Wal-Mart Re-Uses Flawed Reporting Methods

Has anybody done a study on how much you would really
save if you were to buy quality products that lasted long
compared to junk you have to replace after a yr or two
,if it even lasts that long?

JOE

I can’t speak for others out there, but my own experience with that cheap “Taiwan and Chinese” made junk has been bad.

I bought a cheap set of tools to take in my wife’s car, you know, for emergencies. I had them in the trunk for about 2 years. Her car broke down, but thankfully I had that cheap set to fix it with. Had I only used them that one time to get me home it would have more than made up for $20.00 that they cost me. But the fact is the very first time I put any pressure on the 3/8th ratchet, the damned thing broke! There I was holding a 2yr old but brand new, but broken set of tools. Because of that, a 30 min fix turned into an all day job, not to mention the 10 mile walk and the fact that I had to replace the junk set of tools with a good American set.

I know that this is only one, but there are many other instances throughout my life, that taking the “cheap” road has cost me dearly. My own experiences have taught me that it’s hard to put a price on quality.

Big D

You have a point. I have bought few tools at Wal-Mart over the years. I prefer Craftsman. You pay more but they are high quality stuff and they are guaranteed. I don’t know if Sears still goes for this but my father and I would go to auctions, flea markets and estate sales and buy old Craftsman tools. We would then take them to Sears and exchange them, as they were guaranteed for life. I can’t tell you how many nice tools I own now thanks to Sears.

It is true that a long-term tool set on which you may rely should be high quality. I would never buy cheap tools knowing I might have to rely on them. This is one case where spending more is worth it.

“This is one case where spending more is worth it.” ~Nick

And as we’re all seeing, there’s more than a few examples where “spending more is worth it.”

To any of our brilliant law makers on Capitol Hill who are now perplexed over the plague of recalls in this country, I’d simply say, “You should have thought about this scenario ,before you voted for NAFTA and CAFTA.

Nick,

“I don’t know if Sears still goes for this but my father and I would go to auctions, flea markets and estate sales and buy old Craftsman tools. We would then take them to Sears and exchange them, as they were guaranteed for life.”

The hand tools still carry that guarantee, which is significant, given that mainline Sears stores are not the sole retail outlet for Craftsman tools, these days (all Kmart, Fastenal, and AAFES stores sell them, too).

Who says you can’t still buy quality?

Bill

Big D,

“I know that this is only one, but there are many other instances throughout my life, that taking the “cheap” road has cost me dearly.”

I think you will find, that none of us (the so-called pro Wal-Marters) have ever advocated buying EVERYTHING from Wal-Mart!!  We just want people to have the choice to shop there or not!!  Choice of WHAT people buy, should be their choice!!  Quality is good, but in some cases not necessary, but, in the end, that should be left up to the purchaser and should not be withheld, by opinionated people, who believe they have the right to tell others what to buy and where to shop!!

“You should have thought about this scenario ,before you voted for NAFTA and CAFTA…”

Screwy is right on with this one.

If anyone had the chance yesterday to watch the congressional hearings regarding defective toy imports from China, chaired by Durbin, you had the chance to see Brownback subtly chastise CEO Eckert of Mattel, for the lack of forecasting this problem.

Brownback, a republican and free trade advocate (who voted CAFTA), showed an open disdain for the inability of a free market entity such as Mattel, to understand the foreseeable consequences of dealing with such a ’closed’ entity as China with regards to safety of imports.

Brownback simply nailed every tack in the upholstery, including another subtle derision of CEO Storch (Toys R Us), who testified that he had never been to China.
Brownback seemed it incredulous that one of the USA’s largest toy retailer’s CEO, had not even bothered to visit the country of origin of its products, and after ‘debarking’ him suggest he do so.

A brilliant Brownback (although I Democrat), laid out the ABC blocks why these corporate stooges(my op.) failed.

I would highly recommend anyone here visit CSPAN and check the transcripts.

I don’t know if Sears still goes for this but my father and I would go to auctions, flea markets and estate sales and buy old Craftsman tools. We would then take them to Sears and exchange them, as they were guaranteed for life.

It’s guys like you, Nick, that take advantage of Craftsman’s guarantee that ruins it for everyone.

I’m not even going to go into the ethical or moral side of what you did.

