• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it Ok for store to destroy & trash unsold merchandise?

Is it Ok for store to destroy & trash unsold merchandise?

  • It's a smart business decision in a free market!

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Is it any different from paying farmers not to grow food?

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • It sounds wastefull and environmentally unsound

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • It's immoral! These items could be given to the poor or sent abroad!

    Votes: 13 39.4%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • I'm not surprised Walmart is involved. They are a tool of Satan...

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Total voters
    33
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Better yet, but stock in the company and vote your shares. If enough peopel do that, suddenly Wal Mart is losing money and going out of business, which, as far as I can tell, is the goal of the socialists in America.
Click to expand...

Huh? How would Wal-Mart lose money from new shareholders voting to be socially responsible by not trashing merchandise (which according to the article, is already the official position of Wal-Mart anyway)? :confused:
 
Kandahar said:
The poll question asked if it was OK. If you want to talk about something else, start a different thread. :roll:
Click to expand...

And the answer was it's okay because it's their property.

There's no stronger reason than that.

You got a better one?

No, you don't.

Kandahar said:
The "zomg they can do what they want" turd is just a substitute for actually thinking about the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

Or, since property rights are so essential to freedom and a healthy economy, you know, the mechanism by which jobs are created when we don't have a socialist president, that the correct answer is glaringly obvious to people who are accustomed to thinking in terms of human freedom. People like me.

That you believe that you can determine how to morally dispose of something that isn't yours is symptomatic of your refusal to think. Knowledge that what isn't yours isn't yours is something the rest of us figured out long long ago.
 
Kandahar said:
Huh? How would Wal-Mart lose money from new shareholders voting to be socially responsible by not trashing merchandise (which according to the article, is already the official position of Wal-Mart anyway)? :confused:
Click to expand...

Stupid socialist dumb****s that use emotion to make decisions not reason aren't going to keep the Barge of WalMart in the center of the money flow.

It's as simple as that.

Look at the damage the socialists are doing to the United States right now.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Stupid socialist dumb****s that use emotion to make decisions not reason aren't going to keep the Barge of WalMart in the center of the money flow.

It's as simple as that.

Look at the damage the socialists are doing to the United States right now.
Click to expand...

So once again, you have no rationale to defend your moronic statement that Wal-Mart would lose money by donating these items to charity, so it's back to the old fallback of "ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111" even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You clearly have no understanding of how business works.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So once again, you have no rationale to defend your moronic statement that Wal-Mart would lose money by donating these items to charity,
Click to expand...

I'd have to say that the moron is the one who said I made that statement.

I said socialists taking over Wal Mart would ruin the company. I did not present details.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'd have to say that the moron is the one who said I made that statement.

I said socialists taking over Wal Mart would ruin the company. I did not present details.
Click to expand...

Well since no one except you has said anything remotely about socialists in this thread, I marvel at how you thought it was even tangentially related to the subject at hand.

We're done here. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
MyOwnDrum said:
Here's the story: H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods - Fashion + Beauty on Shine



What do you think? Is this moral? Is this ok to do?
Click to expand...

Legally they can do what they hell they want its their ****. However it is immoral to waste things like that.They could have donated it or sold to another store. Its like people who go to an all you can eat buffet and pile everything on their plate and only eat a few bites and throw the rest away but on a much larger scale.
 
I don't know, I think there is more to the story.
 
What happens if they give the unsold goods away? People exploit the system and wait to get the unsold goods rather than buy it themselves. It's probably cheaper then for Wal-Mart to throw away the goods than to give it away.
 
phattonez said:
What happens if they give the unsold goods away? People exploit the system and wait to get the unsold goods rather than buy it themselves. It's probably cheaper then for Wal-Mart to throw away the goods than to give it away.
Click to expand...

Presumably, people wouldn't know when/what Wal-Mart was going to give away. Wal-Mart uses a highly efficient JIT inventory system, so it's unlikely they're throwing away large amounts of the same merchandise week after week. This makes it very difficult for anyone to exploit the system in this way. Furthermore, any such effect would be extremely small, since some portion of the exploiters presumably wouldn't have bought the products from Wal-Mart anyway.
 
