In news:rec.food.cooking, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:12:24 -0400 the following:

> Their big push now is to have NO full time employees, and in order to be
> eligible for insurance, you must be employed full time. Only store
> management (ass't mgr and above) are guaranteed full time and they are
> subject to a different tier of insurance.

Yes, it's strange that the government tries to prevent monopolies since
they don't trust a monopoly to sell their products for a fair price, yet
companies seem to have free reign with regard to wages (as long as they're
above minimum wage), insurance and whatnot. If companies can't be trusted
to sell for a fair price if they're a monopoly, why should they logically
be trusted to do anything else fairly? As it is now, when a company does
something unfairly, they are sued, just as you described above, and that
is all factored into the price of their products.

Full-on regulation in all aspects of business is what's needed if we're
going to combat poverty, and of course, that would be called socialism. If
the corporations cannot operate fairly, then they must be bound by rules
and regulations from the ground to the ceiling that benefit all of
society, not just the company itself.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, notbob > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 17:08:11 GMT the following:

> On 2010-04-13, Goomba > wrote:
>
> > who used to be a Walmart store manager and he informed me that benefits
> > kick in after 24 hours a week.....
>
> ....as if everyone in the store actually gets to work at least 24 hrs
> a week.

I worked for Wal-Mart for six years. I started at $3.90 an hour in 1988,
and after six years, I was making a whopping $7.65 an hour in October
1994. I was living paycheck to paycheck, but when sales are down, and
hours need to be cut, people are sent home. If you're already teetering
the line of living your life in the red, having a day's wages of $61.20
cut off would be the difference between being able to pay all the bills,
and not being able to. And it was worse when it happened two weeks in a
row. That's why society shouldn't be surprised when people need things
like food stamps and WIC cards. Their employer pays them so little they
can barely make ends meet working full-time, then hours are cut and they
either go without, or end up falling behind on the rent. Not to mention
the fact that paying rent can be a sinkhole for your money. You're
getting no equity at all and have nothing to show for it after years of
paying it. In my opinion, all apartments should be available for a
time-limited rental agreement, which means you pay rent that covers a
portion of the value of the property, and after that, you can continue to
stay there for a nominal fee that covers maintenance and utilities. That
would at least offer relief for those who aren't allowed to have a house,
simply because they don't make enough money, yet still have the sense to
know that paying rent all your life is a waste.

> This is an old business tactic. Hire twice as many workers to work
> half as many hours, then save big $$$ by not having to pay bennies.
> Most of the time when you see a major grocery chain with clerks on
> strike, this is what they are striking over. Not more money, not more
> benefits, but merely to work enough hours to even qualify for benefits
> they already have, which the chain would dearly love to eliminate, by
> said tactic, so as to reduce its overhead and increase profits.
>
> There's a minimum wage and labor laws for a reason. If it was up to
> big business, workers would still be working by the age of eight for
> 80 hrs a week at a $1 hr. Duh.

Yes, and they would love to have us come home and sit in front of the TV
watching commercials all day. The TV shows are just the bait to get us to
watch advertisements, and now many channels pop advertisements up as
banners while you're watching the show. It's irritating when the
advertisement covers up something like the words on a letter an actor is
holding, or a movie's subtitles. But I have no right to see those things,
of course. I'm only meant to see the advertisements.

> It's apparent many people in this discussion are incredibly naive as
> to how the well-off feel about the not-so-well-off. Hello people!!
> Classs distinctions are alive and well. That guy in the limo figures
> the poor schlep on the sidewalk is just a dumb animal that deserves
> what he gets. If said schlep is working his ass off at two jobs to
> support himself/others/family, makes no difference. Too damn bad.
> Workers are merely there to be exploited. If they were worth more,
> they'd have more and not be exploited. They actually feel these
> people are lesser human beings.

Yes, that's true in many cases. I was even told by one woman that she had
money because she had superior genetics that gave her grandfather enough
intelligence to pull his money out of stocks before the Depression hit,
and she inherited. I was shocked at her actual stupidity. And if people
with that level of stupidity think they're genetically superior to
everyone who is poor, it's no wonder that often the most intelligent
things that could be said come from the lowest end of the economic ladder.

> Don't get me wrong. I'm no "pinko commie" that thinks the "have-nots"
> should get a piece of what the "haves" have with no effort,
> whatsoever. Likewise, for the "haves" to use their extra
> influence/power to rig the playing field to prevent the "have-nots"
> from becoming "haves" is not right, either. Unfortunately, that's
> pretty much the way it would be if not for laws to level the playing
> field. I, for one, am in favor of such laws and feel the "haves" have
> no more right to exploit the "have-nots" than the other way around.

I agree. When people bitched at me in another thread for quitting my job,
they failed to realize that my quitting was a retaliation against the very
system you describe. Sure, I was lucky enough to have a place to stay,
but what's the country or the world going to do if literally we have a
nationwide strike, union or not? Nobody cares if I quit my job, because
I'm only one person. But if enough people do it on a mass scale, it will
really **** off the people who depend on the exploitation of low-wage
workers to support their lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who bitch and moan about "commie-pinkos" wanting a
free ride have got it all wrong. It's not that commie-pinkos want a free
ride. It's that commie-pinkos see that the people who say nobody should
get a free ride are the people getting a free ride now: the ultra-wealthy
who have inherited their money from generations past, and who use that
money to vacuum more of it into their coffers off the backs of low-wage
workers. If they didn't have "bottom-feeders" working at poverty-level
wages, they wouldn't be able to add to their financial empires.

