I'm not so convinced things would be that much different had Sam lived to today. He knew the value of a dollar and he had very aggressive plans to have his company make its first billion and he didn't do it thinking he'd have to be cuddly and nice.

As I've said, he didn't like to pay above average salaries and he didn't much care for women in leadership roles. He also kept his profits close and within the family on purpose. He really, really liked money. But more than money he liked to win at all costs in virtually everything that he did.

People admire Sam because he was frugal and not showy. I don't think he was so much humble as he knew every dime he could save/cut was a dime of profit (which is spelled out in his book). I have no reason to believe he would not have applied that same school of thought to many of the policies so many people today frown upon.

You're just arguing at this point. No one buys this.

Does the amount of Walmart stock held in one's personal portfolio(s) define the thrust of one's arguments vis-a-vis Walmart?
(nah . . . that can't be . . .)

You're just arguing at this point. No one buys this.

Good to know you were elected spokesperson for everyone else. None of you knew him and very few here have even worked for Walmart. I did and I read biographies on him (biographies are about the only books I enjoy reading) and my perspective is what I gained from those two things. Which weighs a heck of lot more to the truth than nostalgia, myth and BS.

It's been awhile since I read it but if memory serves he said at first he saw payroll as just more overhead that needed to be cut to the bone but then later came to realize that much like the paradox that the lower you cut prices the more profit you'll make the same holds true that the more profits you share with the work force the more profits your company will make. Whether he practiced and/or believed it I don't know but that's pretty much what he stated in his autobiography 'Made In America'.

Which goes back to my points. Much of what he did wasn't because "he's such a great guy thinking of all the little people." Its because it made him more money. He didn't put Hillary on his board because he was for equality, he did it for business reasons. If he could make even more by paying less, than that's what he did. If the opposite held true then he did that. It was about profits first, people second, like it or not. People apply the way Walmart is run today to business models and technologies from the 80's. That's apples and oranges. I personally have no problem with how Walmart is run. They are in business to make lots of money. If people decide they don't like them then they'll stop shopping there. Was he 'better' than those running it today - sure by some standards he was. But the image so many conjure up of Sam Walton is just simply not true IMO. Someone can be likable and frugal and still be a shrewd business person whose eye is always on the profits.

Brian, you've misinterpreted at least my comments. I agree with you, completely, that Sam Walton was what he was -- a businessman driven to maximize his profits. There was no hint of philanthropy about him; unlike Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, or Bill Gates, he never showed any tendency to give money away for any reason that didn't wind up benefitting his own self. Still, he did improve matters while he was alive, and the current hatred and distrust didn't appear until he had been gone for quite a while.

I do think that the difference between his business model that worked so well for him in the 80s and 90s, and that of the Wall Street MBAs who now control the empire he left them (and far too many other aspects of our economy), is that Sam's model recognized that treating his employees as capable people resulted in increase of his profits, while the current model attempts to treat all those working there as interchangeable cogs in a huge machine and does not allow them to vary from their scripted roles. He never lost sight of next year; the MBAs don't look beyond the end of the current quarter.

Of course, I've been captivated by Ayn Rand's philosophy for more years than I like to admit -- particularly her essays on "The Virtues of Selfishness" (which, unlike her two best-known novels, actually seem to indicate acknowledgement of the real world). In particular, I appreciate her position that true altruism doesn't exist, and her conclusion that those who claim to practice it are either attempting to control others, or are deceiving themselves. I see Sam Walton as an example of one of her heroes, who achieved success primarily because of enlightened self-interest -- which just by accident did help other people as a by-product when it provided jobs that had not existed previously.

I worked at the store on Memorial and Penn, since I was fired (May of last year) there has been a lot of turnover, including a new store manager. I had gone to the regional manager or whatever you call it after I was fired and he said "We have had issues at that store".

