Walmart Finally Admits What Liberals Have Been Saying for Years: Demand is What Creates Jobs

Walmart-Empty-ShelvesIt’s no secret that I once worked for Sam’s Club, which is of course owned by Walmart.  And while the company does pay its Sam’s employees better than the typical Walmart employee, they still didn’t mind screwing over employees any chance that they got.

Towards the end of my tenure with Sam’s they were aggressively cutting hours.  They were taking it to such extreme measures that we literally didn’t have people working on the floor to help customers out, we would have two cashiers and were lucky to have someone working in carts.  They were limiting how many hours per week people were allowed to be scheduled and they were doing this to not only cut pay but reduce the amount of benefits they had to pay out to part-time employees.

Full-time employees weren’t spared either.  In fact, I helped make the schedule some weeks and I was often told to keep every full-time employee between 32-34 hours.  I was routinely told to keep part-time employees between 20-24, but even then if they felt we could cut hours – we did.  Some people were only being scheduled 4-8 hours per week.

Well, it seems Walmart has realized that by cutting hours in their stores, rendering them incapable to keep up with demand, they’re losing billions of dollars.  This has prompted them to announce that they will be adding hours to address complaints the company has received from customers, with the primary complaint being shelves that weren’t stocked.

In other words, demand is forcing them to create jobs or add hours to existing employees.

By the company agreeing at their annual meeting that they need to add hours to address the issue of empty shelves, they’re essentially admitting that demand is the driving force behind job creation.  In fact, you could take it a step further and say that this is basically them admitting that trickle-down economics has nothing to do with job creation.

They wouldn’t be creating these jobs (or adding hours) unless demand dictated that they needed to.  Only when their revenue took a hit did these greedy executives admit that they needed to reverse course on their massive labor cuts.  If they hadn’t lost around $3 billion in revenue they would probably be pushing for deeper cuts to their labor force – not expanding it.

Job creation is almost entirely driven by demand.  And by Walmart deciding to add hours back to their labor force after losing billions due to their massive wage cuts – that’s exactly what they’re admitting.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Robb Thompson

    Don’t count on Mordor going too far down this path of social enlightenment. Not for their employees, and not for their customers. They’ve only realized that they passed an equilibrium point between screwing their employees and screwing their customers.
    I for one still won’t be going there.

    • Terri

      Or an equilibrium point between screwing employees & customers for profit, and screwing them for no profit.

  • Phil the observer

    I work in retail, but working for Walmart or Sams has NEVER been an option///I like to work where the people Smile, not look like they are trying to figure out where to hide the bodies of Managment

  • Amy

    They’ll still find ways around having to pay benefits. They’ll hire temporary workers for six months since they don’t provide benefits until the employee has been there 6 months. Then they’ll rehire them as temporary employees for another 6 months. They are the worst company since Sam Walton died.

  • Sandy Greer

    So if job creation is driven by demand…

    It should follow that employees receive a decent wage. Enough to live on, and even some extra to spend…thus creating MORE demand for MORE jobs.

    Minimum Wage, too. Because those folks spend everything they have.

    Imagine the influence the world’s biggest employer could wield in leading the way on these issues. The accolades that would follow, if they used their influence for public good. The personal satisfaction to be gained, in doing so. If only.

    Instead, the Waltons choose to lead the way in Greed and Me First. It’s a crying shame.

    • Shari D

      The “crying shame” is really that all their employees are the ones crying all the way to the banks, while the Waltons continue to stockpile useless hoards of dollar bills they can’t possibly ever use or spend. That is, if the employees have paychecks big enough to merit even dealing with banks to begin with. This hours expansion will last until they figure out just exactly what the fringe of the bare ragged edge is that they can operate on without losing more money than they have already. Once they make up that $3 billion shortfall, then it will be back to “business as usual ~ screw the employees again.” It’s just the nature of the greedy, selfish, heartless, thoughtless bastards who are in charge of that debacle.
      My only comfort is that at some point in the future, it’s going to get so big that it’s going to come crashing down on top of all of them, and leave them floundering in the piles of waste they are creating. It will happen, just as it has to other greedy, selfserving “dictators” in the past.

      • $65930407

        Make sure you vote democrat in 2016 – they’ll fix this, right?. Oh, wait, Hillary was on the board at Wal-mart. LOL.

      • Wes

        Right, and most of these whiners never owned a business anyway!

    • Stephen Barlow

      It is. Sam would be chewing ass like a ballplayer does gum.