What happens after the majority of workers walk off their jobs is still in
question. Cutting off food shipments to all grocery stores is easy to do,
but it would show their true colors. "Work at the wages we dictate, or
starve." Monsanto owning seeds and making them genetically-modified
terminator seeds puts more cards in their hands. I'd just say that if one
is planning to organize a nationwide strike, recommend to all involved to
stockpile a LOT of canned food, and get supplies that will get you by if
they decide they want to cut off everyone's utilities. Sure, it might
mean rough times, but one thing's for su the truth of what the
money-hungry powerful elite will do when their slaves stop working will
become apparent. Their true natures will come streaming out of their
asses in high-definition Technicolor.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, "piedmont" > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:32:21 -0400 the following:

> If everyone had a PHD you'd still have people working at Walmart, human
> beings are not a 'labor cost', they are our brothers and sisters.
> Unskilled labor should make enough money to live a decent life. Pay is
> not determined by what is contributued but by how much a 'corporation'
> (the 5% of the humans who own everything) can get away with. Gross
> wealth and gross poverty both have to be monitored and controlled to
> eliminate both.

I think Wal-Mart is ripe to be socialized. In my opinion, a company that
sells things people need for survival (food and drinkable water) shouldn't
be making a profit off the survival market. Food distribution should
become a public service, and food can be sold at cost. That would also
remove the need for these companies to put cheapened crap in foods that
make them bad for one's health. Imagine food that must be sold at cost,
while questionable ingredients like aspartame, HFCS, hydrogenated fats,
etc... are all banned. A lot of that crap is used because it's cheap,
anyway, and they probably continue to sell those cheapened foods at the
same prices they'd charge if they'd used quality ingredients, just because
they want higher profits, or must find some way to continue to even afford
paying their employees the crappy wages they have at the factories.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski" > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:24:42 -0400 the following:

> "Samantha Hill" > wrote
>
> > Go to Hulu and watch, "The Age of Walmart" and "The New Age of
> > Walmart," and you will get a better picture of what they are talking
> > about. Things like paying employees as little as possible and forcing
> > suppliers to slash their profits to the bone for the sake of lower
> > prices so that Walmart can make more profits. IMO, it's not the lower
> > prices that are the problem; it's the robber baron mentality.
>
> Wal-Mart has never forced a supplier to slash their profits. They do it
> willingly, mostly due to greed and the big volume they can get selling
> to Wal-Mart.

I've read stories about how Wal-Mart comes up with "requirements" for
certain companies to package their items in a certain way to reduce the
cost, and Wal-Mart then adds that if said company does not comply with
Wal-Mart's packaging requirements, they will stop selling that company's
product. That is like using force. The company probably complies with
Wal-Mart, not so much because of greed, but just to keep from going under
due to the sales that would be lost if their products were not in
Wal-Mart's stores.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Food Snob+AK4- > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:53:59 -0700 (PDT) the following:

> If the leadership of Corporation X is told by their actuaries that
> dumping chemical Y into a nearby creek would likely lead to the death of
> 10 innocent persons, and that they estimate the costs in fines, legal
> fees and settlements to be 1 million dollars, but that the cost of
> disposing of chemical Y in a much pricier way, that would kill no one,
> but would cost $2 million, then it is the CEO's fiduciary duty to his or
> her stockholders to dump the chemical into the creek, and as long as the
> dumping is not patently illegal, said CEO will never suffer any
> consequences** for doing so.

How true. The same goes with product safety. They have people sitting
around figuring up how much they might have to pay in lawyer's fees if
they're sued for some kind of malfunction that could befall a
statistically set number of units, and if the projected cost of the
lawsuits is lower than the price of redesigning the item and refitting the
manufacturing plant, they'll just sell the item with the known defect, pay
the lawsuits, and still come out better than they would have if they had
redesigned the item.

> But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations
> out of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the others
> (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don't
> have "rights") - and moved them into the "rights" category with humans,
> citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War
> to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to
> newly-freed slaves.

I once thought about turning myself into a corporation to see if I could
get the same corporate welfare and not have to pay income taxes, since I
wouldn't actually be a person. Unfortunately, the typical employer is
probably not going to be set up to work with a "corporation" that gets a
paycheck unless they hire me as an independent contractor.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:54:54 -0400 the following:

> Food Slob wrote:
>
> > If WalMart and everyone else had to pay living wages and provide
> > health benefits, then the race to the bottom could be reversed.
>
> They actually pay excellent wages for what their employees need to know
> to work in a grocery...

It doesn't matter what one needs to know to work at any job. The cost of
living is the same for everyone. Those who are paid millions of dollars
to run corporations are overpaid. Any goon can make those CEO-level
decisions, as corporate decisions are only about common sense and simply
being aware of what the markets are doing.

Furthermore, if people who suck up that much money for themselves were
really fair people, I don't think they'd need bodyguards and bulletproof
cars. They know their lowest-paid employees work their butts of for just
enough money to stay off the street (if their hours don't get cut too
much), and there are a few lunatics who might try to take them out just to
get even. I understand wanting a lavish lifestyle. It just sucks to see
a handful of people getting it when they really don't do anything
important enough to deserve the vastly superior lifestyle over the people
whose hard labor put them there.

> they only need relatively few with college degrees to work in their
> offices.

A college degree should not entitle one to a vastly improved lifestyle
over others when the cost of living for everyone is the same. The only
thing that a college degree should entitle someone to is removal from the
kind of work they didn't want to perform: sweeping floors, flipping
burgers, delivering pizzas, stocking groceries, etc.... These are all
jobs that some people are perfectly happy doing, and they don't /want/
college educations. But they don't want to live in the poorhouse all
their lives, either, nor should they have to just because their choice of
work doesn't require a college education.