Before you are start your job, you watch a series of videos and read a Wal-Mart guide in training and are taught to do it Sam's way, all about the customer. That is what I did, getting the shelves stocked correctly so the customer will not have a problem finding it. Too bad that wasn't good enough for them.

Of course, I've been captivated by Ayn Rand's philosophy for more years than I like to admit -- particularly her essays on "The Virtues of Selfishness" (which, unlike her two best-known novels, actually seem to indicate acknowledgement of the real world). In particular, I appreciate her position that true altruism doesn't exist, and her conclusion that those who claim to practice it are either attempting to control others, or are deceiving themselves. I see Sam Walton as an example of one of her heroes, who achieved success primarily because of enlightened self-interest -- which just by accident did help other people as a by-product when it provided jobs that had not existed previously.

I absolutely agree with that also, Jim. Even someone who gives up their life for someone else is doing it because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no totally unselfish act unless it's an accident.

I went in there recently (store I was fired from) to get a bluray player, saw one for $50, go to purchase it and it rings up as $70, it was stocked wrong (shocking), I said I want it for $50, the cashier said "We can't do that, Wal-Mart would lose $20" LOL please....the manager (one I had never seen before, so obviously came aboard since I was fired) agreed with me and gave it to me for $50.

I'm probably wrong about this, but just because an item is in the wrong place on the shelves shouldn't mean the wrong price should apply. If this were the case, all semi-shoplifters (thieves) would have to do is shuffle the merchandise to get lower prices. That or move the price tags on the shelves.

Sorry. I didn't mean to get away from dissin' Walmart. It won't happen again. =)

Just because such mis-stocking is so prevalent -- not just at Walmart by any means -- I always compare the UPC code number on the item itself with the one on the posted price tag to verify that the price tag applies to the item. These numbers are assigned by an industry group and just about every place that posts prices uses them on the tags...

In the case of misplaced items - it appears Walmart has decided that misstocking the store shelf cost less than adjusting the price to give 'discounts' to people who point out the error. Personally, I hate it when I select an item with a sale sticker on the shelf and then get to the register to find out the item next to the sale sticker isn't the one on sale. To me that is deceptive marketing. To Jim's point, I always end up double checking the sale tag to make sure what I have in my hand is what is on sale - and sometime there is still a problem when I get to the register.

@GoOKC1991 - were you ever instructed, encouraged, or supplied with any information on how to apply for any state or federal social programs while a Walmart employee? I once worked for a company here in Jax that had a vast majority of the employees involved in customer service phone support and state and federal benefit applications were supplied in the New Hire packet, as well as a book on how to obtain your GED.

I was not.

Oddly enough - From the two neighborhood walmarts ive been too (rarely go, maybe 3 within the last calendar year) i haven't noticed the stocking problem there.

I absolutely agree with that also, Jim. Even someone who gives up their life for someone else is doing it because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no totally unselfish act unless it's an accident.

ljbab728,
Really sorry that this is your experience. I personally know this not to be true. While unselfish acts are not necessarily common, they are certainly not extinct. If you are in a marriage/serious relationship, I hope you experience both sides of the equation.

Had to run into a Neighborhood Wal-Mart the other day. About 6:15 a.m., so nothing else in the area I was in was open. Bought about ten items for a breakfast meeting. Store was open and I saw one employee in the store near the dairy case. Went to check out and nobody there. Checked out using the self checkout (which I really hate), and was on my way.

Maybe the plan is to make their checkout employees obsolete, and basically make it a complete self-serve experience. I'm sure the money lost due to shrinkage would be more than offset by the savings in hiring the stereotypical Wal-Mart employee to stand around a be of little help anyway.

. I'm sure the money lost due to shrinkage would be more than offset by the savings in hiring the stereotypical Wal-Mart employee to stand around a be of little help anyway.