  • Ffrreedd

    Imagine you own a store and you pay most of your employees the minimum wage. How would an increase in the minimum wage affect your business? Most right wingers would have horror stories about higher prices and layoffs. Imagine if you own the same store and in addition to most of your employees, most of your customers earned the minimum wage. How would an increase in the minimum wage affect your business?

    • $65930407

      Here’s the answer to your question. For the customers making minimum wage, the effect is nil. They have more money, but prices went up due to having to increase employee pay by the same amount, so the net effect is nothing. However, for customers that were previously making more than the minimum wage, relative prices actually went up and they can’t afford to buy as much. Your store therefore makes less money and is therefore unable to pay its employees as much. Your store must choose between firing employees or reducing their hours. Back at you with a question: which do you choose and why?

      • Felonius

        Except, that’s not how it works. Labor is only a percentage of your operating costs, so a (say) 10% increase in labor costs doesn’t result in a 10% increase in prices; it probably results in a 1%, 0r 5%, or no increase in cost at all and a slight dip in profits. Small business will feel the affect of the increase, yes, because their profit margins are smaller, so they likely have to raise their prices, but a large company like Walmart can easily absorb the increase in labor cost, especially since the poorest members of the community will have more income (and may even venture dangerously close to having ‘disposable’ income).

      • CultOfTheBean

        Do some research on Henry Ford.

      • Bil Wood

        You must love your job in upper management at Walmart. Do you get a bonus for trolling in your spare time?

      • bressennuit

        but you missed the point, that people who are earning above minimum wage, will ALSO get a pay raise, and it will be to a point higher than the new minimum wage!

        Assuming that the current minimum wage is 7.25/hr. Someone who is making above minimum wage, say 9/hr. Say, a difference of 1.75/hr.

        If the minimum wage was raised to 10.10 an hour, the person making 7.25/hr would get a raise up to 10.10/hr.

        The person making 9/hr, WILL ALSO GET A RAISE!

        Is the raise going to be up to 10.10/hr?

        Most likely not!

        If an employer wants to keep at least the 1.75/hr differential above minimum, the 9/hr wage would rise at least up to 11.85/hr!

        But hopefully, in light of the dollar’s changed value due to inflation and the concept of “present value”, SOME employers might go ahead to change the differential up to 2/hr, thus making the 9/hr employee get a new wage of 12.10/hr!

        To say that “customers that were previously making more than the minimum wage…can’t afford to buy as much”, is erroneous — because people currently making more than minimum wage will also get a raise…

        and to a new point HIGHER than the new minimum wage!

      • Terri

        Sadly, none of this has remotely kept up with cost of living prices, inflation, company profits or productivity. It has lagged rather grossly behind all of these.

      • Ffrreedd

        You assume commerce is a zero-sum game. It isn’t. If Wal-Mart raised the pay of its workers so that they wouldn’t need government assistance the cost of a $.68 box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese would be $.69.

      • Todd Heath

        All the states that have raised their minimum wage are showing the opposite effect of what you’re claiming. They are adding jobs, not cutting them and the poor have more disposable income to spend which spurs the economy. As another poster noted wages are only one of many expenses a business has so a increase in the minimum wage does not cause a equal increase in the price of good and services.

  • Why5ks

    When I was a Merchandise / Assistant Manager at a Kmart there were numerous nights when the entire store was staffed with one cashier, one floor person and myself. As a salaried employee I would have to run service desk, run to get stock, do carry outs, answer calls, run a second register, be security, and gather shopping carts.

    • donatelife

      that’s why I left the Big K…….my lpm yelled at me for asking an lp associate to load a treadmill……when I was a kid kmart garden shop was an awesome job

  • Eddie Krebbs

    Not to mention that paying minimum wage and still cutting hours makes for surly employees which project a negative image for the store.

    • Nancy Hall

      Where do you go to find employees making more than minimum wage?I’m not a Walmart fan, but I’m realistic. I’ve know a lot of people who have worked in retail, including my son, and they were all paid poorly.

  • Kerry Norton

    April Fools?

    • No, just Jim Bean’s usual nonsense. I wish he’d go back to Breitbart where he came from. Ignore him.

      • Jim Bean

        There really is pretty much no end to what liberals wish others would do for them.