That said, I think college educations are overpriced. If anything, a
college education should be just as free as a grade school and high school
education. Hell, the way the educational system is set up now, there's so
much repetition that people get bored with school before they ever
graduate. Compact it all, remove the repetition, and you could have
college graduates that are 10-12 years old. Kids aren't stupid. Their
education is just so spread out that they get too bored with the whole
affair and would rather drop out and sell drugs.

> Walmart is no different from any other similar retail establishment and
> better than most.... you really think other stupidmarket/department
> stores treat employees better, you're from another planet.

Some are better, some are worse. I worked in a union grocery store,
Haggen up in the Pacific Northwest. I didn't stay long enough to actually
get a Journeyman rank in the union, but if I could have held out at the
crappy wages for the three years it would take to hit Journeyman, it
probably wouldn't have been a bad choice for long-term employment. I
started at $5.50 per hour, and would have hit $9.90 per hour at my third
year, but the wages were so low starting out that I couldn't afford to
live up there on my own. I quit and moved back to Texas to get back with
my old roommate.

> Most positions at Walmart and other similar stores are no-skill/no
> future jobs, they are not intended to be career positions... those are
> the jobs meant to give students a little pocket change for the
> weekends... and to give Seniors something to occupy themselves a couple
> days a week and earn them a little golfing money... and they also hire a
> lot of learning disabled, makes those poor souls feel needed...

What a depressing picture you paint. And you could be right. No wonder
so many of the people at Wal-Mart act like they couldn't care less whether
you walk through their line or not. They're earning crappy wages and
really can't stand the place. Imagine if nobody working at Wal-Mart had
to be concerned about whether they were going to be able to pay the bills.
They'd probably be in a better mood and actually have a personality.

> Walmart pays them the same measly wage as normal people but mostly it's
> us tax payers who support those poor souls... Walmart (and many other
> big businesses) does a good deed by hiring those who by no deed of their
> own made them needy. Walmart does a tremendous amount of community
> service of all sorts, they just don't boast about it.

Wal-Mart wages is what makes people need food stamps and WIC cards, and
you call that being a service to the community? Honestly, someone who
works at Wal-Mart essentially has no business starting a family because
the wages they earn are barely enough to support one person living in a
rinky-dink apartment with a beaten-up old jalopy to drive back and forth
to work, or bus fare. Yet these people who work at Wal-Mart want
families, too. They want to have children to love and take care of, and
they still try to have kids. Those kids cost money, and they end up on
public assistance, just because the wages are too low at many places to
support a family.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

On 4/14/2010 12:33 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article<2010041316481691155-xxx@yyyzzz>, > wrote:
>
>> On 2010-04-13 11:49:22 -0700, George Leppla said:
>
>>> I run my business on my own terms for my own benefit. I do nothing
>>> illegal... so what am I doing wrong?
>>
>> The only way to know would be to find out how many lives you ruin in
>> the process, if any.
>
> George puts people on cruise ships.
>
> Hey George! Could you ruin my life, please?
>
> :=)
>


LOL... with pleasure. My next installation of "life ruination" starts
on May 8 when we board the Carnival Triumph for a 7 night cruise from
New Orleans. Just a very small group this time.

George L

In news:rec.food.cooking, "Dimitri" > posted on Tue,
13 Apr 2010 14:43:14 -0700 the following:

> I had been doing business with Wal Mart for the past 20 years.
> Regardless of their reputation there are several factors to consider.
>
> 1. The internal systems at Wal Mart are 2nd to none. Their inventory
> control and sales recording systems are head and shoulders above almost
> every other mass merchant I have ever dealt with.

I'll have to ask my roomie about that. He has worked for Wal-Mart for
over twenty years. I worked for Wal-Mart for six years (1988-1994),
sometimes in the same store as he was in, and sometimes as one of his
underlings. I have also worked for Target (2002-2003), and know for a
fact that Target has a much better inventory control system than Wal-Mart.
Their backroom logistics is absolutely wonderful.

When I worked for Wal-Mart, the push was to get all the stock out, no
matter what. We were really chastised for having anything left over to
push to the back. If it mean that we had to pile risers five feet high
with merchandise, we had to do it. Peg hooks were stuffed so full that
just walking by one fast enough to cause a breeze would make things fall
off the hooks. If you did send something to the back, it just went on a
pallet and sat back there, and was dragged out to be reworked night after
night. It was a huge waste of time to drag that stuff back and forth to
the floor, and actually be expected to physically check each item to see
if any more of it could be stuffed onto the shelf.

Target, on the other hand, has a very nice system that allows you to take
excess freight to the back, and each item is scanned into a specific bin
location, and that's where it stays. We didn't drag it back and forth
each night, but the computers tracked the sales of everything in the
store. Each night, a printout was made of everything that sold which had
also been scanned into a bin location in the back. Someone working in
logistics would spend his night in the back pulling merchandise for each
department, but only if that same merchandise had not come in on the
truck. The point was to reduce the pointless movement of freight around
the store -- an activity that plagued Wal-Mart for all the years I worked
for them. Target's system is very efficient, and the nice part was that
if you got something pulled from logistics, most of the time, every last
piece of it went out. If you only needed one coffee cup out of logistics,
that's all you got -- not a whole case of it.

Another good efficiency of Target is that every box arrives with a label
that tells you not only what aisle number it goes on, but what 4-foot
section of the aisle it goes on, what shelf, and where on the shelf it
goes. I can't remember the exact format, but I think each section has a
certain number of items, and they're numbered from left to right starting
at the top shelf. Wal-Mart does not have that, even now, as far as I
know.

