Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
It takes years of unemployment before anything positive can come out of it. Years of lives being ruined due to lack of work. Jeez, guess you loved Thatcher's closing of the mines "ah, sure something will come up. Don't worry about it"
|
i dont know anything about thatcher, sorry.
as for the unemployment... it was unemployment in the towns that made the stores unprofitable.
if there are no customers, how do you pay your employees?
you pay them to sell nothing?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
So you don't think that Walmart should have some responsibility to the towns? This is a company who will happily spend years undercutting on their profits just to shut down local stores to have a monopoly. When they get that monopoly and decide "ah, didn't go as well as we thought it would. Shut down and fuck the town in the ass". This is exactly what you said you hated before. Government subsidised companies able to get a monopoly on towns.
Cold man.
|
the way i see it walmart provided a service to the town and got paid for said service. people chose walmart’s service over the other offers. nobody got marched there at gunpoint.
now if the town offered incentives for walmart, or asked for things in return then maybe something is due? i don’t know what deal they had. there is none mentioned in those articles. you think walmart should keep the stores open at a loss? their returns barely beat a savings account at this stage.
but as long as there are shoppers there will always be someone to supply them.
e.g., ups is my supermarket now. the driver got a union job and makes more money than me. great benefits too. some day robots will make drivers obsolete, so get ready. but today... ups wins. tomorrow, someone else