      • That’s just not true. I’m liberal and I don’t expect anyone to do anything for me. I’m liberal because I believe that individuals do better if the weakest members are taken care of as well. I’m liberal because I believe that when people do well, they should help the people that aren’t doing well. I ask what I can do for my country, not what it can do for me. I’ve worked hard to get where I am; however, I’ve done it while standing on the shoulders of everyone who has ever helped me or my family throughout history. Conservatives generally believe that if all of the individuals take care of themselves, the whole will succeed. The conservative view is totally accurate if everyone is cool with the weak members of the herd getting culled or left behind. I am not though, and most liberals aren’t either. We are human beings. The strong can provide for the weak and infirm without it hurting the strong in a significant way. I’ve never met anyone that is proud to be on food stamps. I’ve never met anyone proud of being unemployed. When people meet, our work is usually the first thing that we talk about. Our work is what defines us. Few people are proud to have no definition. People usually hide their needs from public view out of embarrassment. There are people that abuse the system, that’s a fact, but they’re in the minority. If paying for those people is the cost of taking care of people that actually need the help, I am fine with that. I make enough money to do that. I gladly pay into programs that assist the poor. I’m proud to have the means to be able to help my fellow Americans when they can’t help themselves. I hope that others are willing and proud to do the same when they arrive at the point at which I currently reside. I hope that I can help someone get there. Feel free to call us naive or stupid, you won’t be the first; however, don’t call us liberals lazy or imply that we’re looking for a handout. We’re working our asses off for the good of every American, not just ourselves… even the conservatives who dislike us and our beliefs so much.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t think there are many conservatives who dislike you (specifically) or your beliefs. In fact, I think you’re beliefs mirror the conservative’s beliefs, not the liberal’s. You value hard work and contributing to society. The core liberal belief is entitlement based simply on one’s mere presence in the community.

      • Guest

        No, Jason’s beliefs don’t mirror conservative beliefs. While both liberals and conservatives value hard work and contributing to society, they differ on the question of how society should help the least among us. What you interpret as “entitlement based simply on one’s mere presence in the community” a liberal interprets as caring for our fellow humans beings in need.

      • strayaway

        People accept the best job available no matter what the job creator’s motive. Costco pays its employees more than Walmart. Its employees are treated better than those at Walmart by most accounts. So why don’t all 2.2M Walmart employees quit and go to work for Costco? Answer: because Costco only has 174,000 employees. Costco executives must have big hearts like Jason but they just don’t produce nearly as many jobs as the greedy Walton family.

      • Jim Bean

        And the difference is?

  • CM

    Now that we have their attention, do not release their balls, SQUEEZE TIGHTER, until they get the message or die! The American People will NOT patronize slave masters! They only understand one language, money, Spend yours at locally owned businesses. It will stay in your community and not go into the offshore bank accounts of the rich enough Waltons!

    • $65930407

      “The American People will NOT patronize slave masters!”???? LOL. Are you a moron? Wal-mart did almost half a TRILLION dollars in business last year alone. Clearly, American people patronize Wal-mart a heck of a lot, as they should. Wal-mart is capitalism. They provide a hell of a lot of jobs to people that need jobs. If they don’t like the job that is provided, then they should get a job elsewhere. There is no “right” to a job you like.

      • Bil Wood

        You must love your job in upper management at Walmart. Do you get a bonus for trolling in your spare time?

      • Briar Hersom

        how much of a job is it, really, when it doesn’t even cover the basic living requirements? when people trying to work hard and earn their keep are forced to take on a second and third? If every ounce of energy and time is only to earn enough to scrape by on barest bills, then HOW can they contribute to the economy by putting more into it?

      • Carjacked in their parking lot

        Some if us do not shop there. I don’t care if the world is ending and they have the only food left on earth. They do not care about their customers or the communities they are in. Watch Walmart-The High Cost of Low Prices. What they do is not capitalism, it’s blackmail.

  • Jim Bean

    I’m sorry Allen, but that is a blatant falsehood. What liberals have always said is that jobs create demand. How many zillion times have you heard them complaining about corporations sitting on all this cash rather than creating jobs doing something for which there is no demand? And in this case WalMart is ‘restoring’ jobs, not ‘creating’ new ones.

    • janegray

      Yeah, those damn Liberals and their freaking out about how raising taxes on the “job creators” would stifle job creation. Oh wait, no, that was Conservatives. What Liberals have always said is that paying people properly creates demand which creates jobs, but don’t let the truth get you way.

      • Jim Bean

        What’s ‘properly’?