The only problem would be that the robot shelf stockers can be a bit off-putting and they have a tendency to run over customers who aren't paying attention and get in their way. On the other hand, their laser cannons are good at preventing door crashing by the mobs on Black Friday.

http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/Doctor%20Who%20Pictures/DW%20Pictures/NewDalek-1.jpg

ljbab728,
Really sorry that this is your experience. I personally know this not to be true. While unselfish acts are not necessarily common, they are certainly not extinct. If you are in a marriage/serious relationship, I hope you experience both sides of the equation.

That has nothing to do with my experiences. It's just common sense. If someone was pointing a gun at your wife and you jumped in front of the bullet to save her life, it pleases you and makes you feel good to save her. You may not take time to think about how good it will make you feel but it certainly would. I don't think that is a change in human nature, I believe that has been human nature forever.

That has nothing to do with my experiences. It's just common sense. If someone was pointing a gun at your wife and you jumped in front of the bullet to save her life, it pleases you and makes you feel good to save her. You may not take time to think about how good it will make you feel but it certainly would. I don't think that is a change in human nature, I believe that has been human nature forever.

You might feel good later, you might not, and you sure might not ever get a "thank you." I can speak for nobody else, but I can tell you that when actual bullets are flying, or the threat of them coming in your direction is imminent, the last thing on your mind is whether or not you'll be thanked for any acts. Your natural, first thoughts are of self preservation at all costs, and your your second thoughts are how to eliminate the source of the bullets. Which is why it is indeed rare for somebody to "take a bullet" for somebody else. But it does happen.

I guess, since I have spent the majority of my adult life in an organization that places Selfless Service amongst its most important values, this is a touchy subject. There are always those who fake their altruism (one of the reasons I gave up on organized religion), but history has many examples where that is not the case (here's a good place to start: Medal of Honor Recipients | Center of Military History (http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/index.html)) And while I understand that you might argue that going down in history is a reward, that is not the driving force in most of these actions,when they were taken.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.

Here's an interesting piece that seems to treat the subject fairly.

Selfless Service, Part I: Is Selfless Service Possible? | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201305/selfless-service-part-i-is-selfless-service-possible)


Sorry, I don't mean to get off the topic of bashings the evil empire...

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.Of course they do. Rand's essays on the subject recognize that fact, too. She used the word "selfishness" for its shock value, not at all meaning it in its usual sense. When going into detail about her theories, she spoke instead of "enlightened self-interest" and the real emphasis was on "enlightened."

Would you agree that "making the world a better place in which to live" is a "sort of reward" for those who do good things for no other reason? If so, you would be accepting her theory about motivation. Another "reward" for those with strict moral compasses is simply the ability to live comfortably with one's memories.

To bring it back to speaking of Sam, he seems to have been enlightened by the discovery that he profited more when he treated his workers "right"...

Of course they do. Rand's essays on the subject recognize that fact, too. She used the word "selfishness" for its shock value, not at all meaning it in its usual sense. When going into detail about her theories, she spoke instead of "enlightened self-interest" and the real emphasis was on "enlightened."

Would you agree that "making the world a better place in which to live" is a "sort of reward" for those who do good things for no other reason? If so, you would be accepting her theory about motivation. Another "reward" for those with strict moral compasses is simply the ability to live comfortably with one's memories.

To bring it back to speaking of Sam, he seems to have been enlightened by the discovery that he profited more when he treated his workers "right"...

Yes, I would agree with that statement, but agreeing with that does not tie me to any specific theory, Rand's or otherwise...

I'm probably wrong about this, but just because an item is in the wrong place on the shelves shouldn't mean the wrong price should apply. If this were the case, all semi-shoplifters (thieves) would have to do is shuffle the merchandise to get lower prices. That or move the price tags on the shelves.

Sorry. I didn't mean to get away from dissin' Walmart. It won't happen again. =)

I've actually had this happen several times while shopping - most notably at Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

One day at Target they put the wrong microwave ovens on the endcap for the $89 Microwave sale. Should have been a regularly price $107 model and instead they stocked it with an almost $200 model.

Without any hassle they verified it was their mistake and honored the price.

