- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Tig,
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
Walmart is Hiring
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Tig,
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
Nothing like stereotyping people...
How is unemployment good?
Tig,
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
Nothing like stereotyping people...
How is unemployment good?
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Why would someone expect another to pull the rug out from under them? This is the "Band of Angles" carpetbagger defense.
Watch the movie. It will give you tremendous insight into the souls of some men.
Walmart is famous for offering very low price for a very large order. There are underdogs that wants to gain market share that are willing to take a loss to grow their brand, or volume. It is not a sudden incident. Some are willing to take it (like WPP and Mobil that makes the SuperTech), but others are not (like Chevron).
Such is business, despite its ruthlessness.
Why would someone expect another to pull the rug out from under them? This is the "Band of Angles" carpetbagger defense.
Watch the movie. It will give you tremendous insight into the souls of some men.
Walmart is famous for offering very low price for a very large order. There are underdogs that wants to gain market share that are willing to take a loss to grow their brand, or volume. It is not a sudden incident. Some are willing to take it (like WPP and Mobil that makes the SuperTech), but others are not (like Chevron).
Such is business, despite its ruthlessness.
As a side note several years ago I was laid-off from a major aerospace company and as such I applied to work at Wal-mart as a receiving clerk. The pay they offered WAS LESS THAN what I was making on unemployment. I stayed unemployed. [/quote]
While I won't go as far as what Gary 'said' (in jest) in response to this, I have a problem with this statement.
What about the intrinsic pride and self-worth that comes from working for one's money? Even if the pay at Wal-Mart was lwess than benefits, you simply use the Wal-Mart job as a stepping-stone to something more promising, or at the very least, as something to keep you in the 'working mode', and engaged with the 'rythm' of the working world.
People who do not work, even if they are on earned benefits, lose this aspect of working very, very quickly. I'd rather be employed at ANYTHING than stagnantly falling by the wayside. Once you have been unemployed for, say, 6 months, even if you have the skill set for a job, employers will look at you as having 'sat around' for that time, and are 'rusty'.
While I won't go as far as what Gary 'said' (in jest) in response to this, I have a problem with this statement.
What about the intrinsic pride and self-worth that comes from working for one's money? Even if the pay at Wal-Mart was lwess than benefits, you simply use the Wal-Mart job as a stepping-stone to something more promising, or at the very least, as something to keep you in the 'working mode', and engaged with the 'rythm' of the working world.
People who do not work, even if they are on earned benefits, lose this aspect of working very, very quickly. I'd rather be employed at ANYTHING than stagnantly falling by the wayside. Once you have been unemployed for, say, 6 months, even if you have the skill set for a job, employers will look at you as having 'sat around' for that time, and are 'rusty'.
While i was unemployed for a time period, I was in no way 'stagnant'. I was extremely busy with home duties like house repairs and landscape work. I't is not employment that keeps me vital and alive for activities involving tough labor....it's a mind-set or personality.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Here's some honesty for you....I dislike Wal-mart because of several reasons. Merchandise is usually lower portion of a particular product line, the service the employees provide is poor at best, the employees also look like slobs, the people that shop there have a higher low-life factor and make me feel uncomfortable, and the check-out lines are terribly slow. But the truth is I still shop there when I need to get certain products at usually lower prices. I hate it, I can't wait to get out of it, but I STILL SHOP THERE!
As a side note several years ago I was laid-off from a major aerospace company and as such I applied to work at Wal-mart as a receiving clerk. The pay they offered WAS LESS THAN what I was making on unemployment. I stayed unemployed.
The way you describe employees at WM, slobs, low life, etc. is very insulting to a lot of people. My wife worked there for a short time, 1 1/2 years, and is none of those things, nor where her fellow employees.
Sorry, no insult intended.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Here's some honesty for you....I dislike Wal-mart because of several reasons. Merchandise is usually lower portion of a particular product line, the service the employees provide is poor at best, the employees also look like slobs, the people that shop there have a higher low-life factor and make me feel uncomfortable, and the check-out lines are terribly slow. But the truth is I still shop there when I need to get certain products at usually lower prices. I hate it, I can't wait to get out of it, but I STILL SHOP THERE!