If I was going to go back to work for a retail store, I'd pick Target over
Wal-Mart simply because their inventory system makes a hell of a lot more
sense than Wal-Mart's. Target's logistics is actually *fun* to work in.
My problem now is a bad shoulder. My left arm is mostly numb and doesn't
have all its strength. I'd be afraid I'd try to stick a box up on a high
shelf in logistics, lose my control of it and hurt someone.

> I don't agree with many of the ways they do things but they are very
> good at what they do. You don't get as big as they are and not be good
> at what you do.

Their distribution system gave them an advantage over K-Mart's antiquated
distribution system, which is why K-Mart had to merge with Sears to even
try to compete.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, George > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 07:30:47 -0400 the following:

> You forgot the preservatives. The reason they pump it up with
> preservatives and water is so it has a really, really long shelf life
> and of course so they can sell water to you at the price of meat.

Yes. I have reservations about eating food that mold won't grow on for
two years, even in the fridge after it's been opened. What makes it so
inedible that even something as nasty as mold won't eat it?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Goomba > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 09:37:09 -0400 the following:

> George wrote:
>
> > I think you are right. Then when it became common knowledge they
> > backed off and just pump the meat full of preservatives and water.
>
> The only "preservative" I think they use is salt. Salt water.

Can't be. I always have to salt any meat I use from Wal-Mart.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

Samantha Hill wrote:
> Food Snob® wrote:
>>
>> You listed two concerns for the well
>> being of business entities, but callously said that you don't give a
>> shit about the lowly worker. Someone has to do those jobs. What if
>> everyone *bettered themselves*? You are calling those "unskilled"
>> workers lazy.
>
>
> For me it's a matter of they are making a HUGE percentage of profit and
> selfishly keeping it to themselves and not sharing their bounty with
> their employees. No profit-sharing, no making the health care benefits
> they offer affordable so most of their employees can afford to purchase
> them, etc.
>

I don't agree with her but Goomba has the right to believe what she
believes.

Current Denver news is that one of the Walton sons-in-law, Stan Kroenke,
is trying to buy an NFL team, the Rams. The NFL prohibits anyone from
owning more than one national major sports franchise. Kroenke already
owns the Denver Nuggets (basketball) and the Colorado Avalanche (hockey)
as well as the Pepsi Center and surrounding real estate where they play.

It's a shame they can't "afford" to pay their employees decent wages and
benefits....

gloria p

Goomba wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Themselves alone?


Yes. The children should be sent to work the coal mines to support
themselves and the spouse should take in laundry or try prostitution,
whichever pays better.


How DARE he expect to support a family on 40 hours/week work!

:-(
gloria p

Goomba wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> Yoshida teryaki sauce
>> frozen pot stickers
>> frozen salmon portions
>> unfrozen ravioli and tortellini
>> fresh pears
>>
>
> LOL. you too on the Yoshida? We tried it as a sample once about 10 years
> ago and purchased it that one time. I couldn't get anything to taste as
> good as the sample lady made,


Nothing ever tastes as good when you get it home, whether it's from
Costco or Whole Foods. Those Demo Dollies must have magic fingers
(or a hidden jar of MSG.)

gloria p

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:36:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2010-04-14, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>
>> Stop lying... I never told anyone where not to shop or who to
>> killfile.
>
>Never directly. You just assault, insult, and belittle anyone who
>doesn't agree with you.


That's not true either... very few agree with me regardless. I
assualt, insult, and belittle those who are idiots all on their own
(like you), has nothing to do with their agreeing with me.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-04-14, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>
> > Actually with your editing you're the worst kind of liar....
>
> You mean like that alleged picture of yourself in the mugshot section?

Sheldon is also famous for editing what people have written. He thinks
it's funny.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "Dimitri" > posted on Tue,
> 13 Apr 2010 14:43:14 -0700 the following:
>
>> I had been doing business with Wal Mart for the past 20 years.
>> Regardless of their reputation there are several factors to consider.
>>
>> 1. The internal systems at Wal Mart are 2nd to none. Their inventory
>> control and sales recording systems are head and shoulders above almost
>> every other mass merchant I have ever dealt with.
>
> I'll have to ask my roomie about that. He has worked for Wal-Mart for
> over twenty years. I worked for Wal-Mart for six years (1988-1994),
> sometimes in the same store as he was in, and sometimes as one of his
> underlings. I have also worked for Target (2002-2003), and know for a
> fact that Target has a much better inventory control system than Wal-Mart.
> Their backroom logistics is absolutely wonderful.

<snipped lots>

I have found the problems with Target is very different from those at Wal
Mart. & yes I did business with Target as well. The "problem" with Target
of late is their youth in management positions. They truly believe they
walk on Water. The buyers at WM are for the most part nicer, more real, and
easier to get to know maybe it's the difference between Bentonville &
Minneapolis I don't know

Their merchandising philosophy is very different. As example Target does
not want to be in the Disney DVD business - what they want to do is sell a
gazillion of the newest DVD the first few weeks and then be out of that
item. Their sku count per category is limited and the pressure to mark down
or return merchandise if it's not in the top, say 25 is enormous. They
consistently want to cream the top 20% of the marketplace. Old rule - you'll
do 80% of your business in 20% of your items. The rub is that you have to
have the other 80% of the sku's to have customers in your stores.

That being said Target stores are much nicer to shop in.

There is also a high level of duplication - you'll find cell phone car
chargers @ 2 different prices in 2 different sections - automotive &
electronics - it shows a lack of coordination. Both WM & Target are very
very sophisitacted they're very good at scamming their vendors out of ad
funds. Any idea how much a vendor pays to have their item in the Sunday
Roto?????? You're would fall off your chair. Roto's cost the corporation
ZERO.

