Saved $16 but feeling a little guilty - Page 8

[bigeyes]

QUOTE]

It is so not about this, and if you still think it is, well, you really don't get the gist of this thread at all.

If you have to buy milk at WalMart b/c there is not other alternative, that is really sad. That's what you have to do. But don't be so defensive and say the rest of us are snobs are trying to feel superior or some such nonsense. That is coming from your own issues inside, whatever they may be.[/QUOTE]

I think some of you don't get the other side either. There was a time when I couldn't afford to do anything else, and yes, that was sad.

Now, I can't see any reason to pay twice as much for something I can get there. I'm not talking about 30 cents, I'm talking about literally double the price. And there are some people in this thread who are coming off as feeling morally superior for not shopping at walmart.

I still maintain that until you can prove to me that all the other stores are getting their products from fair trade manufacturers, it is unfair to demonize Walmart without dissecting the business practices of every other retailer in the same discussion.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I have issues.
Maybe you have issues with big business?

It's possible it's just the written word coming off differently than the spoken word, but it sure looks like quite a few people in this thread look down on us for shopping at walmart unless we say we're so destitute we have no choice.

So is that moral superiority? Pity? Either way, it isn't very nice.

[wonderwahine]

I agree, and also investigate your beloved "local" stores, because they might be shopping for their suppliesat walmart or sams club also.

[swimswamswum]

Originally Posted by Leta

Sorry, but no. It's a "both and" problem, sure- but it's a *very* simple solution. What it boils down to is this: the problem is so complicated because we tie healthcare to employment, which is diabolically stupid. The solution is easy: expand Medicare to cover everyone, not just those over 65.This is a job for government, and government alone. It is only thru the negligence of our government that employers have any role to play whatsoever.

I spent 6 months of my life living, breathing, and eating this issue. If you want to get into why we have a healthcare crisis, I'd be happy to have that conversation, tho' I certainly do not think that this is the appropriate thread for it.

ETA: I am in Public Health. The whole point of my feild is educating people on how to take care of themselves. So yes, earining a living wage is a strong indicator of leading a healthy lifestyle. That criticism of Wal-Mart (and many other corporations) is very well founded.

Again, I don't disagree that employment and healthcare should not be tied to one another. I will reiterate that I fully support universal healthcare.

I am really not interested in having a pissing contest about our credentials because I don't think it should matter.

I also would like to point out that I find your tone dismissive and condescending. "Sorry, but no" really turned me off to the rest of your post.

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by wonderwahine

thats a big assumption, I know even on our tight budget we still donate food and clothing. Just because we shop at walmart doesn't mean we arn't.

not to mention, the thousands of dollars in food that WALMART donate to the food banks ad homeless shelters in our area. I think if walmart had to cut costs suddenly because of lack of sales, that would be one of the areas that suffered first, so how would boycotting help?

In no way did I say or imply that anyone who shops at WalMart doesn't donate to needy people.

My point is that if you want to help needy people, that is a far better way to do it than justifying shopping at Walmart because it is going to help someone in need. Do you see the distinction?

[bigeyes]

Originally Posted by Rainbowbird

In no way did I say or imply that anyone who shops at WalMart doesn't donate to needy people.

My point is that if you want to help needy people, that is a far better way to do it than justifying shopping at Walmart because it is going to help someone in need. Do you see the distinction?

NO. What I see is you being judgmental about someone else's choices.
I also saw you imply I was too dumb to know what we were talking about. I know, you're going to say you didn't, but you did. When You say someone doesn't understand the thread, you are implying that they are too dumb to get it.


People disagree.

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by bigeyes

NO. What I see is you being judgmental about someone else's choices.
I also saw you imply I was too dumb to know what we were talking about. I know, you're going to say you didn't, but you did. When You say someone doesn't understand the thread, you are implying that they are too dumb to get it.


People disagree.

I'm not being judgemental and I don't know how you get that from what I wrote. I didn't say you didn't understand. I am honestly asking you, do you see the distinction in what I am saying? There was no sarcasm there.