As a side note several years ago I was laid-off from a major aerospace company and as such I applied to work at Wal-mart as a receiving clerk. The pay they offered WAS LESS THAN what I was making on unemployment. I stayed unemployed.
The way you describe employees at WM, slobs, low life, etc. is very insulting to a lot of people. My wife worked there for a short time, 1 1/2 years, and is none of those things, nor where her fellow employees.
Sorry, no insult intended.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Tig,
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
Nothing like stereotyping people...
How is unemployment good?
Learn to read. Better yet, comprehend.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Tig,
There's good people everywhere. It's just harder to see them with all the background noise.
Nothing like stereotyping people...
How is unemployment good?
Learn to read. Better yet, comprehend.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Why would someone expect another to pull the rug out from under them? This is the "Band of Angles" carpetbagger defense.
Watch the movie. It will give you tremendous insight into the souls of some men.
Walmart is famous for offering very low price for a very large order. There are underdogs that wants to gain market share that are willing to take a loss to grow their brand, or volume. It is not a sudden incident. Some are willing to take it (like WPP and Mobil that makes the SuperTech), but others are not (like Chevron).
Such is business, despite its ruthlessness.
You keep referring to LARGE COMPANIES that sell stuff at WM. They have little choice. The impact of WM is SO HUGE that MotorCraft was pulled from the shelves due WM selling it cheaper than dealers, authorized (and probably required) MotorCraft outlets, could buy it. I don't know the particulars, but I speculate that it was cheaper to let the dealers off for any contractual obligations and to allow them to source it wherever than to lose the WM account. MC returned to WM. I'm sure it had something to do with other oils meeting the Ford spec.
But what about some local feed producer? One that had no national or wide regional market penetration. One that was near or at capacity and was living a happy life? Suppose WM comes in ..offers to double their throughput and is willing to pay enough to justify the upgrades and added costs that the owners will have to endure ..except that the contract isn't long enough to pay for the total capital expenditure? Suppose no expenditure is required at all, and WM just ends up being the only account of merit ..and the company loses market share in their former market? WM comes back with less on the next contract ..and then they're in between a rock and a hard place. Remain with WM ..enslaved, or regaining all that business that they lost locally.
Legal? Surely. Ethical ..as a practice? It depends on what ethics set you carry with you, I guess.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Why would someone expect another to pull the rug out from under them? This is the "Band of Angles" carpetbagger defense.
Watch the movie. It will give you tremendous insight into the souls of some men.
Walmart is famous for offering very low price for a very large order. There are underdogs that wants to gain market share that are willing to take a loss to grow their brand, or volume. It is not a sudden incident. Some are willing to take it (like WPP and Mobil that makes the SuperTech), but others are not (like Chevron).
Such is business, despite its ruthlessness.
You keep referring to LARGE COMPANIES that sell stuff at WM. They have little choice. The impact of WM is SO HUGE that MotorCraft was pulled from the shelves due WM selling it cheaper than dealers, authorized (and probably required) MotorCraft outlets, could buy it. I don't know the particulars, but I speculate that it was cheaper to let the dealers off for any contractual obligations and to allow them to source it wherever than to lose the WM account. MC returned to WM. I'm sure it had something to do with other oils meeting the Ford spec.
But what about some local feed producer? One that had no national or wide regional market penetration. One that was near or at capacity and was living a happy life? Suppose WM comes in ..offers to double their throughput and is willing to pay enough to justify the upgrades and added costs that the owners will have to endure ..except that the contract isn't long enough to pay for the total capital expenditure? Suppose no expenditure is required at all, and WM just ends up being the only account of merit ..and the company loses market share in their former market? WM comes back with less on the next contract ..and then they're in between a rock and a hard place. Remain with WM ..enslaved, or regaining all that business that they lost locally.
Legal? Surely. Ethical ..as a practice? It depends on what ethics set you carry with you, I guess.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So Best Buy, Circuit City (formerly), Target, Costco, Amazon, RC Willey and other retailers that sell the same Chinese imports get a pass?
Depends. Wal mart doesn't offer any merchandise besides lower-end stuff. Selling that in bulk, and nothing else entices the general public to buy that because it is easy, and often times, they are obese and lazy.