About the distribution systems I've worked with both from a vendor
standpoint - sorry to say you're wrong IMHO.
At least from a vendor standpoint The query system for WM is much better.
The Daily replenishment orders work better.

Dimitri

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Apr 13, 10:08*am, notbob > wrote:
> > On 2010-04-13, Goomba > wrote:
> >
> > > who used to be a Walmart store manager and he informed me that benefits
> > > kick in after 24 hours a week.....
> >
> > ....as if everyone in the store actually gets to work at least 24 hrs
> > a week.
> >
> > This is an old business tactic. *Hire twice as many workers to work
> > half as many hours, then save big $$$ by not having to pay bennies.
> > Most of the time when you see a major grocery chain with clerks on
> > strike, this is what they are striking over. *Not more money, not more
> > benefits, but merely to work enough hours to even qualify for benefits
> > they already have, which the chain would dearly love to eliminate, by
> > said tactic, so as to reduce its overhead and increase profits.
> >
>
>
> I've worked at a grocery store for 21 years now. I have never once
> gone below the minimum hours for insurance. It is 60 hours per month
> (average of 15 per week) for individuals or 80 hours per month for
> family (average 20 per week).
>
> The only people who get fewer hours (unless they ask for fewer) are
> courtesy clerks who are in school (and probably on their parents'
> insurance).
>
> We have one employee who works 2 days a week, specifically for the
> insurance. It's the only reason she works. Rather than pay a high rate
> for insurance, she gets good insurance and an okay paycheck too.
>
> I've never heard any co-workers complain about getting enough hours
> for insurance. Yes, many would like more hours in general since most
> do not get full time hours. But we do get our full insurance.

This thread has helped me understand why you are so concerned about your
insurance. It sounds very exceptional. Unfortunately, at some point
companies can't afford to give better benefits than their competitors.
One year your union is going to go in, and they'll be told that the
insurance is too expensive. Something has to go. Perhaps the old
timers will be grandfathered in. Perhaps you'll lose your work hour
flexibility, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:41:16 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 10:08*am, notbob > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-13, Goomba > wrote:
>>
>> > who used to be a Walmart store manager and he informed me that benefits
>> > kick in after 24 hours a week.....
>>
>> ....as if everyone in the store actually gets to work at least 24 hrs
>> a week.
>>
>> This is an old business tactic. *Hire twice as many workers to work
>> half as many hours, then save big $$$ by not having to pay bennies.
>> Most of the time when you see a major grocery chain with clerks on
>> strike, this is what they are striking over. *Not more money, not more
>> benefits, but merely to work enough hours to even qualify for benefits
>> they already have, which the chain would dearly love to eliminate, by
>> said tactic, so as to reduce its overhead and increase profits.
>>
>
>
>I've worked at a grocery store for 21 years now. I have never once
>gone below the minimum hours for insurance. It is 60 hours per month
>(average of 15 per week) for individuals or 80 hours per month for
>family (average 20 per week).
>
>The only people who get fewer hours (unless they ask for fewer) are
>courtesy clerks who are in school (and probably on their parents'
>insurance).
>
>We have one employee who works 2 days a week, specifically for the
>insurance. It's the only reason she works. Rather than pay a high rate
>for insurance, she gets good insurance and an okay paycheck too.
>
>I've never heard any co-workers complain about getting enough hours
>for insurance. Yes, many would like more hours in general since most
>do not get full time hours. But we do get our full insurance.

I have a neighbor 1/4 mile down the road who retired from the NYPD and
is now 70 years old... he's a karate instructor part time at the Y and
works store security at the local Walmart Super Store, he loves
Walmart, he says they are paying him good money for what he considers
doing nothing... he even gets a store discount. Btw, Walmart
employees are not beneath using their store discount for friends and
relatives... Walmart knows but couldn't care less, all sales generate
revenue.

gloria.p wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> Themselves alone?
>
>
> Yes. The children should be sent to work the coal mines to support
> themselves and the spouse should take in laundry or try prostitution,
> whichever pays better.
>
>
> How DARE he expect to support a family on 40 hours/week work!
>
> :-(
> gloria p

I've never heard an official policy or historical statement on just who
the "living wage" is actually supposed to support in life. The wage
earner himself or his entire family? Why am I pond scum for asking this
question?

No one is suggesting that kids be sent back into the mines.
But should entry level unskilled jobs pay as much as experienced skilled
ones? What is the incentive to learn more, do more, risk more if
everyone makes the same wage? It seems to me that higher pay goes to
those who do the most unpleasant work or those that are particularly
skilled in specialized areas, as well as those who risk the most.
Personally, I believe I should be paid in accordance to the risks
inherent in my job as well as in respect to the additional skills,
certification and experience I bring to the table.

On 2010-04-14, brooklyn1 > wrote:

> doing nothing... he even gets a store discount. Btw, Walmart
> employees are not beneath using their store discount for friends and
> relatives...

Duh. This kind of clerk-for-friends in not limited to Walmart.

nb

DamnAnus wrote:

>In news:rec.food.cooking, Goomba > posted on Tue, 13
>Apr 2010 09:37:09 -0400 the following:
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>> > I think you are right. Then when it became common knowledge they
>> > backed off and just pump the meat full of preservatives and water.
>>
>> The only "preservative" I think they use is salt. Salt water.
>
>Can't be. I always have to salt any meat I use from Wal-Mart.

Huh? You just finished a typing tirade about how/why you hate
Walmart... yet you shop there... what a LYING HIPOCRITE MORON,
DAMN-ANUS... you are certainly the epitomy of an ASSHOLE! What a
laughing stock you are.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

In news:rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 > posted on
Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:42:41 -0400 the following:

> Huh? You just finished a typing tirade about how/why you hate
> Walmart... yet you shop there...