[Leta]

Originally Posted by swimswamswum

I am really not interested in having a pissing contest about our credentials because I don't think it should matter.

I also would like to point out that I find your tone dismissive and condescending. "Sorry, but no" really turned me off to the rest of your post.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest about credientials, either- that wasn't my point. It's just that here and IRL, I've had people say, "How do you know?", so I was just trying to be preemptive (sp?). Also, I don't think credentials per se matter, but I DO think it matters that we have our ducks in a row, so to speak. The U.S. healthcare system is one of the eight topics where I actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, either. I'm sorry, sss, that it came across that way. I was trying to be succinct.
You are absolutely correct in that the problem is complicated. But, once again, on MDC and IRL, I have found that any conversation about the U.S. healthcare system is always skewed toward parsing the problem, which I think is silly when the solution is so simple. This is a hobbyhorse of mine, trying to reframe and refocus the debate.

I don't want to come across as a WM apologist. I'm not. As I said earlier in the thread, I am anti-corporatism. I just call BS on the whole, "WM is evil because their health insurance sucks". There are many, many, many valid and severe complaints about WM, I just don't think this one is.

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by Leta

Bolding mine. As to the first bolded part: This is a nice thought, but it is completely and totally false. I did my thesis on the modern American healthcare crisis. Does WM negatively impact local economies? In many, many cases, YES. But the problem with healthcare is that it cannot be regulated by conventional market driven means. THE HEALTHCARE CRISIS IS IN NO WAY THE FAULT OF ANY MANUFACTURER OR RETAILER.

As far as the second bolded part goes, yes, absolutely. But you could subsitute "Wal-Mart" in this sentance with almost any other money making enterprise.

It is not false. Smaller companies would be doing better without giants like WalMart putting them on the edge. They would likely be able to pay their employees better and have better benefits if the local economies were not so endangered.

And I didn't say the healthcare crisis was the fault of any retailer. I'm saying thing would be in a lot better shape if big business, WalMart especially, operated different. You're putting words in my mouth.

[nantahala]

Originally Posted by Leta

Sorry, but no. It's a "both and" problem, sure- but it's a *very* simple solution. What it boils down to is this: the problem is so complicated because we tie healthcare to employment, which is diabolically stupid. The solution is easy: expand Medicare to cover everyone, not just those over 65.This is a job for government, and government alone. It is only thru the negligence of our government that employers have any role to play whatsoever.

Cosigned, another health care professional

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by Nature

Having the attitude of "if you really wanted to.." or "if you were compassionate of other humans..." or "if you had higher morals..." "then you too would boycott walmart" isn't having a superiority complex?

I believe you are inferring that some pps said the things you put in quotes, when in fact, they did not. So you are inferring that some pps have a superiority complex, which is a rather dangerous and rude assumption to make.

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by Sheena

Well, Rainbowbird, I am not a wal-mart shopper so before you go chalking up my disagreeing with you to my secret shame over bargain shopping I was wondering if you had any back up documentation for these statements (other than propaganda):






Like I said, I am not a Wal-mart shopper but before I decide for someone whether or not the job they might be getting at Wal-mart is affecting my local economy I like to have all of the facts.

You can start here with the famous pickle article:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I have not saved all of the articles I have read regarding WalMart's damaging business practices, but it is easy enough to research it online or at your local library. There's about a million of them out there.

[nantahala]

Originally Posted by swimswamswum

I am really not interested in having a pissing contest about our credentials because I don't think it should matter.

Not to go too OT but I posit it is important when someone shares credentials, education, and expertise on a topic, if the aforemention apply, due to the rampant anti-intellectualism that runs amok on the internet where anyone who knows how to Google WikiPedia is suddenly as "expert" on XY&Z.

End OT. :

[bigeyes]

Originally Posted by Rainbowbird

I'm not being judgemental and I don't know how you get that from what I wrote. I didn't say you didn't understand. I am honestly asking you, do you see the distinction in what I am saying? There was no sarcasm there.

