Jimmy Buffett discussion
https://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
I have deck shoes from Payless that lasted 5... God love those little Chinese shoemaker gnomes.moog wrote:Okay. Maybe it's not true for everybody and everything. I stretch my sneakers from Payless for 2-3 years.keybdplyr wrote:I have found this to be absolutely NOT true.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote:Wal-Mart drops $400,000 reimbursement claim against injured former worker
BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.
That is costing me money.Elrod wrote:St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote:Wal-Mart drops $400,000 reimbursement claim against injured former worker
BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
ejr wrote:Olbermann has been covering this every night---now he wants the woman compensated for the suffering and inconvenience Wal Mart put her through with this lawsuit.
I wish Walter Cronkite could come back and do the news again. Or revive Ed Murrow from his DNA.You must own stock in Wal-Mart! They couldn't pay me to take the stock.Marnin Grita Guy wrote:That is costing me money.Elrod wrote:St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote:Wal-Mart drops $400,000 reimbursement claim against injured former worker
BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
Thats why they sued to begin with! Had it been an on the job accident
it would have been different. They had to bring the suit before an
employee did. Now they can at least say they attempted to recover the
money that belonged to the "group plan" as a whole. It was either look
bad now or get sued later. Would you haters refer to this
http://www.buffettnews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=67534
I WISH we had those store choices. I live in a small town and WalMart is the only discount store for miles (and miles). I'd love to have a Target, even with an hour's driving time. But we don't have a choice.ragtopW wrote:Well.. I gotta tell ya.. I shop at Walmart everyweek..
I have a hard time finding 3X shirts that
look even halfway good..
Target??
Shopko?
Kmart?
Penneys?
Sears?
none carry anything over XL
IF they do it is a 2X that runs small..
The Mall? not so much..
Ross.. they carry big stuff.. Ugly.. but it fits..
Burlington Coat factory?? I keep hearing that it carrys big sizes
but every time I go in it it UGLYtown...
so to support the pholks that keep me in clothes. I shop there
Not much longer apparently.flyboy55 wrote:I think the Wal-Mart problem will eventually take care of itself.
Two important factors in their business model are unsustainable over the medium to long term.
The first is cheap oil. Wal-Mart's tremendous expansion through the 1990s was fueled by cheap oil. When the current president took office oil was selling for around $10 a barrel. Current oil prices are hovering around $100 a barrel. This change has impacted their transportation costs tremendously. Their share price has reflected this in the last few years. They've been increasing dividends to shareholders as a way to prop up the share price but they can't sustain that for very long.
The second factor is cheap labor. How much longer will laborers in China and other parts of Asia work for peanuts? They're all buying cars, TVs, washing machines - just like us - and those consumer goods cost money. The cost of labor will inevitably rise, further reducing Wal-Mart's competitive advantage.
These are also the reasons why Wal-Mart has expanded into other market sectors like financial services. They know they won't be the nation's purveyor of cheap foreign goods for very much longer.
I doubt very much whether anyone will recognize Wal-Mart ten years from now. I don't think our children's generation will be shopping there.
http://www.slate.com/id/2188409/?GT1=38001. . . The era of cheap Chinese consumer goods may finally be ending, thanks to irrepressible inflation. Now when the Chinese present their lists, some American importers are conceding higher prices, meaning that American shoppers, for the first time in years, are starting to pick up the tab for rising costs in China. Some Chinese factories are now asking their American customers for price increases of as much as 20 percent to 30 percent . . .
. . . But now a perfect storm has hit China's manufacturers. So far this year, the renminbi has been appreciating at a 16 percent annualized rate. And prices for raw materials, which account for 60 percent to 70 percent of manufacturers' costs, are soaring. Hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil has raised transport costs and the price of oil-related materials such as plastics . . .
At the same time, China is rolling out wage increases around the country and tightening its labor laws. Wages are rising at double-digit rates in coastal China. In January, Beijing introduced a new labor law that significantly strengthened the influence of the union in management decisions . . .
Wal-Mart doesn't accept my health insurance (a pretty big national provider), so I use the pharmacy at my Safeway (plus they're open longer hours than walmart, and even on Sunday, which comes in handy when I forget to call in my son's refill for his asthma medication).popcornjack wrote:Part of the reason people I know have a problem with Wal-Mart is because they are the only convenient pharmacy for a large part of the country, and they refuse to carry the "morning after" pill, e.g., since there is no reasonable competition, they set health care policy, to a certain degree. How accurate that is I don't know, but from what other people have posted here, it sounds as if that Wal Mart is the only choice in town.
You naughty boy.popcornjack wrote: and they refuse to carry the "morning after" pill.