In some posts, I explain why, too.

> what a LYING HIPOCRITE MORON, DAMN-ANUS

There you are again, obsessed with anuses. You should really see a
psychiatrist, and not just his anus.

> ... you are certainly the epitomy of an ASSHOLE!

Two mentions of anuses in one post. You really are having a problem.

> What a laughing stock you are.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Do you always laugh at your own attempts at humor?

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

Bryan wrote:

> You listed two concerns for the well being of business entities, but
> callously said that you don't give a shit about the lowly worker. Someone
> has to do those jobs. What if everyone *bettered themselves*? You are
> calling those "unskilled" workers lazy.

Educating the workforce doesn't CREATE better jobs, does it?

Wouldn't matter if everyone "bettered themselves." Someone STILL has to do
those jobs -- and now that they're "better," those people would be
disgruntled. There's a reason employers don't want to hire overqualified
people: It's not that the people CAN'T do the job, it's that they'll hardly
ever be happy doing it, and eventually productivity will be compromised.

Bob

On Apr 14, 1:06*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
> > You listed two concerns for the well being of business entities, but
> > callously said that you don't give a shit about the lowly worker. *Someone
> > has to do those jobs. *What if everyone *bettered themselves*? *You are
> > calling those "unskilled" workers lazy.
>
> Educating the workforce doesn't CREATE better jobs, does it?

It does, but it doesn't do away with the need for workers with less
complex skill sets.
>
> Wouldn't matter if everyone "bettered themselves." Someone STILL has to do
> those jobs -- and now that they're "better," those people would be
> disgruntled. There's a reason employers don't want to hire overqualified
> people: It's not that the people CAN'T do the job, it's that they'll hardly
> ever be happy doing it, and eventually productivity will be compromised.

That is all true. Every job should be respected, as long as it is
something that adds value (which excludes a few categories like day
trader, and the folks who work for the insurance industry specializing
in figuring out ways to deny claims). It ****es me off when I hear or
read someone using the job of "flipping burgers" as a synonym for
loser. I happen to like and respect the guy who made my burritos this
morning at Del Taco. When I left today, I thanked him and told him
how much I enjoyed the food.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:53:41 -0500, Damaeus wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski" > posted on
> Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:32:24 -0400 the following:
>
>> True, but I blame the customer for that, not the store. You see it all
>> the time, people spend hours finding the lowest possible price on a
>> camera, that big flat screen TV, etc and will drive many miles to save
>> $10 on a $900 purchase. The people of China thank us for that too.
>
> That's why there should really be far fewer brands of televisions. Just
> make *all* TVs of a certain size the same way, and simply make sure it has
> *all* the features of *all* the current brands combined. Then since
> everyone would have the same TV (of a specific size), they could be mass
> produced at a much lower price than having to make 300 different models
> for different levels of affordability. It's incredibly stupid to go into
> a single store and see 30-40 different models of television when one could
> be produced that is superior to all others, and be sold for a lower price
> because of that mass production advantage.
>
> Damaeus

spoken like a true free spirit.

blake

"gloria.p" wrote:
>Samantha Hill wrote:
>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>
>>> You listed two concerns for the well
>>> being of business entities, but callously said that you don't give a
>>> shit about the lowly worker. Someone has to do those jobs. What if
>>> everyone *bettered themselves*? You are calling those "unskilled"
>>> workers lazy.
>>
>>
>> For me it's a matter of they are making a HUGE percentage of profit and
>> selfishly keeping it to themselves and not sharing their bounty with
>> their employees. No profit-sharing, no making the health care benefits
>> they offer affordable so most of their employees can afford to purchase
>> them, etc.
>>
>
>I don't agree with her but Goomba has the right to believe what she
>believes.
>
>It's a shame they can't "afford" to pay their employees decent wages and
>benefits....

Walmart can certainly pay twice what they pay now and offer better
bennies but then they'd retain far fewer employees and those employees
would need to be a lot smarter and work a whole lot harder, plus the
prices would be higher too. By applying your theory (something for
nothing/free lunch) many thousands of dummies would be without any
job whatsoever and with one less place to purchase affordable
necessities. And then those who are gainfully employed in better
paying positions because they applied themselves in a concientious
reliable manner would be supporting many more do nothing deadbeats.
Walmart is not the problem, Walmart is the solution.... the
losers/lazies are their own problem... parasites like you, and
obomination.

In article >,
"Dimitri" > wrote:


> Their merchandising philosophy is very different. As example Target does
> not want to be in the Disney DVD business - what they want to do is sell a
> gazillion of the newest DVD the first few weeks and then be out of that
> item. Their sku count per category is limited and the pressure to mark down
> or return merchandise if it's not in the top, say 25 is enormous. They
> consistently want to cream the top 20% of the marketplace. Old rule - you'll
> do 80% of your business in 20% of your items. The rub is that you have to
> have the other 80% of the sku's to have customers in your stores.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, Dimitri. I think that many
consumers have voted with their feet. They'll go into the hardware
store to buy that odd size of whatever, or to find out how to do
something, but when it comes time to spend real money, the hardware
store is out of the running. And then people wonder why so many
hardware stores have closed.

