Re:Journalist goes undercover at Walmart
by plinkplonk on Friday April 10, 2009 @03:09AM
(#555819)
"A week later, I found myself in an elite group of 10 successful applicants convening for two (paid) days of training in the same claustrophobic, windowless room."
Is this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humour? "elite"?
EDIT: ok I shouldn't have expected any less. This is just a corporate puff piece, with the writer praising Walmart every half a dozen words or so.
Re:Journalist goes undercover at Walmart
by tokenadult on Thursday April 09, 2009 @11:33PM
(#555652)
I worked at one of the competing discount retailers some years ago, and this was interesting information about what makes Wal-Mart different for career employees.
Re:Journalist goes undercover at Walmart
by jbarciauskas on Thursday April 09, 2009 @11:15PM
(#555634)
What a complete and utter piece of corporate stoogery. The first two sentences reveal the author's intent from the start: "Some people, usually community activists, loath Wal-Mart. Others, like the family of four struggling to make ends meet, are in love with the chain."
Which I read to say, "Some people, like dirty fucking hippies, loath Wal-mart. Others, like normal people, are in love with the chain." "Some" and "others" are the classic hallmarks of absolutely lazy, shoddy, yellow journalism. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with dirty fucking hippies, but I get the distinct sense this author does. Are we to believe that because this guy had a good experience, all the other employee complaints are invalid? Do a few pennies off socks justify Wal-Mart's behavior in other areas?
Now, admittedly, I'm not up to date on the latest practices and it sounds like things have improved somewhat. I'm not even anti-Wal-Mart, although I try to go to Target instead whenever I can because I find it a much more pleasant atmosphere. This article just smacks of corporatism run amok.
Re:Journalist goes undercover at Walmart
by gaius on Friday April 10, 2009 @04:47AM
(#555860)
This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth
Re:Journalist goes undercover at Walmart
by toodlestech on Thursday April 09, 2009 @10:48PM
(#555611)
1. What does this have to do with "Hacker News".
2. I don't remember where but I read this article with the exact same picture over a year ago. Perhaps the author just updated an old article of his? I find it odd that it was just now posted to nypost.com so far after it was written.
Is this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humour? "elite"?
EDIT: ok I shouldn't have expected any less. This is just a corporate puff piece, with the writer praising Walmart every half a dozen words or so.
Which I read to say, "Some people, like dirty fucking hippies, loath Wal-mart. Others, like normal people, are in love with the chain." "Some" and "others" are the classic hallmarks of absolutely lazy, shoddy, yellow journalism. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with dirty fucking hippies, but I get the distinct sense this author does. Are we to believe that because this guy had a good experience, all the other employee complaints are invalid? Do a few pennies off socks justify Wal-Mart's behavior in other areas?
Now, admittedly, I'm not up to date on the latest practices and it sounds like things have improved somewhat. I'm not even anti-Wal-Mart, although I try to go to Target instead whenever I can because I find it a much more pleasant atmosphere. This article just smacks of corporatism run amok.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=462531
Is this not practically the HN mantra?