Sams v Costco

[bdhu2001]

---

@coldnmn wrote:

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

---

@B335is wrote:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

---

@B335is wrote:

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

I choose Costco:

1. Value: when I buy stuff at Costco I find good quality products.  Doesn't fall apart, taste bad, rot quickly.
2. Exchange policy.  I love not having to worry, even if it's rarely used (2 returns in 11 years).
3. Quicker lines, including self check out.  When I went to Sam's club they seemed to try to keep as few lines as possible & had the Walmart feel of cheap not inexpensive good value for money.  For instance I bought a workout outfit & the bottom of the top ended up being unfinished. 
4. Knowlege of the way Sam's club treats their employees and the fact that I'm subsidig their profit with my tax $s, because they don't pay living wages was the last straw.  a) I don't find good value. b) they're greedy & don't provide good service (i.e most lines closed) c)Double dipping: using Food Banks and my tax $ to supplement employee's wages when they make billions per year.

---

Well in all fairness to point #4, the average Sam's Club employee generates far less revenue than one of Costco's employees so it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison.  I've also never waited in line for more than 5 minutes at Sam's Club.

I guess it's all personal preference and experience.  Sam's is 10 minutes from my house, Costco is 25 minutes.  Costco always has traffic backed out into the street, Sam's doesn't.

---

Do you know this to be the case that Sam's Club generates less?  Both companies profit margin doesn't indicate this.  Do you have data or a link that supports this statement or is it a supposition?  There are other stores that generate far less profit that still pay their employees a living wage.  Data indicates that if Walmart and Sam's Club paid more, their profit would go up.  Because most of their employees shop there and would actually buy more items.  In addition, the $s that they spend else where also circulate and make it back to their store.  Greed is greed.  It's not based on need.  Sam's Club can get away with it so they do. 

You can't rationalize greed.  It's like the tricle down economics theory which has been proven to be false. Greed has people still saying that if you give the "job creators" more money they will create more jobs.  This would be fine if you gave money to the true "Job creators" consumers. Based on economics, consumers or average to low wage earners spend more money when they get more money.  Middle to high income earners, save more money when they get more money.  

Therefore, give more money to low wage earners, increases demand, thereby, increasing jobs. Hording does not increase demand, nor does it create jobs. Giving Walmart and Sam's Club employees a livable wage will create jobs and cost the average Walmart shopper less the 20cents more per shopping trip (if Walmart passes the total cost to the consumer). Again greed defies logic & It's the Economics major rearing up in me that makes me shake my head. On the other hand, it's also the economics major in me that decides that Sam's Club won't dip into my pocket twice: once at the register & second time through my taxes.

bloombergview

---

So what defines greed?  $1 profit or $10 billion profit?  Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Walmart or Sam's. Why is it our duty to decide what constitutes a living wage to folks who are free to pursue other career options.  

---

It's not your duty. No one says it's your duty.  I simply state why I won't shop there or give Walmart & Sam's the opportunity to double dip in my pocket.  Right now corporations are doing everything possible to change this into a feudal society where everyone works for the lowest wages possible. In this way, there's no competition for people to work for someone else, because everyone pays the same.  Saying no one forces people to work at Walmart is the same as saying no one forces people to breath air.  

People need jobs and funds to survive. When kids and other people's fingers were being cut off due to poor safety practices in factories, no one forced them to work in the factories either.  As an economist, I keep watching this country and remember the adage "And then they came for me, but no one was left and no one was left to speak for me."  They started by dividing us into being upset with welfare recipents.  Next they outsourced jobs 100,000s, but we were getting cheaper products. Those jobs added up so our economy began to falter, because the people laid off could no longer afford items. Then it was government workers fault, then teachers faults, then the Union's fault, now it's low income workers and the unemployed people's fault.

It's the chip, chip, chip away system. Next it'll be that the aged are living too long and creating a burden, then kids are not productive and are a drain (they need to work in tabaco farms).  Okay, these aren't next, it's already happening.  My point is you decide when it's your time to speak up and stand.  Hopefully, before they come for you & yours.

---

That's why they created unions but with corporation lobbyist's and a corrupt govt we see where peoples rights went with union breaking and lax import taxes. But who do we want to punish by working from the bottom up. The ones who least can afford It.