I love Costco. We shop there often and we spend a lot of money there.
I'm happy with their business model, but it certainly isn't the
traditional one. They cherrypick their merchandise, only high volume or
high cost stuff. There is a limited selection. If they have more than
one kind of something, they generally aren't very comparable. Their
service is excellent, but too bad if you have questions about items on
the floor. I like the demo dollies, but I'm told they aren't Costco
employees.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>Samantha Hill wrote:
>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You listed two concerns for the well
>>>> being of business entities, but callously said that you don't give a
>>>> shit about the lowly worker. Someone has to do those jobs. What if
>>>> everyone *bettered themselves*? You are calling those "unskilled"
>>>> workers lazy.
>>>
>>>
>>> For me it's a matter of they are making a HUGE percentage of profit and
>>> selfishly keeping it to themselves and not sharing their bounty with
>>> their employees. No profit-sharing, no making the health care benefits
>>> they offer affordable so most of their employees can afford to purchase
>>> them, etc.
>>>
>>
>>I don't agree with her but Goomba has the right to believe what she
>>believes.
>>
>>It's a shame they can't "afford" to pay their employees decent wages and
>>benefits....
>
> Walmart can certainly pay twice what they pay now and offer better
> bennies but then they'd retain far fewer employees and those employees
> would need to be a lot smarter and work a whole lot harder, plus the
> prices would be higher too. By applying your theory (something for
> nothing/free lunch) many thousands of dummies would be without any
> job whatsoever and with one less place to purchase affordable
> necessities. And then those who are gainfully employed in better
> paying positions because they applied themselves in a concientious
> reliable manner would be supporting many more do nothing deadbeats.
> Walmart is not the problem, Walmart is the solution.... the
> losers/lazies are their own problem... parasites like you, and
> obomination.

Wal Mart does not need smarter employees - Like K-Mart of the past their
systems are designed for a minimum of decisions at store level. The
Managers job is to control the labor costs at store level. That's the one
part of their equation that can not be handled from Bentonville. It's just
not practical.

All merchandising, plan-o-grams & section layouts are done at the
Bentonville layout facility.

Dimitri

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>
>
>> Their merchandising philosophy is very different. As example Target does
>> not want to be in the Disney DVD business - what they want to do is sell
>> a
>> gazillion of the newest DVD the first few weeks and then be out of that
>> item. Their sku count per category is limited and the pressure to mark
>> down
>> or return merchandise if it's not in the top, say 25 is enormous. They
>> consistently want to cream the top 20% of the marketplace. Old rule -
>> you'll
>> do 80% of your business in 20% of your items. The rub is that you have
>> to
>> have the other 80% of the sku's to have customers in your stores.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, Dimitri.

What part don't you agree with the 80% 20% rule?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle


>I think that many consumers have voted with their feet. They'll go into
>the hardware
> store to buy that odd size of whatever, or to find out how to do
> something, but when it comes time to spend real money, the hardware
> store is out of the running. And then people wonder why so many
> hardware stores have closed.
>
> I love Costco. We shop there often and we spend a lot of money there.
> I'm happy with their business model, but it certainly isn't the
> traditional one. They cherrypick their merchandise, only high volume or
> high cost stuff. There is a limited selection. If they have more than
> one kind of something, they generally aren't very comparable. Their
> service is excellent, but too bad if you have questions about items on
> the floor. I like the demo dollies, but I'm told they aren't Costco
> employees.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>


I love Costco as well but the one problem is their control of their sku
count. Each buyer for each department has a limited number of sku's that he
can purchase. If he wants to add an item he must discontinue an item.
Usually the poorest performer.

Remember ROI (return on investment) is measured in dollars per square foot.
in order to stay active an item (non seasonal) must return a certain number
of dollars per pallet of floor space.

Different case for their business division or dot com.

Dimitri

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:29:41 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Themselves alone?

ideally, a family as well. but that hasn't been the reality for quite some
time now.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:31:18 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:29:41 -0400, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
>>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>
> That's never been true, no one in the US has ever been able to support
> themselves on minumum wage, but that's all most unskilled labor is
> worth... unless unskilled labor is inherently perilous or entails some
> other mitigating circumstances, like cleaning bed pans where there's
> risk of disease
>
>>Themselves alone?
>
> Ask the mick when was the last time he worked a forty minute week... I
> seriously doubt he's ever worked, he posseses no marketable skills.

gosh, i wish i had a full-time job being an asshole like you do.

blake

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:24:28 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> gloria.p wrote:
>> Goomba wrote:
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>>>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> Themselves alone?
>>
>> Yes. The children should be sent to work the coal mines to support
>> themselves and the spouse should take in laundry or try prostitution,
>> whichever pays better.
>>
>> How DARE he expect to support a family on 40 hours/week work!
>>
>> :-(
>> gloria p
>
> I've never heard an official policy or historical statement on just who
> the "living wage" is actually supposed to support in life. The wage
> earner himself or his entire family? Why am I pond scum for asking this
> question?
>
> No one is suggesting that kids be sent back into the mines.
> But should entry level unskilled jobs pay as much as experienced skilled
> ones? What is the incentive to learn more, do more, risk more if
> everyone makes the same wage? It seems to me that higher pay goes to
> those who do the most unpleasant work or those that are particularly
> skilled in specialized areas, as well as those who risk the most.
> Personally, I believe I should be paid in accordance to the risks
> inherent in my job as well as in respect to the additional skills,
> certification and experience I bring to the table.

why shouldn't everyone make enough in forty hours to support themselves?
it might mean less profit for some (horrors!), but there would not be *any*
profit without employees. i don't think it's too much to ask for a more
equitable distribution of the profits employees make possible.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:41:41 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:05:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> intelligence that some useless non-thinking scumbag is telling folks
>>> what to do as though they can't think for themselves.
>>
>>Whew! It's a good thing you never do that.
>
> Stop lying... I never told anyone where not to shop or who to
> killfile. Actually with your editing you're the worst kind of liar, a
> criminal purjurer.

ohnoes!!! he quoted you verbatim and didn't alter the text or the nym like
you often do!!!

blake

blake murphy > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:24:28 -0400, Goomba wrote:

>> I've never heard an official policy or historical statement on just who
>> the "living wage" is actually supposed to support in life. The wage
>> earner himself or his entire family? Why am I pond scum for asking this
>> question?

