Shopping Trends In America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-21/shopping-trends-america
The holiday season is a critical time for most U.S. retailers. Merchants rack up at least a fifth of their annual sales in the last two months of the year, and sales in stores and on-line are expected to grow this year. The day after Thanksgiving - Black Friday - has long launched a three-day shopping frenzy across the nation. Now, a growing number of retailers are opening their doors a day earlier - on Thanksgiving Day. That has sparked a backlash – including protests from some of the employees who will be working behind cash registers on the holiday. Guest host Susan Page and her guests discuss holiday shopping in America.
Guests
Danielle Douglas
financial reporter for The Washington Post.
Kathy Grannis
spokesperson for the National Retail Federation.
Rich Harwood
president of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I haven't shopped on Black Friday in 20 years. Too many people, too many gimmicks for a small number of items available, and general mayhem. As far as Thanksgiving goes, our country has pretty much lost the meaning of the holiday with the help of retailers and the culture of instant gratification and having to have more "stuff". Shopping small business when possible, using the internet and just getting the idea out of your head that you HAVE to get the best deal on something that probably will be obsolete or broken by the next season would make so many people so much happier and stress free. We personally are focusing more on giving experiences to our grown kids and grandchild--tickets to the Gaylord Shrek ice exhibit, hockey games with dad, etc. Things that will last in memory long after they happen. I think that honors the spirit of both Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Diane the Former Lobbyist really trips my trigger. She was the caller who badgered her family until they finally gave in and agreed to exchange "donations" and then just token gifts. Who is she to tell other people how to celebrate the holidays?! Saying "I don't want your gift, just make a donation" borders on ingratitude, and it usually comes from people who want to donate to THEIR causes and then convince somebody else it's what the recipient "really wants". This is typical of the left - and based on her comments, it was pretty obvious she was a leftie. "My way is right and I'm going to be on your case until you agree". Fascism, dogmatism, call it what you like. Leave us alone and let us buy each other TVs and Legos.
A caller today incorrectly said that most workers who work on holidays receive time-and-a-half pay. That is simply not true. Most workers at retailers, gas stations, restaurants, and other low-wage institutions do *not* in fact receive extra compensation from their employers when they work holidays. Only the fortunate minority who are represented by unions and/or have more thoughtful or generous employers get such a benefit. But most retailers are not that generous with their employees.
I think that it should be a law that any employer who wants and/or needs an employee to work on a holiday should be required to compensate that worker with at least time-and-a-half pay. This is especially true for labor day... anyone who must labor on Labor Day should get at least time-and-a-half-pay. If a company is going to be open on a holiday specifically because it is a particularly profitable day, it should be required to share some of that profit with its employees who make that additional revenue possible.
Some retailers are using the fact that people shop online on Thanksgiving Day as an excuse to open their brick-and -mortar stores on that day. Leaving the house for an unknowable period of time to shop is nothing like e-shopping, which can be interrupted or abandoned the instant one's attention is needed elsewhere.
Gotta go, I hear the baby waking up...
Ferdnam wrote: "Actually, he would"
He obviously crafted this sentence to be all encompassing. Why would he be so clear in his intent to only cancel it out with the last words. You must be one of those guys that just can't admit when their wrong.
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."
ecgberht, what do you think about this?
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."
af64 wrote:
"Around the holidays I never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy of it all. So many Americans wave the "family values" flag along with their Patriotic Pride and irrational defense of Christmas."
Your right, what they should do is make no reference to sentiment or anything else than promoting anything that is repugnant to the left/liberals. Forget civil discourse.
I want stores open 24/7, paying democrat constituents minimum wage @ 20 hours per week. Make 'em work Thanksgiving, Christmas, and every Sunday.
I hope Walmart destroys the pro-union rabble. That college graduates continue to find there are no jobs for their vastly overpriced "degrees".
Mostly, that the liberal's captive underclasses suffer for their continued poor choices. I mean, it's only fair.
I still like the cut of your jib.
This is much more a cultural and societal issue than a worker's rights issue. I worked many holidays when I worked in the resort industry and did have alter my own celebrations. If retail goes this way, so be it. However, as a statement on our culture this is disgusting. This is proof that we, as a group, are overly consumeristic. I can't imagine that there is anything similar to this gross display of materialism happening in any other country in the world.
"ecgberht, what do you think about this?
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.""
In principle I agree with Mr. Freedman. But it depends on where the money comes from and how it is used. There is a proper role of government as outlined in the Constitution (let's just stick to Federal for now). But as to spending it should be very limited according to Article 1, Section 8. As to sources, I favor usage and consumption taxes, not income taxes (also an originalist idea - there's a reason the founders didn't set up an income tax from the get go - it's regressive).