You said :

Originally Posted by Rainbowbird

It is so not about this, and if you still think it is, well, you really don't get the gist of this thread at all.

If you have to buy milk at WalMart b/c there is not other alternative, that is really sad. That's what you have to do. But don't be so defensive and say the rest of us are snobs are trying to feel superior or some such nonsense. That is coming from your own issues inside, whatever they may be.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

I think you were insulting.

But then, I have some pathological need to shop at wal mart.

[Rainbowbird]

Thank you for expanding upon this. I think it is very useful to the discussion.

Originally Posted by swimswamswum

I disagree and agree with Rainbowbird. While the healthcare crisis is certainly complex, it absolutely is related to current manufacturing and trade policies in the United States. When places like Walmart choose to provide their shareholders and owners with greater profit at the expense of their employees and the people manufacturing the goods they sell, they are absolutely contributing to the high rate of uninsured people in this country. When they choose to low ball decent manufacturers like Rubbermade and force them to rely on exploitative labor in poor countries, they absolutely contribute to high rates of uninsured and unemployed people in the US. States are left with the burden of providing healthcare for people who once had decent, well paying manufacturing jobs, they aren't able (or willing) to provide clinicians with competitive reimbursement rates, and costs go up for everyone.

I do not disagree with you that a problem in healthcare is that it cannot and should not be regulated by conventional market means. Capitalism and health care absolutely should not mix. I am a strong proponent of universal healthcare and healthcare reform. This does not mean that I believe that the policies and decisions of major, profit driven corporations like Walmart do not also contribute to the crisis. I think it's a "both and" problem, rather than "either or".

We also have to remember that health is not just defined as access to care. It's about having access to all of the things that we need to stay healthy- avoiding stress, eating well, having clean environments, etc. These things are absolutely related to making a living wage and having a job where you're treated with dignity. Walmart's track record shows that they are not interested in treating all people with dignity and that they have no interest in providing their employees or those manufacturing for them with a living wage and the right to organize.

[Rainbowbird]

Originally Posted by bigeyes

You said :


I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

I think you were insulting.

But then, I have some pathological need to shop at wal mart.

I and others find it insulting to be called snobs, elitists, etc. for trying to boycott them. Did you not expect that someone would be offended?

[wannabe]

but it's a *very* simple solution. What it boils down to is this: the problem is so complicated because we tie healthcare to employment, which is diabolically stupid. The solution is easy: expand Medicare to cover everyone, not just those over 65.This is a job for government, and government alone. It is only thru the negligence of our government that employers have any role to play whatsoever.

Of course! But it's not governement negligence. You're a democracy. It's everyone's fault. if you really wanted the person next door to have health care you'd vote for it. And people don't, because they don't. I'm sure a higher proprtion of MDC members DO care, but a fair chunk don't, and a massive number of your countrymen are actively against healthcare, too. Just look at how many people hear about public health systems and say "oooh, but higher taxes". Not only is that selfsih, but in my country, where everyone gets what they need when they need it, the waiting times are shorter than in America and IT COSTS LESS. Your employer can pay anywhere from $300 to $1000 a month for your insurance, and you'd have to be earning a shedload of money to pay an extra $1000 a month in taxes. We certainly pay more in pay lost to health insurance than we'd pay in taxes at home.

[xmysticprincessx]

i'm going to assume that that we're all parents since we're on MOTHERING.com. so why not get off the computer and go play with your kids? seriously, 8 pages about arguing about shopping or not shopping at wal mart is rediculous, especially since there have been countless other wal mart threads on here before. the people who boycott wal mart will contine to boycott it. and the people who shop there (either on a regular basis or once a year) will continue to shop there (or target, or CVS, or kmart, or costco, etc). nobody is going to change anybody else's mind about walmart.

its a beautiful day. (well, here at least. and for the time being.) GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY WITH YOUR KIDS. or do housework. or something else.

mods, can we lock this thread?