>> No one is suggesting that kids be sent back into the mines.
>> But should entry level unskilled jobs pay as much as experienced skilled
>> ones? What is the incentive to learn more, do more, risk more if
>> everyone makes the same wage? It seems to me that higher pay goes to
>> those who do the most unpleasant work or those that are particularly
>> skilled in specialized areas, as well as those who risk the most.
>> Personally, I believe I should be paid in accordance to the risks
>> inherent in my job as well as in respect to the additional skills,
>> certification and experience I bring to the table.

>why shouldn't everyone make enough in forty hours to support themselves?

Simple answer, there is enough non-wage income in the U.S. that
not everyone needs a living wage to live. 30% of income is non-wage
at this point. A lot of that income goes to people who still need
a little extra, so these people form a pool of workers whose income
needs are less than a person without the non-wage income.

It might be a pension. It might be savings or interest. It
might be a relative, and in a fraction of cases it is some other sort
of government payout, perhaps social security.

People living somewhere without paying rent (e.g. adult children
living with their parents) also need less income than someone who
is self-sufficient.

Adding together all these categories, and there is enough of a
sub-living-wage labor pool to depress wages for many categories of
jobs.

Steve

"Damaeus" > wrote
>> Wal-Mart has never forced a supplier to slash their profits. They do it
>> willingly, mostly due to greed and the big volume they can get selling
>> to Wal-Mart.
>
> I've read stories about how Wal-Mart comes up with "requirements" for
> certain companies to package their items in a certain way to reduce the
> cost, and Wal-Mart then adds that if said company does not comply with
> Wal-Mart's packaging requirements, they will stop selling that company's
> product. That is like using force. The company probably complies with
> Wal-Mart, not so much because of greed, but just to keep from going under
> due to the sales that would be lost if their products were not in
> Wal-Mart's stores.
>
> Damaeus

No, that would be greed. Many companies do very well and do not sell to
Wal-Mart. No one has to sell to them, but they want the volume. Companies
that give in to them can also go out of business. Read about Vlasic
pickles.

In article >,
"Dimitri" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Dimitri" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Their merchandising philosophy is very different. As example Target does
> >> not want to be in the Disney DVD business - what they want to do is sell
> >> a
> >> gazillion of the newest DVD the first few weeks and then be out of that
> >> item. Their sku count per category is limited and the pressure to mark
> >> down
> >> or return merchandise if it's not in the top, say 25 is enormous. They
> >> consistently want to cream the top 20% of the marketplace. Old rule -
> >> you'll
> >> do 80% of your business in 20% of your items. The rub is that you have
> >> to
> >> have the other 80% of the sku's to have customers in your stores.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, Dimitri.
>
> What part don't you agree with the 80% 20% rule?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

I think that the 80/20 rule is often true. But then when you say that
businesses must have the 80% in stock that only makes the 20% of their
business, doesn't seem true for DVDs at Target in your example above.

> >I think that many consumers have voted with their feet. They'll go into
> >the hardware
> > store to buy that odd size of whatever, or to find out how to do
> > something, but when it comes time to spend real money, the hardware
> > store is out of the running. And then people wonder why so many
> > hardware stores have closed.

So customers want to get the 80% at the hardware store, and take their
business for the 20% that is most profitable somewhere else.

> > I love Costco.

Same with Costco. They stock the 20% that makes the 80%. You have to
go "somewhere else" to get the rest. And if you need parts,
accessories, service or just advice, you won't find that at Costco
either.

> I love Costco as well but the one problem is their control of their sku
> count. Each buyer for each department has a limited number of sku's that he
> can purchase. If he wants to add an item he must discontinue an item.
> Usually the poorest performer.
>
> Remember ROI (return on investment) is measured in dollars per square foot.
> in order to stay active an item (non seasonal) must return a certain number
> of dollars per pallet of floor space.

I hadn't seen it put that way, but it is certainly born out by my
shopping there.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dimitri wrote:
>
> I love Costco as well but the one problem is their control of their sku
> count. Each buyer for each department has a limited number of sku's that
> he can purchase. If he wants to add an item he must discontinue an
> item. Usually the poorest performer.


And with conventional grocers, they also care about what perks they can
get from the distributors.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:29:41 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>> Themselves alone?
>
> ideally, a family as well. but that hasn't been the reality for quite some
> time now.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Was it ever? Was it intended to? <shrug> I sure don't recall.

blake murphy wrote:

> why shouldn't everyone make enough in forty hours to support themselves?
> it might mean less profit for some (horrors!), but there would not be *any*
> profit without employees. i don't think it's too much to ask for a more
> equitable distribution of the profits employees make possible.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Support themselves how? As in renting an apartment with a roommate or
living with family communally (as was certainly the case generations
ago) or buying a single family house? How big a space? Eating steak
weekly or limited to eating too many beans? Paying utility bills to run
air and heat non-stop, or conservatively?
What *exactly* is the baseline of subsistence this wage should support?
I'd like to know what the plan calls for.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:29:41 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> anyone working forty hours a week should at least be able to support
>>>> themselves. this is no longer true in the u.s.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>> Themselves alone?
>>
>> ideally, a family as well. but that hasn't been the reality for quite
>> some
>> time now.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Was it ever? Was it intended to? <shrug> I sure don't recall.

At one time it was entirely possible for one man to support a wife and kids
on his income alone. That's why it was uncommon for women to work.

Ms P