Of course we are long past Article 1, Section 8, so essentially, Mr. Freedman's message is, where ever possible, "starve the beast" and I agree with that.
As to the debt which Ferdnam mentions, it is false to think that the only way to retire the debt is to divvy it up amongst the citizens and make them (or some of them) pay through higher taxes. It discounts growth. When you cut spending, you can cut taxes, and put more money in the hands of the ones who SHOULD be making the spending decisions; taxpayers. That's what creates growth, and, although it won't happen over night, that's how you retire debt. Romney's plan was NOT "smoke and mirrors". It was one that was citizenry-driven, not government-driven and the former is the surest way to promote growth which is the ONLY way to solve our current problems. Ferdnam, you are right that BOTH PARTIES have spending addictions. But when you cut off the money supply, habits will change. The government-driven model has been shown to be an abject failure, but unfortunately we seem to be signed on for another four years of it.
ecgberht wrote:
"Diane the Former Lobbyist really trips my trigger. She was the caller who badgered her family until they finally gave in and agreed to exchange "donations"
Yeah, how about it? I heard her talking her b.s. about getting her way with others, I'd have replied in a way I doubt she would find appealing.
I can't stand the people controllers, the left is rotten with them.
How are consumers to keep spending? Additional credit? So these great sales will result in a debt for a year or more?
I do not see the improvement in our economy, good wage jobs producing goods are being replaced by service jobs of wages that prevent the support of a family without public assistance. How can people continue to spend?
Smoot and ecgberht sound like ornery old men.
partisan politics wrote:
"I still like the cut of your jib."
If you were directing that comment at me, likewise.
Did you notice that guy Rich Harwood injecting those non-sequitur comments into the discussion?
One of the gals would be talking about how people shop or where they shop, or whether shops should be able to open on holidays, and then Harwood would toss in a comment about public civility and civil discourse - which made about as much sense as expecting Obama's dependents to vote for anyone else but the hand that feeds them.
Of course, when you hear a leftist talking about civility and civil discourse, that is really code for "shut up and quit disagreeing with us. How can we fully implement our agenda if you keep the rabble hyped up with the truth?"
Mr. Harwood, you can forget that civil discourse strategy. Obama might have won, but that is no reason to let up on the democrats/left.
Pour gas on the fire, I say, 59 million people voted against the dems, lets mobilize those fellow citizens to wreck Obamacare, undermine the dems, and in general refuse to accept anything the dems want to do.
After all, that's what the dems did from 2000-2008, this is what democracy looks like, right? Fierce moral urgency of change didn't change anything,did it?
Brown people are still getting killed, but it's cool now, because it is Obama doing it. No political embarrassment in regards to prisoners captured and then sent to Gitmo, Obama just kills them with missiles to avoid that controversy. And Gitmo still seems to be open.
Civility, indeed, LOL!
mam2 wrote:
"Smoot and ecgberht sound like ornery old men."
Young man here.
But hey, as long as we are slinging around conjecture, let me try: mam2 sounds like an Obamaphone user.
mam2 wrote:
"Smoot and ecgberht sound like ornery old men."
Don't know about smoot, but I'm not that old, and far from "ornery" (however you define that). I just want to give people the gift of freedom; a gift of a handup (if needed), not of a handout, of standing on their own two feet, making decisions for themselves, and enjoying the pride that comes with making your own way in the world. If that's "ornery", then so be it.
Look, let's all acknowledge that the claim that "our employees want it" and "our customers demand it" is so much marketing speak baloney. People will respond in mindless frenzies if they believe there is a deal being offered that won't be offered again during shopping season, it's human nature. But there are only two days of the year where we get some respite from the commercialization tsunami, Christmas Day and Thanksgiving. Society needs to preserve what they can of those days. I mean that's why we have seventh inning stretches and halftime. No matter how intense we are about an activity we need some down time. C'mon retailers, do you really think consumers spend more money over the shopping season just because you rob us of one of these respites???
"partisan politics wrote:
... You must be one of those guys that just can't admit when their wrong..."
Come on, Partisan... Open your mind a little...
I agreed with most of your points on that particular topic with only one very significant caveat...
The least you could do is give me some credit for trying to discuss the topic honestly.
" ecgberht wrote:
In principle I agree with Mr. Freedman. ... so essentially, Mr. Freedman's message is, where ever possible, "starve the beast" and I agree with that.
As to the debt which Ferdnam mentions, it is false to think that the only way to retire the debt is to divvy it up amongst the citizens and make them (or some of them) pay through higher taxes. It discounts growth. When you cut spending, you can cut taxes, and put more money in the hands of the ones who SHOULD be making the spending decisions; taxpayers. That's what creates growth, and, although it won't happen over night, that's how you retire debt. ... when you cut off the money supply, habits will change. The government-driven model has been shown to be an abject failure, but unfortunately we seem to be signed on for another four years of it."