Was at a Best Buy and they had neglected to remove a sale tag from an item that went off sale two days prior. No biggie, they honored the price.

However, at a MWC Radio Shack they had placed the wrong item on clearance and when they caught it at the register they had a 'too bad, so sad' attitude. Talked with the store manager and she said they made a mistake and would not honor the price even though it only reducd the price by $8. To me it was the principle of the matter and I can honestly say I've never been back in to a Radio Shack (this was maybe 2 years ago).

I did find something out about Target awhile back. I always price compare via my smart phone to places like Amazon. I found an electronic item at Target that was 35% less online. Took the item to the customer service desk and they honored the price. Said Target has a fairly new policy of matching most online retailers prices on the exact same item. I've used that policy now 4-5 times with 100% success.

A week ago I went to Home Depot for a $99 cordless drill and driver combo package. Normally around $200. They were all out and didn't know when they'd get more. The manager then said he'd take another brand they sell for almost $300 and sell it to me at the sale price of $99 for my trouble (was buying it as a gift).

I think policies like this build loyal customers.

You might feel good later, you might not, and you sure might not ever get a "thank you." I can speak for nobody else, but I can tell you that when actual bullets are flying, or the threat of them coming in your direction is imminent, the last thing on your mind is whether or not you'll be thanked for any acts. Your natural, first thoughts are of self preservation at all costs, and your your second thoughts are how to eliminate the source of the bullets. Which is why it is indeed rare for somebody to "take a bullet" for somebody else. But it does happen.

I guess, since I have spent the majority of my adult life in an organization that places Selfless Service amongst its most important values, this is a touchy subject. There are always those who fake their altruism (one of the reasons I gave up on organized religion), but history has many examples where that is not the case (here's a good place to start: Medal of Honor Recipients | Center of Military History (http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/index.html)) And while I understand that you might argue that going down in history is a reward, that is not the driving force in most of these actions,when they were taken.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.

Here's an interesting piece that seems to treat the subject fairly.

Selfless Service, Part I: Is Selfless Service Possible? | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201305/selfless-service-part-i-is-selfless-service-possible)


Sorry, I don't mean to get off the topic of bashings the evil empire...

This will be my last word on this subject because it is off topic. I'm certainly not saying that all actions people take are solely self serving. I'm saying that the reward you get is feeling good about yourself, at the very least, for having done a good deed. When you do something that makes you feel good about yourself that can be considered selfish. Whether a person stops to think in advance what reward they would get when doing something makes no difference at all. This is not a new concept to me. I've thought about this many times in years past.

Perhaps somebody should start an objectivism thread.

Perhaps somebody should start an objectivism thread.

LOL! What's more objective than WalMart?

Uh . . . do you mean objectionable? =)

Just because it is a profitable company, doesn't make it a good company.

Wal-Mart?s newest scheme to ruin the middle class - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/24/walmart_still_scheming_to_force_its_shoddy_goods_o n_the_underclass_partner/)


Almost 30 years ago, as the U.S. was bleeding jobs, Walmart launched a “Buy America” program and started hanging “Made in America” signs in its 750 stores. It was a marketing success, cementing the retailer’s popularity in the country’s struggling, blue-collar heartland. A few years later, NBC’s Dateline revealed the program to be a sham. Sure, Walmart was willing to buy U.S.-made goods — so long as they were as cheap as imports, which, of course, they weren’t. Dateline found that Walmart’s sourcing was in fact rapidly shifting to Asia.

This year, Walmart is back with a new “Buy America” program. In January, the company announced that it would purchase an additional $50 billion worth of domestic goods over the next decade. This week, Walmart is convening several hundred suppliers, along with a handful of governors, for a summit on U.S. manufacturing.


This sounds pretty substantial, but in fact it’s just a more sophisticated and media savvy version of Walmart’s hollow 1980s Buy America campaign. For starters, $50 billion over a decade may sound huge at first, but measured against Walmart’s galactic size, it’s not. An additional $5 billion a year amounts to only 1.5 percent of what Walmart currently spends on inventory.