It’s Pretty Safe to Say, Ken...

People like Nick or RDS, who pride themselves on being “emotion free,” more than likely operate under their own set of “morals” or “code of ethics.”

Ken

See if you can follow this:

1. Sears guaranteed its Craftsman tools.
2. Whether we brought the tools back or the person selling them brought them back, the tools were covered.
3. The guarantee was on the tools, not to the original purchaser of the tools.
4. Sears management approved EVERY transaction, even after we told them we had bought the tools at auction. They said their guarantee was on the TOOLS, not a contract between the buyer and Sears.
5. If you own Craftsman tools and they go bad, you can exchange them.

I have seen NUMEROUS people selling Craftsman tools on Ebay and other sites and advertising “LIFETIME WARRANTIES”. What is the difference between my scrounging and people on Ebay? Sears should stop offering the guarantee if they don’t want to exchange broken or worn out tools.

Now, perhaps I was not clear, but I never took back an old tool just to get a new one and I never turned in a rusty tool, as they do not cover stupidity on the part of the customer.

If GM offers a 7-year, 100,000 powertrain warranty that is transferable and you pick up a used car that is 3 years old and has 40,000 miles on it, is it unethical or immoral for you to use that warranty for which the previous owner already paid the bulk?

I repeat: Sears should stop offering the warranty if they don’t like it. They are owned by ELP Investments, run by Eddie Lampert, and his only interest is in selling off real estate and using Sears and K-Mart’s cash to finance other acquisitions (ala Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway). Even Sears’ store managers will tell you that there has been no new investment in the stores and they know they are simply a cash cow. Once Lampert has drained the cash, he will dump Sears and K-Mart for the real estate, and pick up another $3 billion.

But I’ve rambled. There is nothing illegal and immoral about exchanging tools. I’ve been told by a store manager that, while Sears doesn’t encourage it, they have to stand by their warranty.

Can you understand any of this?

“But I’ve rambled.” ~Nick

So what’s new?

Nick,

“But I’ve rambled.”

I know how frustrating it is, when you have to go into fine detail to try to explain ‘simple’ things here!!  It’s kind of like trying to explain things to a child!!

A few years back if you broke a Craftsman ratchet they would replace it with a new one. Now, you get a refurbrished ratchet. When I asked why I was told because too many people were abusing the guarantee.

It’s no wonder you’re pro Wal-Mart, Nick. You were raised to scrounge around garage sales to save/make a few pennies.

I used to tell folks complaining about Wal-Marts being filthy and understaffed that their expectations were just too high. If they would think of shopping at Wal-Mart as going to a garage sale in the bad part of town, they wouldn’t be disappointed.

“I don’t think someone getting a good deal on toilet paper at Walmart is, through their purchase, endorsing Walmart’s business practices.” ~ Greg Spotts

“I know how frustrating it is...” ~RDS

We’ve picked up on your frustrations a long time ago.

you have to go into fine detail

Not Really!  Most of us understood the intent and meaning of Nick’s post from the get go!

Screwedby,

“Not Really!  Most of us understood the intent and meaning of Nick’s post from the get go!”

Well, it didn’t show, with the name calling and assumptions you made, in response!!  You made it very clear, that you see only one way to ‘skin a cat’, YOUR WAY and all others are wrong!!  You refuse to consider tested economic facts and time tested ways of doing things!!  And, you fail to see and continue to support “Failed’ concepts!!  You complain about 25 year olds supporting retired people, but support the current Social Security system!!  You want Wal-Mart to spend money on raises, benefit increases, going green, and a whole host of other things and then hope and work for Wal-Mart to make LESS money to do it with!!  You want to have your cake and be able to eat it too!!

Lastly, you fail to see that increasing wages, has a detrimental effect on cost of living, as inflation always outpaces wages, so, with every raise in pay, people LOSE buying power!!  We see this as ‘bad’ and you see it as ‘good’, because it appears that people are making more!!  You look at the amount per hour, we look at the buying power!!  We advocate saving money, your side advocates spending more and, you can’t see the problems with that!!