      • janegray

        Enough to be able to have a baseline standard of living that includes food, clothes, a home, transportation, medical care and a savings account and the ability to pay for the various expenses that come with those things without having to work three jobs to pay for them. A person who works 60 hours a week just to get by has neither the time nor money to make a better life for themselves should they want it, and having no more ambition than to be a cashier shouldn’t mean that you can’t make ends meet.

      • Jim Bean

        You want pay based on the workers needs and desires rather than the value of the services rendered. (Marxism) Good luck with that.

      • janegray

        I didn’t say that. What I said was that everyone should have a baseline standard of living. In Marxism, everyone has only what they need, no more and no less. What I want is a world where everyone has what they need, but the freedom to go after more if they want it. I think it’s interesting that people who work “low skill” jobs are apparently valueless when they facilitate making so much money for the people who employ them.

      • Jim Bean

        I agree with you, partly. If I was king for a day, there would be no minimum wage but there would be a maximum wage. The highest paid member of any organization would not be permitted to receive compensation greater than 10 times the amount paid the lowest. But Liberals and Conservatives alike – CEO’s, politicians, entertainers, athletes – would all freak out. But, in my kingdom, everyone able would also have to work which would freak out only those on the Left. But I do agree with your take on low skill jobs. However, an increase in minimum wage will do exactly what unionizing does – (and its a pity so few are able to learn from the past) induce employers to nudge prices up and find ways to reduce their workforce leaving nothing at the end of the day except a loss in purchasing power to those on fixed incomes and a lower work force participation rate. Obie’s already shattering the records on the latter.

      • janegray

        Why do you characterize the Left as thinking people shouldn’t have to work? It’s always Right wingers who insist that no one would work if welfare was actually a helping hand like being on the dole must be amazing. It’s Right wingers who envy the desperately poor and are bitter that they “have to” work while those “lazy moochers” have it so great. The hard truth is that most people don’t want to be on the dole and if welfare worked like it was supposed to, people would spend less time on it and more time as taxpayers and poverty would be less cyclical.

        As to your point about minimum wage, maybe it would be like that at first, but over time they’ll find that having high prices and poor customer service will cost them money. Walmart is finding that out and hiring more people to compensate. Union participation was highest in the US when the middle class was at its most stable and prosperous, and right now the middle class is screwed and the economy is screwed and private sector union membership is at its lowest since the 30s, I have to wonder if there’s a correlation there.

      • booley

        “The highest paid member of any organization would not be permitted to receive compensation greater than 10 times the amount paid the lowest. But Liberals and Conservatives alike ”

        On the contrary. Others have suggested maximum wage.. all liberals. In fact the idea in this country goes all the way back to at least FDR.

      • Jim Bean

        Cite one.

      • strayaway

        Does this mean that doctors and some others can go on vacation in July or whenever they max out for the rest of the year or do they go on performing involuntary servitude?

      • bressennuit

        I also advocate that the top pay can’t be any HIGHER than 10% of the lowest pay.

        However, I don’t see how athletes, entertainers, or even doctors would have income limits….these people are all EMPLOYEES first – whether self-employed, or for someone else (say, a sports club, an entertainment company, or a medical facility).

        And, say for example, if an athlete makes 1 million a year, and there are say 30 athletes on a team, the CEO/top staff may not have enough left over money to pay themeselves 10 million each, they might have to settle for 8 mil.

        Or maybe a 30 mil payroll will generate so much profits by customer demand and ticket sales to see them, that the CEO’s could pay themselves 12 mil per year —

        but with a limit of 10%, the CEO’s could still only make 10 mil max….to raise the CEO’s wage up to 12 mil, means that EACH player would also GET A RAISE up to the point of 1.2 million…

        And that SHOULD be the way it works….if revenue is high enough to give the CEO a raise, then it SHOULD be high enough to give each employee a bump-up in wage too — after all, it is the employees (ie the athletes) who the customers are coming to see and who are generating the revenue.

        Of course, in reality, it would be even more expansive, because ticket clerks who sell tickets and collect the monies from customers would also share in the raise due to increased revenues…as, for without them, there would be no money collected at all!

      • booley

        putting aside if this is marxism or not..

        What you are basically saying is that capitalism requires at least some people to get screwed (work but be unable to support themselves off of that work) in order for us to have a decent economy.

        Maybe that’s the problem. You have defined capitalism as pretty much a slave economy…. in the name of freedom.

      • Jim Bean

        Not a slave economy. A competitive economy. Competition is inescapable in all societies. In a Marxist one, the competition becomes how to get away with contributing the least for your equal share of the reward. That’s why they always perform marginally. In competition, some always do poorer because they are less ambitious or because they are less well equipped. Its the norm throughout the animal kingdom and you are no more capable of making water flow uphill than anyone else.

