District residents why are you so against Walmart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buy a shirt at Walmart and in a year when it wears out you go back to Walmart and buy another. Buy a short at Norstrom or LL Bean etc and it wears out in a year, you bring it back and get a new one.

Pretty simple to me.

Quality not quanity

I have shirts from L.L.Bean. They were made in China

But if it wears out or you are not satisfied they replace it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buy a shirt at Walmart and in a year when it wears out you go back to Walmart and buy another. Buy a short at Norstrom or LL Bean etc and it wears out in a year, you bring it back and get a new one.

Pretty simple to me.

Quality not quanity

I have shirts from L.L.Bean. They were made in China

But if it wears out or you are not satisfied they replace it.

A guarantee is not quality. Every late night TV ad for an onion chopper or food dehydrator comes with a lifetime warranty. It's a gimmick.

The fact is that neither company's shirts wear out in a year with any frequency.

[Anonymous]

There are valid reasons to support WalMart and valid reasons to oppose it. What I haven't seen articulated in the article are any valid reason to oppose it outside of self-interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buy a shirt at Walmart and in a year when it wears out you go back to Walmart and buy another. Buy a short at Norstrom or LL Bean etc and it wears out in a year, you bring it back and get a new one.

Pretty simple to me.

Quality not quanity

I have shirts from L.L.Bean. They were made in China

But if it wears out or you are not satisfied they replace it.

A guarantee is not quality. Every late night TV ad for an onion chopper or food dehydrator comes with a lifetime warranty. It's a gimmick.

The fact is that neither company's shirts wear out in a year with any frequency.

that was an example, I have taken many thigns back to Nordstrom a fews years after purchase, the same with Brooks Brothers, LL Bean, etc. try doing that at Target, Wal Mart, Kohl's etc.

[Anonymous]

15:56 you assume that everyone has your financial resources to spend their disposable income at the Nordstrom's and Brook Brothers of the world. For some people, their disposable incomes dictate the Targets and Kohl's. Step outside your cocoon. Walmart works for some people and Nieman works for others.

[Anonymous]

You can take something back to Nordstrom's after a few years? You must be one hell of a negotiator. How does that work? I don't think I could pull it off.

[Anonymous]

I am quite undecided about this. DC is a *terrible* place to find work if you are not well-educated. I can see Walmart providing some much-needed jobs for people who can't compete as administrative assistants. OTOH, it's true that Walmart treats its workers badly and can drive other businesses out. But maybe a lousy job is better than no job. Also as the WaPo pointed out some businesses could benefit. For example, this might be good for the Capital City Diner on Bladensburg (which by the way I recommend people check out) if people go over that way to go to Walmart.

I don't know what to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wal-Mart treats its employees like shit, and because they have run all competition out of town they are the only place where many people can work. I say this as someone who has seen what Wal-Mart has done to my small hometown. People need jobs, and Walm-Mart finds ways to underpay and to avoid giving employees benefits. Sure, they have cheap products, but that employee that is ringing you up will be buying her groceries with food stamps and going to the free clinic when she gets sick. Wal-Mart destroys communities and continues the cycle of poverty. Lower prices come at a cost, its just a cost that a lot of people don't want to recognize.

I totally disagree. Walmart did not destroy those jobs. The people in those towns wanted Walmart's products more. They either wanted or needed cheaper products, and so they put those mom and pop stores out of business. We are all voting with our pocket books and guess what - the small shop owners weren't cutting it and so we bought from them. Those communities needed to focus on doing things they are better at than selling retail goods. In reality, their high prices cost the communities more than their jobs provided.

It's not just a Walmart thing. 100 years ago, your great grandmother bought shoes from a cobbler. One day a factory started making shoes and she bought some. They were cheaper, they fit better, sizes were reliable, and they lasted as long. Did she feel bad that the cobbler went out of business? Maybe a bit, but she wasn't going to have her kids running around with holes in their shoes. And today you buy from Zappos. The same goes with machinery. Cars would still be vanity objects for the rich and famous if they were not mass produced in a factory. Do you know that there were craftsmen who were put completely out of business by mass production, people who came from a long line of craftsmen who built machinery of just about every sort? Does that make you want to buy a handmade car or lawn mower to preserve the rich and dignified tradition of craftsmen. Same goes for clothing, transportation, medicine, and just about everything else you can buy.

I love my local small hardware store, but dammit they charge me about 35% higher than the big guys and they aren't that helpful like hardware stores used to be. So it's nice to pop in for one or two items, and I feel good that I am keeping some family operation in business. But you know what? I'm not paying $130 for a weed whacker when I can get it from Lowe's at $90 or Amazon for $85. It doesn't make sense.

If you are a small business owner and you can't provide a better product than Walmart, you know in your heart that you aren't doing anyone any good. You may blame Walmart, but really it could have been Target or Costco or Home Depot or Amazon.com that did you in.

I understand the legitimate concerns about workplace environment. But on the other hand, Walmart recognizes gay rights and provides health insurance at a very low cost to its employees. Almost 95% of Walmart employees have health coverage, half of them through walmart, and I'm betting no other chain can say the same. It makes 2000 drugs available to its employees at a flat price of $4. It's not all bad. And I'm also betting that the mom and pop companies that went under didn't offer health insurance at all.

[Anonymous]

PP makes the points I was going to, though a bit more intensely than I would have.

There are still legitimate questions about the way in which WalMart treats their employees.

But if you really believe that restrictions should be put specifically on WalMart because of their business model, I wonder how far you are willing to go with such restrictions on other businesses that have used similar approaches.

[Anonymous]

Practical question: Is this proposed Wal-Mart going in at the location where they had said there would be a Costco? It's the same general area but I can't tell whether one is off the table and the other is on? thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are valid reasons to support WalMart and valid reasons to oppose it. What I haven't seen articulated in the article are any valid reason to oppose it outside of self-interest.

Whose self-interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buy a shirt at Walmart and in a year when it wears out you go back to Walmart and buy another. Buy a short at Norstrom or LL Bean etc and it wears out in a year, you bring it back and get a new one.

Pretty simple to me.

Quality not quanity

I have shirts from L.L.Bean. They were made in China

But if it wears out or you are not satisfied they replace it.

A guarantee is not quality. Every late night TV ad for an onion chopper or food dehydrator comes with a lifetime warranty. It's a gimmick.

The fact is that neither company's shirts wear out in a year with any frequency.

that was an example, I have taken many thigns back to Nordstrom a fews years after purchase, the same with Brooks Brothers, LL Bean, etc. try doing that at Target, Wal Mart, Kohl's etc.

But do the math. For what you save, you can afford to buy far more clothes than Nordstrom will ever replace for you.

I randomly went into the Nordstrom site to pick out an infant item. I landed on swim suits. $34.
http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3113428/0~2379292~2379293~6008492~6010332?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6010332&P=1

Walmart: $6.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Op-Baby-Boys-Swim-Trunks/13339888

The relative merits of Quiksilver vs Op aside, you can buy 5 blue swimsuits at Walmart, and still have money left over for a latte at starbucks, for that $34.

I am not trying to say that there is no quality difference ever, but you pay a lot for a liberal return policy.

[Anonymous]

I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS ALLEGED LIBERAL RETURN POLICY. The only store that's ever taken anything back from me after years is Coach. And they are famous for that.

[Anonymous]

REI?

[Anonymous]

Not that it has any significance, does anyone else think Walmart sounds like a character in a Harry Potter book?