RDS:  Pardon this “troll” for asking for a little further clarification of the statement that increasing wages has a detrimental effect on the cost of living-for we “great unwashed and misguided “ could you please explain,SLOWLY and CLAERLY, how this quantifies with the exorbitant CEO salaries?  CEO’s of companiess who have poor performance,walmart included?does this logically mean that with every raise ,lee scott loses his buying power? downsize to a smaller yacht? a diamond of less clarity for mrs. scott?

did this “detreMENTAL” wage effect explain the need for Tom Coughlin to unjustly enrich himself?l

Hello nick,so sorry to see after all this time your social skills and your judgeMENTAL narrow little mind are still in a struggle!RDSin your also an idiot!ddrb nice posts! “we just want people to have the choice to shop there or not"RDS in I’m sure this is the view of people that “shopped” at various stores that they’re local wal mart put out of business!

“but support the current Social Security system” ~RDS

Please quote me where I say I “support the current Social Security system”, RDS.

Also...what are those “failed concepts” I support?  And don’t bring up my early call on $5.00/gal gasoline again.  We’re just one more hurricane or war away from that happening.  Keep sending your money to China via Wal-Mart and we’ll get to see those kinds of prices at the pump in no time!

ddrb

I’ll help you out. Because there are only 1000 CEO’s at America’s 1000 largest public companies, any changes in their compensation is bound to have a miniscule effect on our overall economy. Let’s say these top 1000 CEO’s earn an average of $6 million per year. Next year, the average rises to $7 million. Do the math: $1,000,000 x 1,000 = $1 billion. In 2006, the top 500 public companies generated a RECORD cumulative total of $765 BILLION in profits! This means that overall CEO pay at the top 500 companies ate up just $1 billion of $765 billion in profits. Now, figure a US workforce of roughly 80 million. Let’s say these 80 million work an average of 35 hours per week and that they average a $3 per hour wage increase for the year. Here’s the math (not including higher payroll taxes, etc.). 80,000,000 X $3 = $240 million
240,000,000 x 35 = $8.4 billion
$8.4 billion x 52 weeks = $436.8 billion.

SO, every CEO at the 1000 largest companies getting a $1 million raise this year will only cost the corporations’ $1 billion. Giving a core workforce of 80 million workers a $3 per hour raise will cost the economy $436.8 billion. This does not include higher payroll, workers comp and insurance costs nor does it account for higher prices that result from the need to generate higher sales to pay higher wages.

Let’s discuss Wal-Mart, since this is a Wal-Mart site. Wal-Mart has 1.5 million US employees. Let’s say that each employee works an average of 20 hours per week and demands a $2 per hour raise. Here is the math:

1,500,000 x 2 = $3 million
3,000,000 x 20 = $60 million
60,000,000 x 52 weeks = $3.12 billion

Lee Scott: total compensation. Let’s say it was $18 million for 2006 and jumps to $50 million in 2007. Wal-Mart’s total profits for 2006 were roughly $11.6 billion so Lee Scott’s total compensation will equal roughly 0.4% of profits. A $2 per hour RAISE for employees, however, will eat up roughly 26.9% of total profits.

So, while Lee Scott might earn $32 million more this year, it has a tiny effect on Wal-Mart’s bottom line. And Lee Scott is in a position to do more for Wal-Mart than any single employee. If he was not worth the money, the Walton family would demand his removal. If all of Wal-Mart’s employees earned $2 per hour more, this would really cut into profits. Can you imagine the negative impact of reporting a 26.9% drop in profits? All so employees can gross an extra $2,080 per year?

I won’t get into the higher prices that must result from across the board wage increases. And higher prices would destroy Wal-Mart’s business model.

Thanks Nick, for helping out with this, it is amazing how much the average person doesn’t know about economics!!  But, I must add one more thing!!

ddrb,

“RDS:  Pardon this “troll” for asking for a little further clarification of the statement that increasing wages has a detrimental effect on the cost of living-for we “great unwashed and misguided “ could you please explain,SLOWLY
and CLAERLY, how this quantifies with the exorbitant CEO salaries?”

Nick explained it from the company’s point of view and the U.S. Economic point of view, now I will try to explain it from a personal point of view, although you may still not understand it!!

After a certain amount of money, buying power means little, if you have $1 million dollars, paying an extra $25.00 for something, has little impact on your money supply, but, if you are living week to week, off your paycheck, that extra $25.00 could have a big impact on your money supply and thus, your buying power!!  Let’s look at a raise, okay?