I would agree to most of what is posted here. The problem is that we need (you, the US citizenry, need) to come to an agreement about what the Government's role should be. That debate is no longer taking place. This was the point I made in the post Partisan quoted...
The problem is that growth cannot take place if nobody wants to lend money to the country because it cannot retire the debt... This is the problem encountered by numerous countries (underdeveloped countries, Germany after the first and the second world war). In the case of Germany, its debt was forgiven after the second world war. Otherwise, it would have had another great depression...
So, budgetary discipline? Yes! Deciding what is the role of the Central GOvernment? Yes! Not finding revenue to pay the debt? No! FInding the revenue through growth by cutting taxes? Impossible for now!
@Ferdnam:
The post-war Germany point is moot IMO. Who is going to forgive the debt of the borrower of last resort?! When that happens, the WORLD is bk, and that can never happen. Someone will always hold something of worth.
"So, budgetary discipline? Yes!"
Agree, obviously.
"Deciding what is the role of the Central GOvernment? Yes!"
This is an interesting one. You say that "that debate is no longer taking place". I'm not sure what you mean by that. It could mean that the debate has been settled and the European Socialist model has won, or it could mean that the debate has been tabled. I pray it's not the first, because we will go the way of the European Socailst countries; Greece, Spain, Italy, and eventually the others.
"Not finding revenue to pay the debt? No! FInding the revenue through growth by cutting taxes? Impossible for now!"
Why?
Ferdnam, I urge you to look at the following link. Tell me how many of these FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX departments of the Federal Government are truly necessary for us to function.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
The smallest part of the budget? No doubt about it. But a place to start and a way to settle the debate of the role of Government. Of course entitlement reform is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address, (also a major distortion of the role of the FG under the Constitution, by the way). Bush tried it. Obama doesn't have the guts - or maybe the desire. They don't call it the "third rail" for nothing. Republicans MUST CONVINCE the voters that the path we are on is a dead end. So far, there is no messenger that has been able to successfully bring that message.
"ecgberht wrote:
"Deciding what is the role of the Central GOvernment? Yes!"
This is an interesting one. You say that "that debate is no longer taking place". I'm not sure what you mean by that. It could mean that the debate has been settled and the European Socialist model has won, or it could mean that the debate has been tabled. I pray it's not the first, because we will go the way of the European Socailst countries; Greece, Spain, Italy, and eventually the others."
I need to express myself more clearly. My view is that there is no currently ongoing intelligent and honest debate about what ought to be the responsibility of the central government versus the responsibility of some other institution... The citizenry needs to come to some agreement about who does what. Right now, things have evolved more or less chaotically without much thought, rime or reason. This debate, an honest debate, must take place. In my country, the constitution suggests that only what is expressly delegated to the federal government is the responsibility of the federal government. This was the result of a reasoned process among the citizenry. We have direct democracy.
This is a political problem... It needs to be resolved once and for all.
Incidentally, the so-called European socialist model does not exist.
Italy has not had a socialist government for quite a while. Spain does not have a socialist government. France, until this year, has not had a socialist government for at least 14 years...
I agree that the socialist governments in France and Italy, when in power were disastrous economically.
I have worked many years in retail. When my kids were small, I was forced to work every weekend and every holiday. I never have understood why we cannot have a holiday that really is a holiday, for everybody. We have the capability to shop 24/7. Why is it such a travesty to suggest that one or two days out of the year could be set aside for something besides shopping.
My kids grew up without holidays. They think that holidays are a waste of time and money. Their words, not mine. So we don't shop, bake, cook or decorate. We don't do anything except go to work. What a shame - to lose the magic of the holidays to endless consumerism.
Part II
"ecgberht wrote:
FInding the revenue through growth by cutting taxes? Impossible for now!"
Why?,,,
Ferdnam, I urge you to look at the following link. Tell me how many of these FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX departments of the Federal Government are truly necessary for us to function."
Streamlining the organization structure, process, and dynamics is an absolute must. I would agree. But the problem is that, in order to do this, you need to do an in depth organizational analysis and align the results to "clearly identified strategic objectives." Who decides what the strategic objectives are? Who becomes part of the discussion? Is there someone who honestly will debate the issues without being influenced by lobbies and the sorts? Tough stuff!
" Of course entitlement reform is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address, (also a major distortion of the role of the FG under the Constitution, by the way). ..."
There is an issue of definition here. What is an entitlement? If you pay your entire life into a guaranteed retirement program, aren't you entitled to get your pension?