---

I know.  My undergraduate degree was in Economics and Political Science.  Being a double major and watching our government falter in both my fields of interest is dis-heartening.  Now even the "fourth rail," the press is providing missinformation and corporate influence.  I'm hoping that social media and forums will find a way to bring  our country back.  

How can we have a Congress that get 6 figure salaries, but refuses to work and not be up in arms.  Why isn't everyone calling their elected officials and tying up their switchboards with the message "Do your job."  They don't have to do what I want, but they should at least work and do something.  They currently spend less than time working than a parttime employee http://bit.ly/VeTxmT .  They actually scheduled themselves to work less, because they were unwiling to work to pass laws and bills (what we elected them for) and didn't want to look silly doing nothing.  So they gave themselves even more time off.

[B335is]

Well since you called Sam's greedy, it's a valid question of where is that line and why isn't Costco greedy for making a profit?  At what point is it enough to be considered not greedy?  Sam's Club is not the only employer, so yes, their people can leave at will.  The air I breathe is the same as yours, but I'm sure my job is different than yours and we have different qualifications for our responsibilities and income.

I really do see both sides to the argument, but I cannot bring myself to compare Sam's Club/Walmart to Costco.  It's like comparing Whole Foods to Kroger.  Yes, I wish Sam's paid their employees more, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that expense won't be passed along to consumers.

It's almost ironic how the politicians have started this class warfare when they continue to live the good life.  Yet we continue to re-elect people who have made a career out of it...  Now here's a politician I would vote for:  President of Uruguay

[bdhu2001]

---

@B335is wrote:

Well since you called Sam's greedy, it's a valid question of where is that line and why isn't Costco greedy for making a profit?  At what point is it enough to be considered not greedy?  Sam's Club is not the only employer, so yes, their people can leave at will.  The air I breathe is the same as yours, but I'm sure my job is different than yours and we have different qualifications for our responsibilities and income.

I really do see both sides to the argument, but I cannot bring myself to compare Sam's Club/Walmart to Costco.  It's like comparing Whole Foods to Kroger.  Yes, I wish Sam's paid their employees more, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that expense won't be passed along to consumers.

It's almost ironic how the politicians have started this class warfare when they continue to live the good life.  Yet we continue to re-elect people who have made a career out of it...  Now here's a politician I would vote for:  President of Uruguay

---

No where in my statement did I say that expense shouldn't be passed to consumer. I do not consider profit, in & of itself, greed.  It's greed, when you pretend to contract with another company for your warehouse workers so that you can cut corners on working conditions.  There are too many practices that Walmart & Sam's club utilize for me to research and name them all. I don't consider Costco the end all and be all, but they do pay a decent wage.  

I ran into a lady who's worked for Costco for years who commented that she wished she could retire early like I did (she was bad mouthing Costco and said a lot more).  I explained that my pension wasn't enough and that I had to save a 401K to leave early.  I asked her doesn't Costco have 401K.  She said yes, but she cashed hers out & now she'd have to rely on her pension.  Everyone thinks they have it bad and on my previous job, many complained about that job too.  I call it the grass is greener syndrome.  I've always worked hard, did my best and felt fortunate to have any job I had at the time. I have seen plenty of people who have it a lot worse.  I don't begrudge them or say they deserve to do worse. Millions of Americans lost their pensions and life savings due to greed of Politicians, banks, and corporate interest.  That doesn't mean that all Politicians, banks, etc are bad; but when the organizations policy or behavior indicates a lack of treating employees fairly or humanely for a $, I call it greed. 

You do realize that low wage workers have also been forced to work off the books, without getting paid, at Franchise food companies and other low paying corporations. Taking advantage of people who need every dime to get by is not just greedy, it's immoral.  Again, this is how I feel and where my research has lead me.  Everyone is free to feel differently.  I simply support companies that my research indicates treat their employees decently. 