Worse, very little of this small increase in spending on American-made goods will actually result in new U.S. production and jobs. Most of the projected increase will simply be a byproduct of Walmart’s continued takeover of the grocery industry. Most grocery products sold in the U.S. are produced here. As Walmart expands its share of U.S. grocery sales — it now captures 25 percent, up from 6 percent in 1998 — it will buy more U.S. foods. But this doesn’t mean new jobs, because other grocers are losing market share and buying less. What it does mean is lower wages. As I reported earlier this year, Walmart’s growing control of the grocery sector is pushing down wages throughout food production.


Groceries now account for 55 percent of Walmart’s U.S. revenue, up from 24 percent in 2003. The company is planning to grow that ratio even further, with about 100 Neighborhood Market stores (Walmart’s new-ish supermarket format) in the pipeline this year alone, along with 125 new supercenters. So we can expect that at least half of Walmart’s new spending on U.S. goods will be for groceries, with no net gain in jobs and, very likely, a further decline in wages.

Just because it is a profitable company, doesn't make it a good company.


Obviously you are operating using a different dictionary than the one used in the modern era.
Profitable means Good by definition. To paraphrase Mr. Lombardi: Money isn't the main thing; it's the only thing.
Geez. Where have you been?

Obviously you are operating using a different dictionary than the one used in the modern era.
Profitable means Good by definition. To paraphrase Mr. Lombardi: Money isn't the main thing; it's the only thing.
Geez. Where have you been?

Not in Walmart when I can help it...

Just because it is a profitable company, doesn't make it a good company.

Wal-Mart?s newest scheme to ruin the middle class - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/24/walmart_still_scheming_to_force_its_shoddy_goods_o n_the_underclass_partner/)

I caught the Walmart CEO on CNBC last week hyping this program while at his Orlando manufacturing summit. If that guy believes half of what he says he is borderline insane, but I suspect he personally doesn't believe it, he just puts it out there for the people who will believe it.

Let me give you an example just in case you think I am concerned for no reason.

Last week he talked about how his stores are great for jobs and has been one of the brightest spots in the recovery. Then he talked about how much Walmart was investing technology at the stores and how it would increase productivity. Both sound great - lots of good jobs and upgrading the technology to increase productivity. The problem is, the technology he is talking about is going to replace the jobs he was talking about.

Then he talk about how we need to rebuild the middle class, as if Walmart was going to lead the way in that. But when asked about the minimum wage he didn't say he was against increasing it but he sure didn't support the idea. Then in defending his own companies low wages he said every one needs a place to start. Well which is, does Walmart (the great job creator in the recovery) support low wage jobs or rebuilding the middle class - because you can't do both at the same time when you are the largest employer in 33 states.

CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke Speaks One-on-One with Maria Bartiromo Today (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100984423)

This is precisely why I spend no money in Wal-Mart. I look for every conceivable alternative. The only thing that will change Wal-Mart is if they begin losing market share. My family are all middle-class, working folk who are Democrats. And yet, I have to remind them constantly that they are supporting this third-world approach to business every time they ring a cash register at Sam's or Wal-Mart. I don't look down on people who shop there; that is the wrong approach. I just think there are alternatives, Crest, etc. that people can patronize as an alternative. As discussed, Target and others aren't much better than Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is the leader. They need to feel the pain and understand that people who have a choice refuse to support their approach to doing business.

I've developed a detente attitude regarding Wally World. I strive to (a) not step foot in their store and (b) not have kittens if someone else in the family does go by. I don't even hate them. I just see no productive reason to walk a 1/4 mile or more just to get some basic items. If I wanna take a stroll, I'll do it where there happens to be grass and trees rather than asphalt tile and really funky dressed folk.