Kandahar said:
Presumably, people wouldn't know when/what Wal-Mart was going to give away. Wal-Mart uses a highly efficient JIT inventory system, so it's unlikely they're throwing away large amounts of the same merchandise week after week. This makes it very difficult for anyone to exploit the system in this way. Furthermore, any such effect would be extremely small, since some portion of the exploiters presumably wouldn't have bought the products from Wal-Mart anyway.
Click to expand...

That system looks pretty expensive. Throwing stuff away is relatively cheap.
 
I think it's wrong - not because "these items should be donated" - but because it's a wasteful tactic designed to keep costs up.
They set the prices based on the number and base cost of products they purchase - unsold items are part of a store's overhead. So, if they destroy or fail to sell items - they're really duping me out of my spent money.

Example:

A store buys 100 pairs of sunglasses for $1.50 each (base cost).

After calculating shipping, delivery, desired profit, stocking and other such costs the items on the shelf then sell for $4.00 (a $2.50 markup on the base cost).

Since each pair costs $1.50 for the store to buy - overall the store spends $150 on the 100 pairs.

If they sell 75 pairs of sunglasses then Overall, the customers have spent $300.00 on those 75 pairs of sunglasses.

The store nets a profit of 187.00 ($2.50 x 75). Base-cost wise, the store only spent $112.50 on those 75 pairs of sunglasses.

Their profit ($187) + base cost (112) of the 75 pairs is greater than the overall cost that they spent on all 100 pairs ($150) - so to them the other pairs are just trash and a space-taker in the stockroom.

If they were to just clearance out at a minimal profit to get rid of them - all 25 extra pairs of sunglasses - then they wouldn't be losing money but tey would be upping the amount of clearance they have to sell - some store prefer to sell anything at a minimal profit because profit is profit - but other store prefer to sell as much as they can for full-price, and keep their clearance isles to a minimum.

Especially Walmart - they must keep people willing to buy what's ON the shelf, not what's in the Clearance aisle. If people could get clearanced items from Walmart - knowing it's not defective - then the clearance aisles would be packed with people and no one would buy the items in the aisles, they'd just wait for clearance.

It makes business sense - but it costs me, the consumer, money - Walmart made it's profit, they don't care. The company that produced the goods made their profit as well - they got paid long ago - so they don't care, either.

But it bugs the **** out of me.
 
They can do whatever they want to, it's their property. They don't owe anything to anyone. However, the reason they are physically destroyed isn't to deny them to the homeless but to stop people from bringing them back to the store for a refund, which is a major problem. Dumpster diving for returnable or exchangable merchandise is rampant.
 
Cephus said:
They can do whatever they want to, it's their property. They don't owe anything to anyone. However, the reason they are physically destroyed isn't to deny them to the homeless but to stop people from bringing them back to the store for a refund, which is a major problem. Dumpster diving for returnable or exchangable merchandise is rampant.
Click to expand...
easy to solve. they could donate the items.
 
American said:
How can you tell if a JIT system looks expensive?
Click to expand...

A system to randomize how they give away goods rather than just throw it away AND keep it secret may be too much of a hassle.
 
phattonez said:
A system to randomize how they give away goods rather than just throw it away AND keep it secret may be too much of a hassle.
Click to expand...
Why do they have to randomize?
 
You know - if they were able to get some type of tax deduction or write-off for unsold and then donated (instead of trashed) items I feel they'd be all over it.

Instead, they donate money and storespace on occasion to causes in order to take advantage of the tax-system.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - if they were able to get some type of tax deduction or write-off for unsold and then donated (instead of trashed) items I feel they'd be all over it.

Instead, they donate money and storespace on occasion to causes in order to take advantage of the tax-system.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the contractor took a loss on the items for tax purposes. It would have had no effect on Wal Mart's tax position either way.
 
liblady said:
easy to solve. they could donate the items.
Click to expand...

Not usually possible, we live in a ridiculously litigious society and donating items sets you up for possible lawsuits. This is especially true of food items where people may still eat them after they've gone bad, then turn around and sue the store they came from. It happens all the time.
 
Cephus said:
Not usually possible, we live in a ridiculously litigious society and donating items sets you up for possible lawsuits. This is especially true of food items where people may still eat them after they've gone bad, then turn around and sue the store they came from. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...

This is what Good Samaritan laws are for.

There's been a federal one on the records regarding food donations since 1996. Unfortunately, many businesses are not aware of it, and that hinders donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom