Quote: (08-22-2016 09:59 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Also SBR, do you get upset when Walmart steals from the working/middle class? You know, when Walmart prices in food stamps and welfare into their employees final wages.

So if I hire a homeless guy to come do chores for me for $30 a week, I'm stealing from the taxpayer because that's not enough to get him off of public assistance? That's insane logic.

Quote:Quote:

Or when Walmart asks for tax breaks from localities in return for opening a store, robbing children of a better education because of the revenue lost to fund their school.

So Walmart's tax bill somehow subtracts from overall tax revenue? And towns are perfectly willing to have that happen? Nothing about that makes sense.

Quote:Quote:

What about companies that Walmart asks to "one up", to lower their price or increase the quality on their items....lowering their margins?

Huh? Negotiating price in a business deal is unacceptable?

Quote:Quote:

Chill dude, we're just talking about a non-breathing pronoun that rakes in billions. No one is getting hurt and there's no reason to go on an attack on a senior member.

Please do yourself a favor and look up "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs."

Quote: (08-22-2016 11:34 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Peresonally I prefer to do my stealing directly from the government, but that's just me.

See that I have a problem with... But I'm coming around.

There's a guy I know with ebt food stamps of about $400 a month. Now he always offers to sell them to me for $100. I could get similar deals from lots of other folks.

Recently, I found out that you can buy plants and seeds with those things at guess where, Walmart. I love gardening.

Someone please speak on the morality issues here. I'm conflicted.

Aloha!

Quote: (08-22-2016 11:37 PM)Delta Wrote:  

snip

1 - Quit using strawman arguments.

2 - Planning to pay your employees shitty wages and keep their hours as low as possible because they'll get welfare...you know, making the gubbmint supplement their income* (using your tax money) is repulsive. That's just throwing a burden on the gubbmint (and indirectly on you) that should be covered by the employer.

* - EBT, WIC, Medicaid, etc

@Kona: Man, I've seen people and buying 20 pounds of fajita for a cookout, beer on hand, and using their EBT cards to pay for it then pay the beer with cash.

Quote: (08-23-2016 12:06 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

2 - Planning to pay your employees shitty wages and keep their hours as low as possible because they'll get welfare...you know, making the gubbmint supplement their income* (using your tax money) is repulsive. That's just throwing a burden on the gubbmint (and indirectly on you) that should be covered by the employer.

The low wages of Walmart workers are independent of welfare. These workers have extremely low market value, and Walmart is simply not paying them any more than they have to. If Walmart didn't exist, those people would still be on welfare. It is not increasing anyone's tax bill.

I actually see everyone's point of view in this thread.

I'm not sure if there are any right answers.

I've never stolen from a store, a person, and never would, but I've done my fair share of downloading torrents, ebooks, music, streaming fights, etc.

To give my opinion on the matter would make me a hypocrite.

Stealing is wrong. I know it's wrong. But I'm not innocent when it comes to this.

I'm with Linux. Where do you draw the line?

I personally don't shoplift and feel it's wrong to do so. But if I leave my car unlocked and my wallet gets stolen, shame on me. It's not the fault of the opportunist who snagged it out of my car. If Walmart is dumb enough to make it that easy for people, of course it's going to happen.

I have taken beer or cash laying out unguarded at parties when I was in college. Is that closer to shoplifting or finding a $20 bill on the sidewalk? I also don't correct a cashier if I find they undercharge me. Is that stealing?

None of us are saints. But it's impossible to draw a moral line. I forgot which book it was in, might have been something from Malcolm Gladwell. But it essentially said most people agree that stealing one dollar out of someone's pocket is morally wrong, but taking their pen that is worth one dollar isn't, since it is removed from money. It also talked about cheating on tests in school, as well as crimes of opportunity such as gate hopping on subways. If anyone knows what book I'm thinking of, let me know.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing morality, as it is fluid and people are not rational. I'd bet none of us would steal a wad of cash off an old lady, but all of us have illegally downloaded music at some point. I've never paid for music. I use a YouTube to mp3 converter. Does that make me more moral than someone who robs banks? Probably, but in the end, we are both thieves. As least the bank robber accepts it while I live in denial and pretend I'm morally superior.

This argument brings up a lot more questions than it answers.

This situation is what happens when you allows multi-national corporations and government to collude together create a negative feedback loop.

Wal-mart's attract a certain type of person.
In this case it also includes people interested in petty theft.
It unfortunate but some people really don't want to life a normal/regular life. Some homeless people aren't interested in doing better for themselves, living on the street is just easier for them. Just like how some people will never pay for music/movies and download from the internet.

Wal-mart not taking suffice steps to protect their staff/merchandise in order to keep costs down is shady. Paying their staff so little to keep them on food stamps/EBT is a special kind of evil. It's basically slavery with a fresh coat of "free choice" paint slapped on it. It's not really a choice if the alternative is starving to death.

^ Meanwhile police will literally close down a child's streetside lemonade stand because they don't have proper permits for street vending.

They ought to recall that shit like this is what lead to the invention of the guillotine.

In the light of the revelations of this thread, I hereby retract all my previous posts. It is obvious that this sort of reckless policy, barring extremely high-trust societies like Japan, results in encouraging and creating lots of crime.

As for Kona: you old rascal! But have you ever been caught doing this at Walmart? What would happen if they insisted on you providing a receipt?

Shouldn't we strive for a high trust society?

Quote: (08-23-2016 04:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

In the light of the revelations of this thread, I hereby retract all my previous posts. It is obvious that this sort of reckless policy, barring extremely high-trust societies like Japan, results in encouraging and creating lots of crime.

