dallas/Fort Worth area of Texas anyway), you really had to be in or around one of the larger "small towns" to find a WM. They were not in the big cities or their immediate suburbs. But even back then the cultural dynamic of the nation was changing. We've all heard of New York City being called "the city that never sleeps". Well, in the last two decades we have become the nation that never sleeps. And as this effect took hold, a greater percentage of the population was no longer living and working from 9 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday. We were entering the 24 hour era and Wal-Mart recognized this (at least in later years as I have no good frame of reference for its early days and do not know if they were always 24 hour stores).

Main Street America may have fallen to Wal-Mart, but it was inevetable. If you ever lived in a small town, the sidewalks rolled up at 5 PM. Perhaps as late as 6 PM or the almost-unheard-of 7 PM. The bottom line is that you could not buy a hammer or a loaf of bread in small towns at midnight (barring a large chain grocery store in town, which was often rare). As the nation began working around the clock, those on the untraditional shifts began to emerge as a growing market. One untapped by anyone else. Wal-Mart took the initiative that no other retailer outside of the major grocery market recognized. Cater to the round the clock world out there! Even Target, K-Mart, and other department stores (often to this day) are open no later than 11 PM or 12 AM. Is it any wonder that WM has the edge?

Other issues have been brought up regarding price (an insideous issue given the leverage a giant corporation has), selection, and appearance. I tend to think that the latter is the most relavant specific to WM since most K-Marts I ever visited in the last 15 years had been poorly maintained and were always messy.

And if you think I am siding with Wal-Mart in this I am not. I think I have made it clear in my earlier posts that they do as much bad as good. I seek only to illustrate the mechanics of how WM went from humble beginings to the corporate behemoth that is loved and hated by America at large.

JediTricks
06-12-2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
So every "artist" deals with those obstacles and then releases that "work" out into the world, theoretically as the best it can be given the production process. This shouldn't give post-release "exhibitors" and/or "resellers" the right to make adjustments to it as they see fit. It's not their place to make those creative decisions, just like it isn't proper for the Craft Service guy to be the final word on whether a shot is in the can or not. I think you're clouding the issue, Wal-mart isn't going into product and hacking & slashing out parts they don't like -- they're not licensed to do so. Unlike the Craft Services guy in your flawed analogy, the retailer's public image is partially based on the products they offer. In this instance, Wal-mart is deciding what products do and don't want to be associated with to the buying public -- if a product doesn't fit that image, they can choose to not carry the product or offer the artist and/or distributor who is responsible for the product the opportunity to make changes they want or not. WM is not forcing the artist to make the changes, merely to create an alternate version of their product that doesn't hamper the retailer's public image if they want their product to continue to be offered there. I don't see a massive uproar because Blockbuster refuses to carry porno movies.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel that WM is becoming too powerful, gaining too much control over the retail market, but that's not what this issue is about, this issue is about WM choosing what products to offer or not. In that regard, they have every right to offer whatever they want and are even allowed to have the silliest reasons in the world for it. They don't even have to be fair about it, so long as they aren't doing it to manipulate the market in an anti-trust way.

stillakid
06-13-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I think you're clouding the issue, Wal-mart isn't going into product and hacking & slashing out parts they don't like -- they're not licensed to do so. Unlike the Craft Services guy in your flawed analogy, the retailer's public image is partially based on the products they offer. In this instance, Wal-mart is deciding what products do and don't want to be associated with to the buying public -- if a product doesn't fit that image, they can choose to not carry the product or offer the artist and/or distributor who is responsible for the product the opportunity to make changes they want or not. WM is not forcing the artist to make the changes, merely to create an alternate version of their product that doesn't hamper the retailer's public image if they want their product to continue to be offered there. I don't see a massive uproar because Blockbuster refuses to carry porno movies.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel that WM is becoming too powerful, gaining too much control over the retail market, but that's not what this issue is about, this issue is about WM choosing what products to offer or not. In that regard, they have every right to offer whatever they want and are even allowed to have the silliest reasons in the world for it. They don't even have to be fair about it, so long as they aren't doing it to manipulate the market in an anti-trust way.

Hardly a flawed analogy at all. Walmart, in addition to other retailers such as KMart, routinely will only sell "versions" of "art" (be it music or movies) that are hacked and slashed...versions which do not necessarily reflect the artist's original intent. Now, one could say that it is the studio who is at fault for insisting on these G rated versions so that more $ can be added to the bottom line...however, I beg to differ. If the request is never made in the first place, studios wouldn't be "forced" into having to spend the extra money to create alternate G-Rated and/or Pan & Scan atrocities in the first place.

