You're losing this argument...Maybe you should choose a different battle.
LOL.
Uncle bland, it seems obvious to me that, in order to lose an argument, to choose a different battle, one has to first engage one. I was not aware of having done that. If I haven't engaged, then I can't be losing. On the off chance that I have inadvertently fallen into one, do tell me what the opposing arguments are and who are the opposing sides so that I may play along more mindfully. I am woefully unaware of arguing with anyone about anything.
Until now, that is. Now I'm arguing with you. <g>
you're making it from a position of nearly complete absence of credible real world experience relative to everyone else here who has responded to you.
Also, pray tell, advise me on what real world experience you think I lack. I questioned the assessment that "(Wal-Mart's) low prices save the average working family $2,300 a year.” The only experience needed for that is experience in analysis and an eye for bald assertions. Nothing that has been said in this discussion speaks to that that assertion let alone validates it. The closest anyone has come to relevance is the reasonable claim that a typical working family might be able to save that much if they shopped regularly at a Wal-Mart grocery.
More on point, I did some quick research and found that 21% of Americans shop weekly at Wal-Mart so it's reasonable to conclude that no more than 21% shop there for groceries given that grocery shopping is something done frequently and to save that much at one store you'd probably have to shop there regularly. (Probably quite a lot fewer since Wal-Mart groceries are fairly new and older stores don't likely have them, but I can work with that number.)
"The household income of a “regular” Wal-Mart shopper averages about $35,000." Perhaps that's the group that Wal-Mart ads have in mind when they talk about "average working family." So let's say that 21% of average working families shop exclusively there for groceries. For the average working family in the US (whose numbers are five times those who shop regularly at Wal-Mart) to save $2300 per year, even assuming that all regular Wal-Mart shoppers are in that group, the fifth that actually shop there would have to save five times $2300 or $11500 per year. Which means they would have to spend more at Wal-Mart than the $35K per year than their net earnings.
It's pretty easy to see that "(Wal-Mart's) low prices save the average working family $2,300 a year” cannot possibly be true. You don't have to have ever set foot in a Wal-Mart to see that. That particular real world experience is irrelevant.
findarticles.com
hillnews.com
EDIT: When I clicked back on your post to pick up where I left off in reading the thread, I saw six recommendations for your post. I guess that means that there are at least six people here who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag... <g> |