(the above doesn't apply to runs made at 2-3 am. Those trips can be so down right entertaining I almost feel i should donate a cover charge.)

I've developed a detente attitude regarding Wally World. I strive to (a) not step foot in their store and (b) not have kittens if someone else in the family does go by. I don't even hate them. I just see no productive reason to walk a 1/4 mile or more just to get some basic items. If I wanna take a stroll, I'll do it where there happens to be grass and trees rather than asphalt tile and really funky dressed folk.

(the above doesn't apply to runs made at 2-3 am. Those trips can be so down right entertaining I almost feel i should donate a cover charge.)

LOL Isn't that the truth.

cR4xdLOBsxo

(the above doesn't apply to runs made at 2-3 am. Those trips can be so down right entertaining I almost feel i should donate a cover charge.)
It's a further good time, if they're threw stocking shelves or doing floor maintenance by then.

Plattsmouth man sues Wal-Mart, says overfilled plastic bag led to wife's death (http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/plattsmouth-man-sues-wal-mart-says-overfilled-plastic-bag-led/article_1b263933-d416-574a-89e8-4afec8722014.html)

» Wal-Mart: Food Stamp Cuts Hurt Our Profits Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/wal-mart-food-stamp-cuts-will-hurt-our-profits/)

New produce line


Wal-Mart and Wild Oats unveil cheaper organic line

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wal-Mart is using its massive size to drive down the price of organic food items from tomato paste to chicken broth to make them more affordable for its low-income customers.

The world's largest retailer and nation's largest grocery seller said Thursday that it has teamed up with Wild Oats to sell a new line of organic foods, starting this month, that's at least 25 percent cheaper than the national organic brands it carries and in line with the prices of its branded non-organic alternatives. Wild Oats helped pioneer the organic food trend in the late 1980s but has largely disappeared from store shelves since 2007.

Wild Oats' 6-ounce can of tomato paste, for example, is priced at 58 cents, compared with 98 cents for a national-brand organic version. And a 32-ounce can of chicken broth under Wild Oats is priced at $1.98, compared with the $3.47 for a national-brand alternative, according to the discounter's survey of 26 nationally branded organic products available at Walmart.com.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is unveiling nearly 100 pantry items under the Wild Oats label over the next several months, adding to the 1,600 organic food items it already carries. It's taking a cautious approach, planning to have them in about half of its 4,000 domestic namesake stores to make sure it can satisfy demand. The Bentonville, Ark., company will be the exclusive national retailer of Wild Oats.

"We are removing the premium associated with organic groceries," Jack Sinclair, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of grocery, told reporters during a conference call Wednesday.

Wal-Mart and other mainstream stores are eagerly trying to stake a bigger claim in the hot organic market as they see shoppers from all different income levels wanting to eat healthier. Analysts believe that Wal-Mart's strategy could put more pressure on companies like Whole Foods to lower prices. Sinclair declined to comment on how big Wal-Mart's organic business is, but he says sales of organic food are growing more quickly than nearly every category of non-organic food items. Still, high prices have kept a lid on that growth.

- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-wild-oats-unveil-040219264.html

Walmart Slows Supercenter Growth - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-slows-supercenter-growth-2014-10?utm_content=buffer3b5dd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Protest over wages at Walmart store in OKC | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2014/11/28/walmart-workers-plan-protest-at-okc-store/)

Don't know about other places in the country but the one at my local Wal Mart is put on by the SEIU . It's not even Wal Mart employees protesting.

Walmart is set to open yet another Super Center in the Oklahoma City area, this time at SW 104th and Interstate 44.

The store would be 186,933 square feet and included an 8-pump service station in a separate facility along the 104th street frontage.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/walmart4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/walmart.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/walmart2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/walmart5.jpg

As if OKC doesn't have enough Walmart's

This will help ease some of the congestion I've heard about at the I-240 location and have seen at the Moore location.
Not sure why I can sometimes find granddaughter toys at Moore and not Norman, but when your princess doesn't want to let it go, you don't let it go. You drive. :)

I would much rather have a Target in that area. But what can you do??