[Ubuntu]

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

---

@B335is wrote:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

---

@B335is wrote:

---

@bdhu2001 wrote:

I choose Costco:

1. Value: when I buy stuff at Costco I find good quality products.  Doesn't fall apart, taste bad, rot quickly.
2. Exchange policy.  I love not having to worry, even if it's rarely used (2 returns in 11 years).
3. Quicker lines, including self check out.  When I went to Sam's club they seemed to try to keep as few lines as possible & had the Walmart feel of cheap not inexpensive good value for money.  For instance I bought a workout outfit & the bottom of the top ended up being unfinished. 
4. Knowlege of the way Sam's club treats their employees and the fact that I'm subsidig their profit with my tax $s, because they don't pay living wages was the last straw.  a) I don't find good value. b) they're greedy & don't provide good service (i.e most lines closed) c)Double dipping: using Food Banks and my tax $ to supplement employee's wages when they make billions per year.

---

Well in all fairness to point #4, the average Sam's Club employee generates far less revenue than one of Costco's employees so it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison.  I've also never waited in line for more than 5 minutes at Sam's Club.

I guess it's all personal preference and experience.  Sam's is 10 minutes from my house, Costco is 25 minutes.  Costco always has traffic backed out into the street, Sam's doesn't.

---

Do you know this to be the case that Sam's Club generates less?  Both companies profit margin doesn't indicate this.  Do you have data or a link that supports this statement or is it a supposition?  There are other stores that generate far less profit that still pay their employees a living wage.  Data indicates that if Walmart and Sam's Club paid more, their profit would go up.  Because most of their employees shop there and would actually buy more items.  In addition, the $s that they spend else where also circulate and make it back to their store.  Greed is greed.  It's not based on need.  Sam's Club can get away with it so they do. 

You can't rationalize greed.  It's like the tricle down economics theory which has been proven to be false. Greed has people still saying that if you give the "job creators" more money they will create more jobs.  This would be fine if you gave money to the true "Job creators" consumers. Based on economics, consumers or average to low wage earners spend more money when they get more money.  Middle to high income earners, save more money when they get more money.  

Therefore, give more money to low wage earners, increases demand, thereby, increasing jobs. Hording does not increase demand, nor does it create jobs. Giving Walmart and Sam's Club employees a livable wage will create jobs and cost the average Walmart shopper less the 20cents more per shopping trip (if Walmart passes the total cost to the consumer). Again greed defies logic & It's the Economics major rearing up in me that makes me shake my head. On the other hand, it's also the economics major in me that decides that Sam's Club won't dip into my pocket twice: once at the register & second time through my taxes.

bloombergview

---

So what defines greed?  $1 profit or $10 billion profit?  Nobody is forcing anyone to work at Walmart or Sam's. Why is it our duty to decide what constitutes a living wage to folks who are free to pursue other career options.  

---

It's not your duty. No one says it's your duty.  I simply state why I won't shop there or give Walmart & Sam's the opportunity to double dip in my pocket.  Right now corporations are doing everything possible to change this into a feudal society where everyone works for the lowest wages possible. In this way, there's no competition for people to work for someone else, because everyone pays the same.  Saying no one forces people to work at Walmart is the same as saying no one forces people to breath air.  

People need jobs and funds to survive. When kids and other people's fingers were being cut off due to poor safety practices in factories, no one forced them to work in the factories either.  As an economist, I keep watching this country and remember the adage "And then they came for me, but no one was left and no one was left to speak for me."  They started by dividing us into being upset with welfare recipents.  Next they outsourced jobs 100,000s, but we were getting cheaper products. Those jobs added up so our economy began to falter, because the people laid off could no longer afford items. Then it was government workers fault, then teachers faults, then the Union's fault, now it's low income workers and the unemployed people's fault.

It's the chip, chip, chip away system. Next it'll be that the aged are living too long and creating a burden, then kids are not productive and are a drain (they need to work in tabaco farms).  Okay, these aren't next, it's already happening.  My point is you decide when it's your time to speak up and stand.  Hopefully, before they come for you & yours.

---

Agreed wholeheartedly.  Historically these things almost always eventually swing in the other direction but it's usually in a very unpleasant way such as revolution, war, or environmental catastrophy.

At least one person, Nick Hanauer one of the earliest Amazon investors, is seeing pitchforks...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.ht...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/1900-year-old-wisdom-an-imbalance-between-rich-and-poor-is-th...