Wal-Mart is sneaking into the City (San Francisco, Oakland: insurance, Home Depot, employment)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

It's a darn good thing that Wal-Mart is the only retailer where this sort of thing occurs.

How many stores do you know of where cashiers and other staff don't know from one week to the next whether they'll be working 40 hours or 36 hours or 32 hours?

[hubbard53]

Originally Posted by sjnative

You guys will tolerate lunatics urinating and defecating everywhere, aggressive panhandlers in the Tenderloin and in the Haight, experimental social policies funded by and foisted on the taxpayers,
anti-(real eastate)growth policies which keeps the cost of real estate and rentals sky high...

And you don't want a Walmart in SF?

Walmart which will provide jobs for so many of the poor- who you guys express sympathy for- and save shoppers money with reduced prices- which will reduce the COL for the poor who you express sympathy for?

Fools.

You deserve yourselves.

Great point. There is no end to the hypocrisy of this region. I don't shop at Walmart but they fill a need for millions of poor people - which this city has more than they care to admit

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by sav858

They'll also save on stuff like milk, bread, toilet paper, diapers, etc...

I personally don't care for Wal-Mart but if people want to shop there let them. Target seems to do well in SF.

Are they cheaper than Safeway? If they are, at what ultimate cost?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

as opposed to unemployed, poor on food stamps and medical

Your rolling eyes miss the point so I won't waste time "pointing" it out to you.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Are they cheaper than Safeway? If they are, at what ultimate cost?

Yes they are cheaper pretty much overall. Not that i disagree about Wal Marts questionable labor practices but some people are bit more concerned about paying for essentials and rent than stuff like that.

I have to agree with some others, this thread kind of reeks of stereotypical SF hypocrisy and elitism.

[sjnative]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

...and keep them poor and on food stamps and Medi-Cal.

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

as opposed to unemployed, poor on food stamps and medical

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Your rolling eyes miss the point so I won't waste time "pointing" it out to you.

Well if you won't point it out to him, then point it out to me.

I'd like to see your reasoning that Walmart "keeps" these people poor as opposed to.. what? Releasing them from their state of bondage the absence of which would result in their all becoming doctors & lawyers?

Is Walmart the oppressor here?

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yes they are cheaper pretty much overall. Not that i disagree about Wal Marts questionable labor practices but some people are bit more concerned about paying for essentials and rent than stuff like that.

I have to agree with some others, this thread kind of reeks of stereotypical SF hypocrisy and elitism.

What happens when Wal-Mart artificially lowers its prices below market value to unfairly compete against local businesses for market share, only to raise prices once the locals are driven out?

Are you also aware the Wal-Mart accomplishes this by pressuring manufacturers to make inferior "Wal-Mart-only versions of their products that look so similar to their versions sold elsewhere that they trick consumers? I have first-hand knowledge of this happening.

[04kL4nD]

Oh noes a Wal-Mart in SF???

Don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there or don't work there.

[silverkris]

I don't think WalMart's going to be able to open a bricks and mortar store in the city of San Francisco, and I doubt they want to do so. Land is scarce, expensive, and probably unavailable for the footprint required for a SuperStore.

Typically, WM asks for a lot of concessions from city governments, such as exemptions from zoning, planning and environmental requirements, and I don't see that coming from the City of San Francisco. A few years ago, voters in Inglewood, CA rejected a WM superstore.

Finally, SF has a living wage ordinance, which is goes against WalMart's economic model, so to say. Retail doesn't necessarily mean one has to pay rotten wages and benefits. Costco actually pays fairly well for a retailer, and they have a pretty stable workforce - which has paid off in profits for the company. And yes, SF has a Costco.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Oh noes a Wal-Mart in SF???

Don't like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there or don't work there.

This is exactly the advice I gave. Wal-Mart is not opening a store in SF yet, they are attempting to enter the market through grocery delivery in cities like SF and NYC, where their model doesn't traditionally work.

This article is from 2010:

Walmart sets sights on San Francisco - SFGate

Apparently, they have been unsuccessful to this point inside the City. However, lately, there has been some grocery delivery activity, trucked in from outside SF.