      • Terri

        It’s not competitive when people are struggling to eat and feed families. It’s a slave economy.

      • Jim Bean

        We’re fighting an epidemic of childhood obesity. For the first time in history, children are expected to have a shorter life span than their parents because they’re too fat. You need to get current.

      • banshee70

        Because processed foods are cheaper and healthy foods cost more.

      • Todd Heath

        That’s a result of cheap highly processed foods. The poor either don’t have access to healthy foods or they can’t afford to eat very much of it. The obesity epidemic is also being observed in poor countries that rely on heavy carb diets such as white rice. It’s a result of the food available to the poor, not overeating.

      • Jim Bean

        They’re eating the same freakin’ things 98% of all American’s are eating! Geeze!! Maybe we should raise taxes on the rich and assign a board certified dietician to accompany each child day and night. Please Liberals! STOP ‘FIXING’ EVERYTHING.

      • Todd Heath

        No they are not. Your ignorance in this subject is astounding. They are not getting anywhere near as much fish, nuts, fresh produce, and mean meats many middle and upper class Americans enjoy on a daily basis. The food they are eating are things like top ramen, potato chips, white bread, processed lunch meat that’s high in nitrates and fats, white rice and other highly processed foods. While all Americans consume some of them occasionally, most don’t depend on then to survive as the poor do. This data comes from the USDA. Food deserts are another issue among the poor where there are few to no options for fresh produce. Denny it all you want but this is a fact, something conservatives seem to have a hard time grasping.

      • wheldon rumproast

        A living wage: 25k per year in today’s $$$$

      • Jim Bean

        Snapshot of Minimum Wage Earners in Washington State
        The average family income of a minimum wage earner in Washington State is $47,540.
        In Washington State, just 8 percent of minimum wage earners are single parents with children.
        Nearly 60 percent of minimum wage earners in Washington State live with a family member or have a spouse who also works.
        In Washington State, fewer than 4 percent of minimum wage workers have a college degree.

      • wheldon rumproast

        ….and because 1 member of a family makes a decent living, the other should work for (sh!t)…??? There are households where 1 spouse doesn’t have to work at all, they can make 0 and the family is fine, but if you work your should receive a living wage. No excuses…pay a living wage, or go run your business in another country.

      • Jim Bean

        Because one member of a the family draws a decent wage means you can’t argue the other one working for minimum wage is living in poverty, which how the left likes to spin it. Moving their business to another country (or automating) is already a heavily used alternative. Glad you approve. Some of your liberal friends think outsourcing is evil.

      • Terri

        Can certainly argue that the spouse’s income is not a factor to take into consideration when deciding salaries. Ridiculous. The job is the job, and anyone putting in full-time work should earn at least a living wage. And we don’t require them to start starving before we pay that.

      • Jim Bean

        The last housing crash would look like a pimple compared to what would happen to our economy if employers were required to pay every employee your definition of a living wage.

    • $65930407

      Liberals are complaining that companies should be doing something for which there is no demand? Are they crazy? Why would any company or anyone do that?

      • Jim Bean

        Logic has no place in Liberalville.

      • Terri

        They’re not. That’s this one person who is going through the thread systematically telling folks what liberals think, although he is not incorrect.

    • booley

      Uhhh no

      The problem was companies had these trillions and and were just sitting on it rather then PAY this workers a decent wage.

      That lack of wages drove down demand (people can’t’ spend money they don’t’ have) creating a vicious circle where corporate greed kills demand which kills jobs which leads to corporations doing even more unscrupulous things to save money which ultimately only end up further killing demand.

      IF you are going to tell us what liberals “believe” why not actually take the time to find out first?

      • Jim Bean

        I think liberals incorrectly think they know how to forcibly take these trillions from these companies and distribute it to the people. Am I wrong? And is what liberals thinking they should do not very similar to the way unions attempted to take money from these companies in the past? And why won’t the result be the same this time?

      • Terri

        You’re still telling people what liberals think instead of finding out the actual facts about what they believe.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, why don’t you just tell me what you think will happen when you create numerous disincentives for investors to invest in our economy?

  • surfjac

    The problem is the connection between demand and job creation will not be made by the politicians and others in the 1%. Their blinders have been on for 30 years now and they ain’t taking them off.