These requests for hacked versions of art only serve two purposes:

1) to further propagate the moronic and uneducated populace (ie, they'll never understand letterboxing so we just won't give it to them), and

2) to promote a version of morality that doesn't necessarily reflect that of society at large.

And we're obviously not talking about something as outlandish as porn here, if we're going to be tossing epithets like "flawed analogy" around.

stillakid
06-13-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by JediCole
Main Street America may have fallen to Wal-Mart, but it was inevetable. If you ever lived in a small town, the sidewalks rolled up at 5 PM. Perhaps as late as 6 PM or the almost-unheard-of 7 PM. The bottom line is that you could not buy a hammer or a loaf of bread in small towns at midnight (barring a large chain grocery store in town, which was often rare).

I did grow up in a small town just like the one you describe, however we somehow managed just fine without the "convenience" of being able to buy a hammer or a loaf of bread at midnight.

So, do these all-night franchises actually aid society or are they actually contributing to its decline by creating these "alternate shifts" that you describe?

Point being, most people are in bed by 11:30 pm and get up by 7 am. They work until 5 or 6 pm, eat dinner then do it all over again. There are some in the population who fall outside that norm on a regular basis, but are we keeping these stores open for those few? Or are those few actually the one's who are keeping the stores open?

Kidhuman
06-13-2003, 09:29 PM
Well I know I love to shop my Wal-Mart around 2am. It is empty and everything you want to find is out on the shelves or on pallets at the end of an aisle. I don't have to deal with people leaving carts in the middle of the aisles that you can not get around. Plus if you need assistance you can get it so easily. Plus if you want to actually find figures that is the best time. I have found plenty of the HTF figs at night rather than normal shopping hours. My best finds were the POTJ deluxe Amanaman and Leia. They were on clearance and I never saw them during normal shopping hours.

Plus if you are gonna have a fully staffed stock crew, you might as well open anyway to generate a few extra thousand dollars at night. I used to work in a 24 hour Home Depot. They would average about 13k a night. Sunday was always slow though. You nbever know what kind of emergency people might have at night and need that roll of duct tape or some light bulbs. It actually has advantages to open. You can make your payroll for having the stock crew in overnights, help pay some of the electric bill and rent. It really does help the company in the long run.

JediCole
06-14-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I did grow up in a small town just like the one you describe, however we somehow managed just fine without the "convenience" of being able to buy a hammer or a loaf of bread at midnight.

So, do these all-night franchises actually aid society or are they actually contributing to its decline by creating these "alternate shifts" that you describe?

Point being, most people are in bed by 11:30 pm and get up by 7 am. They work until 5 or 6 pm, eat dinner then do it all over again. There are some in the population who fall outside that norm on a regular basis, but are we keeping these stores open for those few? Or are those few actually the one's who are keeping the stores open?

You make a good case for "most people" in your reply, however, it is easy to judge the bulk of America based on one's own experiences. Though we too got along fine without hammers at 2 AM when I lived in a small town, the fact that Wal-Mart finds it cost effective to remain open 24 hours in itself answers your question. Do you honestly imagine that a tiny fraction of the American public are worth catering to by staying open around the clock? The reality is that we have become a 24 hour culture. Perhaps not you yourself, but I can tell you that Jack in the Box and Taco Bell drive-throughs were NOT open until 2 AM two or three decades ago. That is the days before Wal-Mart became huge for those of you checking your history. Wal-Mart is just one example of a company that recognized where commerce was headed, but by no means the only one. They just happen to be the subject of this discussion. And yes, in the 70's we got along just fine without microwave ovens, VCRs, CD players and 24 hour department stores and drive-throughs open until 2 AM. But I don't consider any of these advances to be in and of themselves as benchmarks of a downfall of American culture. Less than 100 years ago almost no one had a motor vehicle in this country. Now most people either own one or at least use one (taxi, bus, etc.) on an almost daily basis. Our forebearers got along just fine in their day without having two cars in the garage. Does that fact invalidate our "modern" existance?

stillakid
06-15-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by JediCole
Does that fact invalidate our "modern" existance?

It's not about invalidating it. We modern folk frequently need two vehicles because the economic evolution of society demands it. A "normal" middle class family can't realistically expect to afford a home in 2003 without two incomes.

Not to start a new argument thread, but it could be argued that the beginning of this trend was when the "other half" of the workforce left home and got jobs. Now, with women out there, men are forced to either take lower paying jobs (necessitating two incomes) or to demand higher salarys to allow the spouse to stay at home with the kids. If there was some kind of "guideline" which allowed only one spouse to earn a paycheck, we'd find that most families would easily get adequate work enough to carve out the American dream.