Let’s say you got a raise of $1.00 an hour, this would cost the company $1.00 an hour more, plus extra social security taxes, unemployment compensation payments, payroll taxes, insurance, 401K match, etc.!!  Therefore, the company has to raise prices to match their higher costs, thus everyone has to pay higher prices, which is known as inflation!!  As inflation rises, others must ask for raises to keep up and their companies also must raise prices on the products they produce!!  So, eventually, those price raises (inflation), filter on down and eat up that $1.00 an hour raise and then some, not to mention your having to pay higher sales tax on the things you buy!! Then, add in higher income and social security taxes on the money you earn, that amounts to about $.33 of that $1.00 and reduces the raise to $.66 an hour (take home)(if you don’t believe this, just look at the difference between your gross and your take home pay)!!  To get a handle on what I’m talking about, just look at working people, while people make much more than they did years ago, they still remain ‘poor’, why is that?  Could it be that that is why things (such as rent, utilities, etc.) ‘cost’ so much more today than they did years ago?  If it were not for the ‘lower prices’ at places like Wal-Mart, etc., just think how much MORE that buying power would be eroded, if everybody had to pay higher prices!!  Simplified, if you get a 1% raise, inflation raises by about 1.25%, so in the end, that 1% raise, cost you .25% in less buying power, so after 4 - 1% raises, a person loses 1% in buying power!!  Like I said, this has very little impact on the wealthy, but a huge impact on the ‘poor’!!

I hope no one plowed through the mind-numbing gibberish in the previous two posts because they are based on a faulty premise; that obscene compensation is limited to 1,000 top CEOs. As I pointed out the last time this subject came up, Wall Street gave itself $24 billion in Christmas bonuses last year alone!

Steven Pearlstein is dealing with Wall Street in his Washington Post story, but he could just as easily be talking about corporate upper levels.

My biggest problem with the rationalizations for Wall Street pay, however, has to do with the widely held misconception that top executives are somehow entitled to some fixed percentage of the profit or a percentage of the gain in a company’s market value.

This is, of course, the way we calculate waiters’ tips. And it makes sense for small, closely held partnerships. But today’s large, global corporations have become so big, the numbers so large, that they provide inappropriate benchmarks when calculating the compensation of a single human being. There’s no limit to how big a company can get, but human beings are limited in how much they can eat, or how many homes they can occupy, or how many days they have to take vacation.

None of that causes inflation, but giving you a $1 an hour raise will destroy the economy.

You’ve heard it so many times you believe it.

Ken V,

Okay, so you don’t want to understand basics, please explain to all of us, just why it is that in the 1950’s, it only took 1 person working, to support a family with 6 children and today, it takes 2 people working to support a family with 2 children?  And, do you deny that the prices of things are about 10 times higher today than they were in the 1960’s?  Do you deny, that a $1.00 an hour raise costs the company MORE than $1.00 an hour?  Do you deny that a $1.00 an hour raise, results in paying higher taxes?  Do you deny, that a $1.00 an hour increase in wages, does not result in a $1.00 an hour increase in your takehome pay?  You focus so much on ‘class warfare’, you can’t see what is really going on and how it really effects the ‘lower class’!!  Somehow, you think that if a wealthy person makes a buck, that means some poorer person makes a buck less, this is not true!!

To Nick and RDS: Who says you fellas are selfish and ungiving-why those two posts from late last nite ,put me to sleep and GAVE ME the best nights sleep ive had in a long time-a real public service! WalMartWatch Rx....in cases of extreme insomnia,take these two posts at bedtime---side effects may include confusion ,dizziness,and a “spinning” sensation.Use only as directed.

Ken

How about people earn as much as they can, through their own ability? What’s wrong with that? And did you actually read my post and follow the math? Even if the top 1,000 CEO’s are overpaid, and perhaps some are, their overall combined pay is nothing next to the $765 BILLION in profits generated by the top 500 corporations last year.