[Nature]

Originally Posted by Rainbowbird

I believe you are inferring that some pps said the things you put in quotes, when in fact, they did not. So you are inferring that some pps have a superiority complex, which is a rather dangerous and rude assumption to make.

Umm.. no. I didn't say anyone said the things I put in quotes at all. Or else I would not have said "having the attitude of." Perhaps I didn't use quotations in the correct manner, or maybe I plan messed the sentence structure all up. Who knows.

What I did say was, some posters appear to have a superiority complex when it comes to boycotting Walmart. Yes. I did say that. If I wanted to violate the UA I'd show you exactly which posts I'm referencing. But alas I'm refraining from personal attacks. : No one said people were elitists or anything else simply because you're boycotting Walmart. I don't care who you boycott as long as it brings you happiness to do so. I do however take offense to the posters who questions my morals, and my necessities in life, and how I spend my money and sleep at night. Yes, I do. Simply boycotting and being passionate about it is one thing. Telling others that they are not trying hard enough, or much not have the high morals and standards for life that they have.. is just rude.

It is my opinion that some posters have been very insulting in this thread. And because of that, some others have become very defensive.

It should not be a competition. Plain and simple. Yet its made into one. Even here, in a haven away from mainstream society... there are stupid, stupid competitions that are hurtful and only accomplish pushing us further apart from each other and our goals. Goals that COULD be common goals. If half the message didn't get lost in petty arguing.

[bigeyes]

Originally Posted by Rainbowbird

I and others find it insulting to be called snobs, elitists, etc. for trying to boycott them. Did you not expect that someone would be offended?

I don't believe I used either of those words.

Your tone has been condescending in several posts. I disagree with you, and I don't see why those of us who do are characterized as ignorant. Walmart is not fabulous, but they are not the devil either. Plenty of big businesses are equally bad.

It's ok to dislike Walmart, but I will not blame them for our health care crisis, or for all poverty in this country and others. It's just not so. Sure, they contribute. But so do many others.

I've read the articles and watched the independent films. I happen to disagree that Walmart is the root of all evil.

What about Dell having all their customer service people in India? How about Daizey sending their manufacturing plants to Mexico? Did they contribute to our economic problems? How about Ford continuing to crank out inferior vehicles? Is it the fault of an American company that Toyota jumped forward to become the number 1 seller of automobiles? Maybe they should have made better cars.

We're so busy ragging on Walmart that we don't notice how many companies continue to send jobs out of the country.

If we're really worried about healthcare, maybe we should pay less attention to walmart and more to our government. Maybe we should ask our representatives why it's legal for a corporation to get tax breaks in the US while having factories in other countries. Maybe we should ask why it's legal to work someone 32 to 38 hours in some states so they can't qualify for full time benefits?

It isn't walmart, but they are sure a convenient scapegoat, and they keep you busy so you don't see what the rest of them are doing.

[swimswamswum]

Originally Posted by Leta

I don't want to get into a pissing contest about credientials, either- that wasn't my point. It's just that here and IRL, I've had people say, "How do you know?", so I was just trying to be preemptive (sp?). Also, I don't think credentials per se matter, but I DO think it matters that we have our ducks in a row, so to speak. The U.S. healthcare system is one of the eight topics where I actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, either. I'm sorry, sss, that it came across that way. I was trying to be succinct.
You are absolutely correct in that the problem is complicated. But, once again, on MDC and IRL, I have found that any conversation about the U.S. healthcare system is always skewed toward parsing the problem, which I think is silly when the solution is so simple. This is a hobbyhorse of mine, trying to reframe and refocus the debate.

I don't want to come across as a WM apologist. I'm not. As I said earlier in the thread, I am anti-corporatism. I just call BS on the whole, "WM is evil because their health insurance sucks". There are many, many, many valid and severe complaints about WM, I just don't think this one is.

Good to know.