The "downfall" of society, in economic terms (meaning prices rise faster than incomes do) can be quelled with some controls on how much of our population is allowed to "drain" the job market. And that nightowl shift won't be necessary anymore.

Kidhuman
06-15-2003, 08:59 PM
Ok,

I agree mostly with you on your points Stillakid. The one I disagree with is the affording homes. The small town I live in a 4 bedroom house is about 120k. I think that depends all upon where you live.

About the job market I totally agree. With more people available to work nowadays, it really does cut into the salary issue. 20 years ago, it was very possible to afford a new car and a home with one income. Things that are a nessecity(SP?) to everyday life such as food, gas, cars and such have skyrocketed in price. I remember a car was much better made out of steel than they are today. And alot cheaper as well.

It is unfortunate that both parents need to work in 90% of homes. Fortunately for me, my wife gets child support. If she went to work she would make as much money as she gets now with a part time job. I would prefer her to stay home and watch take care of the kids instead of working to pay for day care.

The nightowl shift is neccessary in some aspects of the working foeld. Their are plenty of factories out there that require the third shift. It does help with the unemployment rate and all. I really do not see a need for "convience stores" being open 24 hours a day. I know I said I perfer to shop at that hour but there is no need for it.

plasticfetish
06-15-2003, 09:45 PM
I love when you write some thing and then it vanishes instead of being posted ... oh well, probably for the better. "Short version" ...

Originally posted by stillakid
... but it could be argued that the beginning of this trend was when the "other half" of the workforce left home and got jobs. Now, with women out there, men are forced to either take lower paying jobs (necessitating two incomes) or to demand higher salaries to allow the spouse to stay at home with the kids.
That was back during WW2 right? When the "other half" had to go out and get jobs? Or are you talking about every other decade before that when families where forced to divide their time between duel incomes (what about child labor) in order to survive. The "Leave it to Beaver" Dad works and Mom stays home thing never really happened. As far back as I can remember both the men and the women have had to take jobs of one kind or another to make it in my family. My grandfather worked multiple jobs while my grandmother worked part time. And then ... if it wasn't for the GI bill and a wealth of solid jobs after the war, (not to mention the job my grandmother-in law took building bombers), my grandparent-in laws could have never bought or afforded the house I'm now living in.

If your talking about the problem created when the men's salaries are undercut by the lower paid women's salaries ... how's about we all create some kind of law (or amendment) insuring that everyone will be paid the same wage for the same work?

So, it could also be argued that the "beginning of this trend" was when companies stopped giving a rat's *** about their employees, and when it was decided that short term profit was more important than investing long term in a happy, loyal and well trained work force.

JediCole - "Does that fact invalidate our "modern" existence?"

I'm beginning to find reasons to question the word "modern" when used to describe our current state. For every technical leap forward we seem to suffer 2 or more back slides when it comes to societal standards.

JediCole
06-16-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish

JediCole - "Does that fact invalidate our "modern" existence?"

I'm beginning to find reasons to question the word "modern" when used to describe our current state. For every technical leap forward we seem to suffer 2 or more back slides when it comes to societal standards.

You bring forth an interesting point. The short form of which is that infrastructure (society, government, etc.) always lags technology. A good example of this is the driver's license. The automobile was out on the consumer market for some time before the driver's license was required. And when it was, I am told, obtaining one was often as simple as telling the license clerk how long you had been driving. That was it, no further questions, no proficiency testing. "I've been driving a couple of years" and you've got your license.

We simply never learn to keep an eye on where things are headed and try to anticipate what pressures that will put on society in advance.

QLD
06-17-2003, 04:23 PM
Here is a fascinating thing I read today......


http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/rfid.asp

plasticfetish
06-17-2003, 04:53 PM
That is interesting ...

"RFID tags have no built-in batteries or power supplies; they're activated by radio waves sent out from RFID readers which emit just enough power to trigger the tags and have a range limit of only a few feet"

... that's a bummer. I was hoping I could pull them out and feed them to the opossums in my yard. Let Wal-Mart keep track of them for me.

Kidhuman
06-17-2003, 07:38 PM
Well, that does sound interesting. When I looked down on my task-bar though it said Urban Legends Reference Pages. Is it true or not? I for one would not like to be tracked by anyone orr anything. We shall see if it is true or not.

If they just used it like Sensormatic tags,(the tags found on CD and such items to track theft) it would be okay if shut off at the register. If that system is already in place and it works well, then there is no need for this. All you would have to do really is to block the waves with other stuff wround you.

plasticfetish
06-17-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by kidhuman
All you would have to do really is to block the waves with other stuff wround you.
Tinfoil hat!

Kidhuman
06-17-2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Tinfoil hat!

Whatever works.