You seem to miss the obvious regarding compensation levels. A worker earning $30,000 will most likely spend everything they earn. A Hedge Fund manager earning $1 billion pays about $150 million in federal taxes alone. Then, he may spend $20 million on an apartment, $60 million on a jet and $50 million on other luxury items. He may live on $10 million. This leaves $710 million left over. What does the fund manager do with it? He puts it in the bank, lends it through bond purchases or invests it in real estate or the stock market. This $710 million gets loaned or invested in other businesses, which create jobs, wealth and tax revenue. The wealth created here then grows and creates more jobs, wealth and tax revenue. Thus, excess income is a GOOD thing. If everyone earned $30,000 per year, there would be ZERO investment in the private sector. The wealthy create new jobs, taxes, profits, businesses, industries and products. The pie GROWS.

Why doesn’t government, which mandates a minimum wage, also mandate that the person earning the minimum wage have the skills necessary to EARN the minimum wage? Wages are guaranteed; why aren’t skill levels?

To quote John Stossel, from Real Clear Politics, “No poor person ever gave me a job”.

To quote from Abraham Lincoln,"The Good Lord must have loved poor people,because he made so many of them.”

Nick,

There is that old saying, “None are so blind, as those who refuse to see”!!  Better to insult, than to try to understand!!

How about this one: “If you always do, what you’ve always done, you’ll always get, what you’ve always got”!!  They want to keep doing what they always have been doing, that’s why people remain ‘poor’!!

Lincoln dealt with various types of exploitation. Some believe capitalism is the divine right to be irresponsible to your fellow man and to shift costs and burdens onto another and deny and evade economic justice as a form of clever free enterprise.

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
Abraham Lincoln

“The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.”
Proverbs 29:7

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
1 Timothy 6:10

Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton once said, “I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We’re going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart#_note-
iswalmartgood

“Is Wal-Mart Good for America?” PBS. November 16, 2004. Retrieved on February 24, 2007.

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.”
Abraham Lincoln

Working at WalMart is like working at the morgue. Your ‘living wage’ job was killed and the endless autopsy reads “died from Global Labor Arbitrage and low wage exploitation of labor”. WalMart crematorium slaves cash their meager paychecks as if they are death certificates sign by the Waltons and Lee Scott. WalMart is a poverty engine for America’s workforce operated by “low wage low benefit” economic undertakers in Bentonville.

Samuel Robson (Rob) Walton (born 1945, in Tulsa, Oklahoma) is the eldest son of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer. According to Forbes, his net worth is $16.7 billion as of 2007.

John Thomas Walton (October 8, 1946 - June 27, 2005) was a son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.
Just before his death, Walton was estimated to be worth US$18.2 billion by Forbes magazine, and he was tied with his brother Jim as the 4th richest person in the United States and 11th-richest person in the world.

Jim Carr Walton (born 1948) is the youngest son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.
With an estimated current net worth of around $16.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 23rd-richest person in world.

Alice Louise Walton (born October 7, 1949) is the daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and Helen Walton, and sister of S. Robson Walton, John T. Walton (d.2005), and Jim Walton. She has an estimated net worth of about $16.6 billion.

Helen Robson Kemper Walton (December 3, 1919 - April 19, 2007) was the wife of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. She was the eleventh richest American and at one point the richest woman in the world. Helen died with an estimated net worth of $16.4 billion.

“Those who know when they have enough are rich.”
Chinese Proverb

WalMart- We did our part by shifting creation of wealth over to the Chinese. But financially the Bentonville billionaire ‘love of money’ slobs (Waltons) are still making ends meet. Remember it is just ‘class envy’ because WalMart has efficiencies in betraying the American workforce, sucking down subsidies from the taxpayer suckers and running up a huge trade deficit.

“Beware of that profound enemy of the free enterprise system who pays lip-service to free competition - but also labels every anti-trust prosecution as a “persecution.” Franklin D. Roosevelt, speech in Chicago, Oct. 28, 1944.

Psalms 24:1
“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”

What some regard as capitailism is really nothing more than evil and is not capitalism at all. Capitalism is best when it behaves itself. Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism has become a novel book title and subject of late in our society, needing only the new verbal concept to return us to an old problem.

“The Shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as a destroyer of liberty.”
Abraham Lincoln

SDV,

Class envy and quoting scripture don’t work well, together.

Bill

lLow-class envy,Bill?

Perhaps you can be specific in citing ‘class envy’ “Bill”. Or is that your best effort in avoiding the truth again about WalMart business practices?