  • Matthew Reece

    Supply and demand are both necessary for job creation. People can demand anything, but if there is no way to meet the demand, there will be no jobs created. There can be a supply of anything, but if no one wants it, there will be no jobs created.

    • bressennuit

      jobs WERE created to make the supply in the first place!

      the fact that no one would want it after it was created means that the jobs won’t be KEPT, and that there would be an inventory glut, and that investors will likely lose money….

      but the jobs were created to make the supply available in the first place.
      ++
      as for demand, if demand is high for something that doesn’t exist yet at all, or is provided in limited supply, even if there is “no way” to meet the demand — you can be assured that there are SOME people and investors who WILL research or figure out or take a chance on trying to create a supply.

      Investor money is most always attracted to items that can sell for a higher sales price due to unfilled demand.

      We saw this in the 1980s when CD music first came out…for several years, there was only 1 factory in the world, located in (the then) West Germany. High demand and limited supply encouraged others to establish new CD factories, like in USA and Asia, to meet the high demand, all the while still selling CD’s at 15$+ due to the previous shortage pricing.

      We also see this, in say, government demand (based on some customer demand) for cars to have better fuel efficiency, or air bags, or even seatbelts in the 1960s/70s. Or ADA requirements of accessible intercity motor coaches.

      Remember, various companies keep fighting these requirements, saying it is impossible to provide these things, either because they didnt exist, or that they were too expensive?

      And yet, our automobiles are safer today, and intercity motor coaches (as well as transit buses) all figured out new technology to get wheelchairs aboard.

    • Terri

      Walmart does not have this problem. It’s a hypothetical, and in the U.S., really unlikely that something enough customers want can’t be gotten from somewhere.

  • $65930407

    That isn’t what just liberals have been saying – it’s what any economist will tell you. Demand increases the products sold and the more products that are sold, the more employee hours are needed to sell the products. One common tenet of Conservative policy is that reducing taxes is the best way to increase the number of jobs. Why does this work – because decreasing taxes give people more net income, which increases their ability buy things, i.e. increases demand.

    This article is a straw-man argument if I’ve ever seen one.

    • Bil Wood

      You are truly a troll aren’t you… Do you really believe that drivel you just wrote?
      In case you have not noticed that is exactly what we did for about 30 years to end up in the mess we are in… It sure do works greats don’ts its….

      • Independent

        We ended up in the mess we are in because of all the regulations to benefit banks because of the democrats and republicans not because of any tax cuts. If you think tax cuts have anything to do with the mess we are in, you are delusional… hahah

      • Bil Wood

        You sound like a guanophrenic Libertarian spewing Koch Bros. Propaganda… 30 years of tax cuts for the rich lead us right into this downward spiral economy.
        They say tax cuts create jobs… We have had 30 years of tax cuts for the rich… we should be swimming in jobs with a booming economy.
        The last collapse of the economy was directly related to deregulation of the loan industry yet again..
        But keep ignoring reality and spewing the filth the Koch Bros put into their ads.
        But not even going to talk to someone like you who sounds like a parrot for the rich being primed by what they see on FOX News…
        BTW nice try with INDEPENDENT as a name… But CONSERVATIVE TROLL would make much more sense for you.

    • J.t. Alwin

      No, you’re just proving you’re an economic dunce. When the masses have more money, they spend it, while the rich don’t. Your BS about tax cuts is a joke, because they’re ALWAYS skewed to the people who already don’t have to spend money, while minimizing the benefit to the people that do. This is why the last Republican president to grow the economy was Eisenhower, who had a 90% tax rate on the rich.

  • WithDifferentEyes

    I haven’t shopped there in months and I will no longer shop at SAMs Club either.

  • Karen

    I stopped going to Walmart about a year ago (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary i.e., Rx refills. I’ve since moved the scripts to a different store).
    I would not shop at Sam’s Club because I REFUSE to pay an annual fee just to SHOP.
    I chatted up a guy stocking the freezer section at Target: our particular Walmart pays the same, but has better benefits than Target. Kind of a toss up, really. I now shop primarily at King Soopers, which is a member of the Kroger chain. There aren’t any Mom & Pop places in my small city (~60k), otherwise I would probably shop there, as well.

  • Stephen Barlow

    It’s a minor admission. all systems strive for equilibrium. I forgot whose Theorem that was from Physics. The Law of Entropy? Anyway, what they have been doing is making room on the payroll for those 100,000 returning VEts the so proudly promised a job in the next 5 years.

    Even though they will (almost) all be home after election day.