They are probably specifically targeting the S 104th and May Crest. It won't surprise me if this is the end for the Homeland a couple of miles over on Penn.

I have a coworker who lives near SW 89th & May. She says that she drives up to the I-40 & MacArthur location because the I-240 location is such a dump. Hopefully, this one will stay nice (for a Walmart). Maybe being so close to the City's nicest Crest will force them to keep the store up. Maybe I'm being too optimistic about Walmart. Maybe I'm just looking for something positive about another Walmart coming. Maybe I'm amazed at the way you love me all the time.

But I wonder though will they keep the Newcastle store open or will they close it and relocate to the new store??

We will drive right by it on our way to Crest. Happy to see development because will spur more but sure wish it was a Target

Pete:

Is this a sure thing to point that land has been purchased?

No, land has not been sold as of yet.

Remember, the City of OKC owns all the property on the the other side of I-44 between 104th and 89th.

Don't know if this will help or hurt their stated plans to develop that into commercial property and generate revenue for the airport.

I mean I'll probably continue to shop at the Mustang Walmart, but still I probably will go here more than the 240 one. As much as people dislike Walmart people have been wanting development over there for awhile, and for better or worse Walmart usually spurs development.

Remember, the City of OKC owns all the property on the the other side of I-44 between 104th and 89th.

Don't know if this will help or hurt their stated plans to develop that into commercial property and generate revenue for the airport.

I am speculating help as it pulls more traffic into the area. Be nice if Target would go into airport development and we ended up with something similar to Fritts Farm area. The area just north of this WM site is also empty and they have built a service road running south from 89th that dead ends into cul de sac. I think it is private and put in by the land owner.

Target & Wal Mart are basically the same place. I don't get why you could prefer one or the other with absolute certainty. Target is just more expensive, which helps keep poor people out. I guess if you don't like being around poor people than Target is your kind of place.

Target & Wal Mart are basically the same place.

That's not true at all. That's like saying an Apple and an orange are basically the same thing because they're both fruit.

That's not true at all. That's like saying an Apple and an orange are basically the same thing because they're both fruit.

At all? That's a bit ridiculous if you don't think wal mart or target don't share ANY characteristics. They are direct competitors.

They sell the same exact stuff, baring a few different brands yet direct substitutes. I'd even argue that Wal Mart sells a brand of anything that would be = or greater value than what Target sells. The only difference is Wal Mart typically has multiple choices in branding for the same thing depending on what quality you prefer.

Target usually has greater customer service. Which I guess could be worth the extra costs for the 1 minute you actually have to deal with somebody in the store.

I have a coworker who lives near SW 89th & May. She says that she drives up to the I-40 & MacArthur location because the I-240 location is such a dump. Hopefully, this one will stay nice (for a Walmart). Maybe being so close to the City's nicest Crest will force them to keep the store up. Maybe I'm being too optimistic about Walmart. Maybe I'm just looking for something positive about another Walmart coming. Maybe I'm amazed at the way you love me all the time.

Honestly a Wal-Mart is a Wal-Mart. None of them are spectacularly tidy. I frequent the 240 one as well as Moore, Del City, MacArthur, and others. They are all pretty much identical and I don't notice a difference in the level of dumpiness. The only real difference is the demographics each store serves.

It's like Microsoft and Apple, Microsoft of course being Wal-Mart and Apple being Target.

They pretty much do the same thing, but there are key differences, many of them being intangible. I find the experience of shopping at Target to be superior to Wal-Mart. Most Target stores are cleaner and better staffed than Wal-Mart typically is. There are exceptions to that however. I've been in some pretty awful Target stores i.e. the one on SW 44th and Western. For the most part though, Target stores are better kept than Wal-Mart and they also tend to attract better retailers to locate in the surrounding shopping center than Wal-Mart does.