Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Thanks for the tip, Tom.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Tom, I'm sorry you feel the need to be so condescending. "in the real world, competition drives down quality"? I find this hard to believe. Two cases in point: American cars in the 1970s and cell phones in the last 10 years. American cars were extremely protected from competition and the quality was terrible. Conversely, the cell phone industry is extremely competitive and seems to roll out new features at continuously lower prices seemingly each month. Would you care to explain how you can make the statement that quality decreases as competition increases? 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Competition drives down prices. Lower prices make us all wealthier because we can support our current standard of living on less money. How is this a bad thing? Protecting your local economy from a player with low prices is a tax on people with low incomes. Don't like WalMart? It's simple; don't shop there.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

(I'm sorry to triple post, but the guidelines said 2500 characters. This has less than 2,000.)

People who have little money usually end up that way because they make bad decisions. There are always exceptions, but you can't create policy by exception. For example, a poor family wants a DVD player. Ok, should we all get together and decide the quality (and therefore price) of the DVD player they should be able to purchase at a local store or can we all be grown-ups and let them make the decision and live with it? If they buy a $40 DVD player and it breaks after a year, they have to live with it. Hopefully, they will learn from this choice and consequence. Either way, they will have to live with the consequence of their next decision. This is how it should be and also the basis of how our country developed into the generally high standard of living American citizens currently enjoy.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

What I constantly hear about WalMart is all the peripheral negative effects, as if this is the reason the company decides to open a store. The reason they open a store is simple. There are no ulterior motives of destroying a community, etc. They feel they can make money. Translation: WalMart believes people in your area will shop there. 

So the argument isn't really about WalMart coming into your town. It is about you feeling you need to control where other people spend their money. 

Oh, I know. You are concerned about the quality of the items they are buying or you are concerned about the treatment of the employees or you are concerned about the treatment of the suppliers...blah, blah, blah. Bottom line...if no one was going to shop there, the company wouldn't even propose a store. 

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context