As for Kona: you old rascal! But have you ever been caught doing this at Walmart? What would happen if they insisted on you providing a receipt?

Probably nothing as cops in Hawaii are loathe to do any work other than sitting out their shift under a shady tree in their custom car while drawing a paycheck.

I know here in Texas if any employee tries to stop you during a theft and you either push them, strike them, or even bump into them while trying to avoid them it is called "retaliation" and you WILL be charged with a felony. Class 4 or 3 IIR.

Honestly, Wal-mart can more than afford to fix this. They are just being cheap asses about it. I don't really like companies like this that rely on government to cover the costs of things that they themselves can more than afford to handle

Quote: (08-23-2016 04:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

As for Kona: you old rascal! But have you ever been caught doing this at Walmart? What would happen if they insisted on you providing a receipt?

I've never been caught.

If the worker was really insistent I would either act like I made a mistake, or politely refuse and just keep walking.

The thing is, I've had bags with items in them that weren't paid for and offered up the receipt. Xthey just put a line through it with a highlighter. They don't check the bags.

Aloha!

@Delta

No, if walmart didn't exist then all of the other stores that Walmart put out of business would still be in business, and there would actually probably be more jobs, not less.

Quote: (08-23-2016 04:59 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Quote: (08-23-2016 04:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

As for Kona: you old rascal! But have you ever been caught doing this at Walmart? What would happen if they insisted on you providing a receipt?

I've never been caught.

If the worker was really insistent I would either act like I made a mistake, or politely refuse and just keep walking.

The thing is, I've had bags with items in them that weren't paid for and offered up the receipt. Xthey just put a line through it with a highlighter. They don't check the bags.

Aloha!

Kona needs to start his own shopping data sheet.
I know a guy, a quite above average guy at that, a real irregular Joe, if you know what I mean. At the local megamart bulk isle (like in the health food stores) he buys $15 a pound macadamia nuts puts and punches the code for .50 cent dried lima beans. Same thing with $20 per pound Pine Nuts. He does all his shopping in the bulk isle and cooks all his own food. One time he even put a sticker for .99 cents of plaintain (2 pounds) over a sticker on 2 pounds of fresh not frozen AHI (Yellowfin Tuna). He justified these actions by his addiction to these food items such as Macadamia Nuts, Kona Coffee, and Raw AHI. I remember him saying something like:"Eh brah, Local Lives Matter. Local boys gotta eat, eh?"

He utimately found out that food and goods he likes and would be willing to pay for get discontinued or regulated once they are seen as high price per concealment commodities.

Wonder what ever happened to that guy.
He was a very Tyler Durden-like character.
That's why I stopped hanging with him. It was like when I was with him I became him. Weird, huh?

Stealing is bad, m-kay?

Quote: (08-23-2016 06:43 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@Delta

No, if walmart didn't exist then all of the other stores that Walmart put out of business would still be in business, and there would actually probably be more jobs, not less.

Correction: There would be more retail jobs. Since Walmart is more efficient than mom & pop stores, employing fewer people per dollar spent, its products are cheaper. That money collectively saved by consumers can be spent elsewhere, creating more jobs in other sectors.

Your argument that inefficiency is beneficial because it creates jobs is so common that it has a name: The Broken Window Fallacy

Did you even read the fallacy you linked to? It does not apply to Walmart putting small businesses out of business. And yes, many of the jobs Walmart replaces are retail, but you are discounting small retail business owners. Also, you are shifting the argument away from my only point, which is that Walmart does not add jobs, it simply replaces jobs of smaller stores which it puts out of business. I said nothing to the quality of these jobs. But your statement that these workers would be jobless without Walmart is factually incorrect.

^You didn't comprehend my argument in the slightest. You've entirely misinterpreted every facet of what I said. Your reply reads as though you spent 5 seconds skimming my post and went from there.

If you won't carefully read and digest a post that's only 4 sentences long, then this can't be a productive discussion.

I don't want this discussion to turn hostile, but literally the first sentence of your post says "correction", but you are not correcting or contradicting anything I said in my initial reply at all, which leads me to believe you are the one not reading my posts. Also you have created a strawman with your Broken Window Fallacy.

Also, your statement that money saved by shopping at walmart would be reinvested into the economy elsewhere is unsupported by the link you provided. (Can you prove they are not just spending more at Walmart? How do you account for food stamps which can only be spent for certain things?)

Futhermore you are still ignoring (and even denied in your initial post) the reduction of jobs that Walmart causes by putting other companies out of business.

There's nothing more pathetic in an argument than when someone resorts to calling out logical fallacies.

Be a man and prove your point without going ,"post ergo proctor cock, argument denied!"

I didn't do that. I disagreed with something he said, and rather than discuss that point or refute it, he said he disagreed with me but rather than address the initial point he brings up all this other shit which doesn't even apply. I'm done here before I get a warning.

Quote: (08-23-2016 10:53 PM)Delta Wrote:  

^You didn't comprehend my argument in the slightest. You've entirely misinterpreted every facet of what I said. Your reply reads as though you spent 5 seconds skimming my post and went from there.

If you won't carefully read and digest a post that's only 4 sentences long, then this can't be a productive discussion.

All of your posts read like Walmart marketing material. If you're shilling for free, you're bad at economics.

I think you mean "GRAB Walmart".

Quote: (08-22-2016 07:08 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

Well the article does have a point. You don't see this kind of shit happening at Costco.

Doesn't Costco have a membership fee?