So Best Buy, Circuit City (formerly), Target, Costco, Amazon, RC Willey and other retailers that sell the same Chinese imports get a pass?
Depends. Wal mart doesn't offer any merchandise besides lower-end stuff. Selling that in bulk, and nothing else entices the general public to buy that because it is easy, and often times, they are obese and lazy.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
High rates for health insurance? Let me know where a family of 4 can buy this health insurance for $500/month?
Apparently for the example provided, it was too expensive, especially compared to taking the government handout that they could get at the county clinic.
High rates for health insurance? Let me know where a family of 4 can buy this health insurance for $500/month?
Apparently for the example provided, it was too expensive, especially compared to taking the government handout that they could get at the county clinic.
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: andrewg
... the service the employees provide is poor at best, the employees also look like slobs, the people that shop there have a higher low-life factor and make me feel uncomfortable, and the check-out lines are terribly slow. But the truth is I still shop there when I need to get certain products at usually lower prices. I hate it, I can't wait to get out of it, but I STILL SHOP THERE!
A man of principle.
Meaning? Please explain.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
... the service the employees provide is poor at best, the employees also look like slobs, the people that shop there have a higher low-life factor and make me feel uncomfortable, and the check-out lines are terribly slow. But the truth is I still shop there when I need to get certain products at usually lower prices. I hate it, I can't wait to get out of it, but I STILL SHOP THERE!
A man of principle.
Meaning? Please explain.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You keep referring to LARGE COMPANIES that sell stuff at WM. They have little choice. The impact of WM is SO HUGE that MotorCraft was pulled from the shelves due WM selling it cheaper than dealers, authorized (and probably required) MotorCraft outlets, could buy it. I don't know the particulars, but I speculate that it was cheaper to let the dealers off for any contractual obligations and to allow them to source it wherever than to lose the WM account. MC returned to WM. I'm sure it had something to do with other oils meeting the Ford spec.
But what about some local feed producer? One that had no national or wide regional market penetration. One that was near or at capacity and was living a happy life? Suppose WM comes in ..offers to double their throughput and is willing to pay enough to justify the upgrades and added costs that the owners will have to endure ..except that the contract isn't long enough to pay for the total capital expenditure? Suppose no expenditure is required at all, and WM just ends up being the only account of merit ..and the company loses market share in their former market? WM comes back with less on the next contract ..and then they're in between a rock and a hard place. Remain with WM ..enslaved, or regaining all that business that they lost locally.
Legal? Surely. Ethical ..as a practice? It depends on what ethics set you carry with you, I guess.
What about if Walmart or Home Depot decided to make the feed in house instead of sourcing it from the local feed producer?
What about rising feed cost and consumer refuse to pay more for them?
This is a decision every business face. We at SanDisk loses lots of money when the time was bad, and Samsung/Toshiba was dumping loads of memory below cost to the market, to recoup cash they need even selling at a loss, to pay for the FAB's interest. Sure, we have a cheaper cost structure than our competitor when the market is in equilibrium, but when someone is selling at a loss, we have no other way but to compete with them.
If your competitors are taking a gamble to be a slave of Walmart, and you know that he will go out of businesses if Walmart pull the rug under him, does that means you should do that too?
If you do, you two are in a downward spiral to bankruptcy. If you don't and his gamble payoff, you alone are out of business. What should you do? It really depends. Is Walmart to blame? I personally don't think so, as long as it gives warning ahead of time and fulfill its contractual obligation. You have to read the contract to see if you should accept or refuse it.
p.s. When iPod Nano first came out, Apple gave almost a billion (or close, of not the amount) to Samsung and tell them to build a FAB for NAND, and sell the product to Apple for 1/2 the then market price. The end result? So much over supply that everyone in the market is losing money and selling below cost. Apple won way more than the initial 1 billion it pays Samsung, in component price drop alone.
You keep referring to LARGE COMPANIES that sell stuff at WM. They have little choice. The impact of WM is SO HUGE that MotorCraft was pulled from the shelves due WM selling it cheaper than dealers, authorized (and probably required) MotorCraft outlets, could buy it. I don't know the particulars, but I speculate that it was cheaper to let the dealers off for any contractual obligations and to allow them to source it wherever than to lose the WM account. MC returned to WM. I'm sure it had something to do with other oils meeting the Ford spec.