I agree that we must restructure Social Security. There are ways to do this. However, will we have an honest debate on this? Or will we simply bump heads according to some ideology?
My starting point would be that to set up a retirement system that provides a guaranteed base level of pension is a necessity. A reasonable standard of living for retirees benefits everyone (in terms of everyone's economic prosperity and in terms of social "peace and quiet")...
Defense is, for instance, a strategic objective that must be funded. The question is what level of investment in defense capabilities is both "necessary and sufficient."
I have to go... Perfectly happy to continue clarifying the issues with you later today or some other time.
Ferdnam wrote: "Come on, Partisan... Open your mind a little..."
Still not buying it. This is what I hear you saying. Your assessment cancels out any serious intent. This argument looks eerily similar to the lefts view of the second amendment.
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, except when it's difficult."
"This is what I am sure was the intent .
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever given the opportunity"
The original quote.
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible"
"partisan politics wrote:
Ferdnam wrote: "Come on, Partisan... Open your mind a little..."
Still not buying it. This is what I hear you saying.
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, except when it's difficult.""
First of all, this is not what I am saying. I am not in favor of cutting taxes whenever possible... I am in favor of a tax system that is equitable and does not allow the government to tolerate organizational inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. I want the government to be both effective and efficient. Cutting taxes just to cut taxes is not at all helpful. Similarly, building governmental organization that are not needed or are larger than needed is equally absurd.
Governments need to collect taxes to cover their acceptable expenditures. What makes expenditures acceptable is the expressed intent of the citizenry. And governments need to be budgetarily disciplined.
"This is what I am sure was the intent .
"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever given the opportunity"..."
Second, this is a convenient rewriting of what Milton Friedman wrote... You are modifying his intent.
I give up, Partisan... Believe what you wish to believe...
Ferdnam, It's not about what you think about tax policy but what MF thought about cutting taxes. Which I would say Grover Norquist is completely on board with and that was my point!
"Whenever possible" in relation to the other words he chose is actually much stronger than my replacement of "Whenever given the opportunity". I would go further and say his intent was "try and cut taxes anyway you can"
In the first part of your response it goes off the rails to what you think and not MF, and in the second part you seem to understand my point. Oh well!
Happy Thanksgiving just the same.
My mom was a single parent and a nurse. Our family "get togethers" always revolved around her schedule as she often had to work. I married a chef/restaurant owner who had to work holidays because his customers demanded it and as a small business owner he couldn't afford not to. Employees in the travel industry, hospitality industry, the restaurant industry, and many others have always been expected to work holidays. Why should the retail industry be any different? If this is the time when these companies can make maximum profits, just like their counterparts in the aforementioned industries, why is it wrong for them to expect their employees to come to work? This is the dumbest argument I've heard lately. I dare any petition signing retail employee to have Thanksgiving dinner out, travel or stay in a hotel! And don't go to a movie!
Smoot wrote: "Did you notice that guy Rich Harwood injecting those non-sequitur comments into the discussion?"
This was one of those days I was listening to something else while participating on the comment board.
, "I say, 59 million people voted against the dems, lets mobilize those fellow citizens to wreck Obamacare, undermine the dems, and in general refuse to accept anything the dems want to do."
I hope so, by the much less than expected turnout of Romney supporters, I am a bit disillusioned. 2014 might be a totally different atmosphere than it is now, but it's hard to accept the apparent acceptance of Obama style government.
"I need to express myself more clearly. My view is that there is no currently ongoing intelligent and honest debate about what ought to be the responsibility of the central government versus the responsibility of some other institution... The citizenry needs to come to some agreement about who does what. Right now, things have evolved more or less chaotically without much thought, rime or reason. This debate, an honest debate, must take place."
It did. The debate, in theory, was over in 1789.
"In my country, the constitution suggests that only what is expressly delegated to the federal government is the responsibility of the federal government. This was the result of a reasoned process among the citizenry. We have direct democracy."
I don't think you've ever said what your country is.
"Streamlining the organization structure, process, and dynamics is an absolute must. I would agree. But the problem is that, in order to do this, you need to do an in depth organizational analysis and align the results to "clearly identified strategic objectives." Who decides what the strategic objectives are? Who becomes part of the discussion? Is there someone who honestly will debate the issues without being influenced by lobbies and the sorts? Tough stuff!"
No! Simple stuff! Read Article I, Section 8.
"There is an issue of definition here. What is an entitlement? If you pay your entire life into a guaranteed retirement program, aren't you entitled to get your pension?"
"Entitlement" is not a four letter word. It means exactly what you say. It has come to mean, "he got something for nothing". That is a "handout", not an "entitlement". One who is not paying his own way is not "entitled" to anything.