But what about some local feed producer? One that had no national or wide regional market penetration. One that was near or at capacity and was living a happy life? Suppose WM comes in ..offers to double their throughput and is willing to pay enough to justify the upgrades and added costs that the owners will have to endure ..except that the contract isn't long enough to pay for the total capital expenditure? Suppose no expenditure is required at all, and WM just ends up being the only account of merit ..and the company loses market share in their former market? WM comes back with less on the next contract ..and then they're in between a rock and a hard place. Remain with WM ..enslaved, or regaining all that business that they lost locally.
Legal? Surely. Ethical ..as a practice? It depends on what ethics set you carry with you, I guess.
What about if Walmart or Home Depot decided to make the feed in house instead of sourcing it from the local feed producer?
What about rising feed cost and consumer refuse to pay more for them?
This is a decision every business face. We at SanDisk loses lots of money when the time was bad, and Samsung/Toshiba was dumping loads of memory below cost to the market, to recoup cash they need even selling at a loss, to pay for the FAB's interest. Sure, we have a cheaper cost structure than our competitor when the market is in equilibrium, but when someone is selling at a loss, we have no other way but to compete with them.
If your competitors are taking a gamble to be a slave of Walmart, and you know that he will go out of businesses if Walmart pull the rug under him, does that means you should do that too?
If you do, you two are in a downward spiral to bankruptcy. If you don't and his gamble payoff, you alone are out of business. What should you do? It really depends. Is Walmart to blame? I personally don't think so, as long as it gives warning ahead of time and fulfill its contractual obligation. You have to read the contract to see if you should accept or refuse it.
p.s. When iPod Nano first came out, Apple gave almost a billion (or close, of not the amount) to Samsung and tell them to build a FAB for NAND, and sell the product to Apple for 1/2 the then market price. The end result? So much over supply that everyone in the market is losing money and selling below cost. Apple won way more than the initial 1 billion it pays Samsung, in component price drop alone.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
You keep revolving round a number of other instances of such behavior. There have been many "can't afford not to" scenarios due to some HUGE market at stake. They rarely extend into otherwise stable and functional businesses and leave it looking like you took a wrecking ball to it. This is not just limited to this lone act or acts of this nature. It's but one element that's a disposition of "supplier be aware". Dance with the devil and you don't change the devil. It changes you.
You can pull out example out of example of cut throat competition. It rarely ends up with as much supplier destruction that would have been just fine if they had never participated.
You can pull out example out of example of cut throat competition. It rarely ends up with as much supplier destruction that would have been just fine if they had never participated.
Some have said they were layed off from high paying jobs, but refused a job at WM because unemployment paid better, and I'm sure in some cases that's true. I think most of the jobs at WM were designed for the part time worker, not to replace the full time job one may have lost. When my wife worked there that was the case. I believe their wages are on par with other retailers that is WMs competion.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Some have said they were layed off from high paying jobs, but refused a job at WM because unemployment paid better, and I'm sure in some cases that's true. I think most of the jobs at WM were designed for the part time worker, not to replace the full time job one may have lost. When my wife worked there that was the case. I believe their wages are on par with other retailers that is WMs competion.
You are correct. Nobody is forced to accept work at the low wages Walmart pays....but many times it's simply the only job available. This certainly isn't the fault of Walmart...yet still, I would say that the pay of any particular job should be matched to the task performed...and the history of the applicant. Walmart really has no consideration for those things. Not blaming or saying that walmart is 'evil' or anything....just rather one-sided and indifferent towards the pay and value of it's employees. But that's partially what keeps prices low, right? I mean along with it's Chinese manufactured merchandise.
Some have said they were layed off from high paying jobs, but refused a job at WM because unemployment paid better, and I'm sure in some cases that's true. I think most of the jobs at WM were designed for the part time worker, not to replace the full time job one may have lost. When my wife worked there that was the case. I believe their wages are on par with other retailers that is WMs competion.
You are correct. Nobody is forced to accept work at the low wages Walmart pays....but many times it's simply the only job available. This certainly isn't the fault of Walmart...yet still, I would say that the pay of any particular job should be matched to the task performed...and the history of the applicant. Walmart really has no consideration for those things. Not blaming or saying that walmart is 'evil' or anything....just rather one-sided and indifferent towards the pay and value of it's employees. But that's partially what keeps prices low, right? I mean along with it's Chinese manufactured merchandise.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You keep revolving round a number of other instances of such behavior. There have been many "can't afford not to" scenarios due to some HUGE market at stake. They rarely extend into otherwise stable and functional businesses and leave it looking like you took a wrecking ball to it. This is not just limited to this lone act or acts of this nature. It's but one element that's a disposition of "supplier be aware". Dance with the devil and you don't change the devil. It changes you.
You can pull out example out of example of cut throat competition. It rarely ends up with as much supplier destruction that would have been just fine if they had never participated.
Gary, don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean by Walmart being a wrecking ball that many though they can stop, but end up getting blown into pieces.
Sometimes you have to look at Walmart and the way it runs businesses, and see if this make sense, both to the society and to the suppliers. I know it is ruthless as you said, but this is not really because only of Walmart's size. Somewhere, somehow, if Home Depot, and to a bigger extend, the American consumer market, is doing this to the rest of the world.
You'd be surprised how much pricing power the American market has over the Asian suppliers, even if they are not the size and/or volume of Walmart. One of my friend's family is in the furniture business and they were constantly evaluate and decline to enter the American market. According to them, American market buy a huge volume, to a point of guaranteed business, but at a price point that you can barely make a profit.
I'm not talking about a hundred men factory paying American salary to manufacture Chinese junk, I'm talking about a factory paying Indonesian salary to manufacture between Chinese and American made quality furniture. You can say that their workers and businesses are exploited just as much as our workers whose jobs got outsourced. While the store markup the product prices by 2x to 8x as much as the contract price.
You can say it is destroying good business practice, or you can say that it is efficiency. Whatever you want to call it, it is not because of just Walmart, but the trend of the market in general. If transportation cost becomes high, and labor cost becomes low, then we would eventually switch back to more local production and less centralized production and large scale shipping. It is a fact of life, and sometimes businesses have to change, merge, go out of business, to adapt or not, just like our society has to. If you can't compete with Walmart on price, you have to do something that they do not do well, like high end products. Sometimes if they flat out refuse to give you a price that you can accept, you really shouldn't accept it.
You keep revolving round a number of other instances of such behavior. There have been many "can't afford not to" scenarios due to some HUGE market at stake. They rarely extend into otherwise stable and functional businesses and leave it looking like you took a wrecking ball to it. This is not just limited to this lone act or acts of this nature. It's but one element that's a disposition of "supplier be aware". Dance with the devil and you don't change the devil. It changes you.
You can pull out example out of example of cut throat competition. It rarely ends up with as much supplier destruction that would have been just fine if they had never participated.
Gary, don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean by Walmart being a wrecking ball that many though they can stop, but end up getting blown into pieces.
Sometimes you have to look at Walmart and the way it runs businesses, and see if this make sense, both to the society and to the suppliers. I know it is ruthless as you said, but this is not really because only of Walmart's size. Somewhere, somehow, if Home Depot, and to a bigger extend, the American consumer market, is doing this to the rest of the world.
You'd be surprised how much pricing power the American market has over the Asian suppliers, even if they are not the size and/or volume of Walmart. One of my friend's family is in the furniture business and they were constantly evaluate and decline to enter the American market. According to them, American market buy a huge volume, to a point of guaranteed business, but at a price point that you can barely make a profit.
I'm not talking about a hundred men factory paying American salary to manufacture Chinese junk, I'm talking about a factory paying Indonesian salary to manufacture between Chinese and American made quality furniture. You can say that their workers and businesses are exploited just as much as our workers whose jobs got outsourced. While the store markup the product prices by 2x to 8x as much as the contract price.
You can say it is destroying good business practice, or you can say that it is efficiency. Whatever you want to call it, it is not because of just Walmart, but the trend of the market in general. If transportation cost becomes high, and labor cost becomes low, then we would eventually switch back to more local production and less centralized production and large scale shipping. It is a fact of life, and sometimes businesses have to change, merge, go out of business, to adapt or not, just like our society has to. If you can't compete with Walmart on price, you have to do something that they do not do well, like high end products. Sometimes if they flat out refuse to give you a price that you can accept, you really shouldn't accept it.
what I like about walmart is forces others businesses to lean and efficient.
yes wally's abuses their buying might but for most businesses it means windfall profits to be put on the selves of wally's. they just had annual shareholders meeting. there are thousands of vendors waiting in line and praying to get picked.
u guys make it sound like it is unamerican to run a tight ship and demand same from vendors.
when wally's gets fedup with the vendors, it becomes the producer. salmon fish is one example I can recall
look at the price gouging by apple and itunes. but that is 180 of business plan.
suree wally's drive out small stores. but last time I checked wally's shelves were fully stocked.
wally's not different in dealing with vendors than macys or similar. macys doesnot care how it cost u produce a dress shirt. they dictate the terms.
working conditions: and they worse than? all debate make it sound like wally's is whip cracking $1 an hour employer! I wonder if anyone here works hourly for a small mom and shop? that nice sony or apple music player u are enjoying or pda phone u r reading this on was most likely assembled in malaysia in a sweat shop. same goes for that $100 nike u have on.
yes wally's abuses their buying might but for most businesses it means windfall profits to be put on the selves of wally's. they just had annual shareholders meeting. there are thousands of vendors waiting in line and praying to get picked.
u guys make it sound like it is unamerican to run a tight ship and demand same from vendors.
when wally's gets fedup with the vendors, it becomes the producer. salmon fish is one example I can recall
look at the price gouging by apple and itunes. but that is 180 of business plan.
suree wally's drive out small stores. but last time I checked wally's shelves were fully stocked.
wally's not different in dealing with vendors than macys or similar. macys doesnot care how it cost u produce a dress shirt. they dictate the terms.
working conditions: and they worse than? all debate make it sound like wally's is whip cracking $1 an hour employer! I wonder if anyone here works hourly for a small mom and shop? that nice sony or apple music player u are enjoying or pda phone u r reading this on was most likely assembled in malaysia in a sweat shop. same goes for that $100 nike u have on.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I'm not talking about a hundred men factory paying American salary to manufacture Chinese junk, I'm talking about a factory paying Indonesian salary to manufacture between Chinese and American made quality furniture. You can say that their workers and businesses are exploited just as much as our workers whose jobs got outsourced. While the store markup the product prices by 2x to 8x as much as the contract price.
There is one thing that America has always done well. It forces millions of people to slave away endlessly for a few slips of green paper. It's laughable when you think about it.
As you can imagine, the grandeur of such power doesn't always "trickle down".
I'm not talking about a hundred men factory paying American salary to manufacture Chinese junk, I'm talking about a factory paying Indonesian salary to manufacture between Chinese and American made quality furniture. You can say that their workers and businesses are exploited just as much as our workers whose jobs got outsourced. While the store markup the product prices by 2x to 8x as much as the contract price.
There is one thing that America has always done well. It forces millions of people to slave away endlessly for a few slips of green paper. It's laughable when you think about it.
As you can imagine, the grandeur of such power doesn't always "trickle down".
Capitalism is great if you are the rich, otherwise it's just another way to force a communist "do as I say" regime. Keep working for that "American dream" they tell us life is all about, which is nothing more than a Rabitt chasing the carrot dangling in front of him, that he can't quite reach.
Rich: One day when your old and decrepit and haven't quite made it in terms of the "American Dream" we "will let you retire" you will be tired and depleted by then and we will be on to the next generation anyways... Thanks for participating though!
Sad but true...
Rich: One day when your old and decrepit and haven't quite made it in terms of the "American Dream" we "will let you retire" you will be tired and depleted by then and we will be on to the next generation anyways... Thanks for participating though!
Sad but true...
Originally Posted By: stockrex
wally's not different in dealing with vendors than macys or similar. macys doesnot care how it cost u produce a dress shirt. they dictate the terms.
Yes they do. For example, good luck getting paid for mechandise before it goes through the checkout line.
wally's not different in dealing with vendors than macys or similar. macys doesnot care how it cost u produce a dress shirt. they dictate the terms.
Yes they do. For example, good luck getting paid for mechandise before it goes through the checkout line.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
