Things that make you wonder about people

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I want to vent but didn't want to begin a new thread so I'll just add on to this one.

 

Our local school district has voted to eliminate all (you read that correctly ALL) librarians. If teachers want to make use of the libraries, they will be responsible for checking out and re-shelving any books used by their students.

 

SMH

[Arcadia]

Our local school district has voted to eliminate all (you read that correctly ALL) librarians.

My school district has a $84 parcel tax from 2012 to mainly pay for librarians. There are at least two parent volunteers per school per day to help re-shelve books. Even then some school librarians were retrenched. I can't find the school librarian's pay scale but the school library assistant is paid $28/hr.

 

Are the schools near the local libraries? Here many elementary schools troop to the nearby local libraries for library time.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

My school district has a $84 parcel tax from 2012 to mainly pay for librarians. There are at least two parent volunteers per school per day to help re-shelve books. Even then some school librarians were retrenched. I can't find the school librarian's pay scale but the school library assistant is paid $28/hr.

 

Are the schools near the local libraries? Here many elementary schools troop to the nearby local libraries for library time.

 

I'm thinking there will be a push for volunteers before too long.

 

Our town only has one public library and it's downtown. It would require school busses in order to get the students to the library.

 

--

Another cut - the district is proposing to eliminate the 3 nurses who travel from school to school each day and replacing them with CNAs. Saving approximately $95,000 per year.

[Bluegoat]

I want to vent but didn't want to begin a new thread so I'll just add on to this one.

 

Our local school district has voted to eliminate all (you read that correctly ALL) librarians. If teachers want to make use of the libraries, they will be responsible for checking out and re-shelving any books used by their students.

 

SMH

 

Librarians have been cut to the bone in our system.  It's hard for those in the jobs to know how to manage their time - they are supposed to spend time with the kids, but someone actually needs to do the library management tasks.

 

I've thought about volunteering - I have library traiing and can catalogue and that sort of thing - but I also hate the idea of making it look like this sort of cutting is sustainable.

 

I think there is a more general point too with volunteering - it is harder and harder for many families to have a member with the time to do it rather than work.  I read a newspaper article today about how we need to get more women, in particular, out of the home and earning. Many older people are working part time too.

 

So who is supposed to be doing the volunteering.

[Arcadia]

Another cut - the district is proposing to eliminate the 3 nurses who travel from school to school each day and replacing them with CNAs. Saving approximately $95,000 per year.

My kids' k-8 school has a nurse to over a thousand students. The other two k-5 schools nearby share nurses but the schools are about 2 miles apart. Teachers are trained in the use of epi-pens and AED.

 

How many schools are the 3 nurses currently serving? Our school psychologists and speech therapists do travel from school to school for k-8 but the two high schools (approx 1700 kids per school) have them on site.

[Library Momma]

I think that is awful, but here library is a special taught like a class.  Parent volunteers are used to check books in and out and re-shelve, so that the librarians have more time to actually teach.  Parent volunteers couldn't be relied on to actually teach the curriculum.  I'm not sure how that would be handled.

[EmseB]

Is it unethical to go to a b&m store and shop for something, maybe even try it on, discuss with the salesperson, decide it costs too much, don't purchase the item, then go to a different b&m store, see the same thing for cheaper and buy it there?

 

In other words, once you've used the first store's services you are ethically obligated to purchase the thing from them if you decide to purchase it?

Edited March 15, 2017 by EmseB

[Bluegoat]

Is it unethical to go to a b&m store and shop for something, maybe even try it on, discuss with the salesperson, decide it costs too much, don't purchase the item, then go to a different b&m store, see the same thing for cheaper and buy it there?

 

In other words, once you've used the first store's services you are ethically obligated to purchase the thing from them if you decide to purchase it?

 

It could be.  Why can the retailer offer the product cheaper, what is the trade-off?  Was the first retailer over-charging, or is it possible that you were simply being a cheapskate.

 

If the problem is neither that it was over-priced nor that you are cheap, but rather the price was fair but you can't afford it, I might do without.  It's often the case these days though that it is a necessary item, as with food - that is unfortunate.  In that case I think you have to spend strategically.

[Arcadia]

It could be. Why can the retailer offer the product cheaper, what is the trade-off? Was the first retailer over-charging, or is it possible that you were simply being a cheapskate.

I do not discuss clothing with sales people. However I do try outerwear and shoes on at the store to decide if it is comfortable and looks good on me. The thing is big retail chains like Macy's, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales have different mark downs for sales items for example Pajar (coats and boots), Canadian Goose (coats) which means I might be waiting for a Pajar boots that I like to drop to a price I am willing to pay. I might feel it is overpriced but maybe it is not, it is really hard to say.

 

For example the Pajar Alina boots that I am eyeing at Nordstrom Rack for this winter.

Amazon $89.99

DSW $99.94

Nordstrom Rack $78

MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price) $185

 

ETA:

I was window shopping while my husband was hunting for work shirts.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Arcadia

[creekland]

Is it unethical to go to a b&m store and shop for something, maybe even try it on, discuss with the salesperson, decide it costs too much, don't purchase the item, then go to a different b&m store, see the same thing for cheaper and buy it there?

 

In other words, once you've used the first store's services you are ethically obligated to purchase the thing from them if you decide to purchase it?

 

To me this totally depends upon original intent.  If you knew the item was less expensive elsewhere - go there - don't use the first place simply because it's more convenient or has better salespeople or similar.  Chances are, the things you like are at least partially why it costs more there (higher rent, better pay to get better salespeople, etc) the same as why online is often less expensive - less overhead.

 

If you were merely window shopping to start with (not really sure what you wanted rather than knowing exactly what you wanted if it fit,etc), then I see nothing evil with comparing.  

 

For us, we now contemplate why things are more expensive.  Is it because mom & pop own the grocery store and don't get mega discounts vs huge chain stores or is it because Product X pays to advertise and Product Y doesn't so the extra I'm spending merely goes to advertisement.  It all factors into what we buy and where.  We no longer go with "cheapest rules."  We try to look deeper into focusing who we share our money with when we buy something.

[EmseB]

It could be. Why can the retailer offer the product cheaper, what is the trade-off? Was the first retailer over-charging, or is it possible that you were simply being a cheapskate.

 

If the problem is neither that it was over-priced nor that you are cheap, but rather the price was fair but you can't afford it, I might do without. It's often the case these days though that it is a necessary item, as with food - that is unfortunate. In that case I think you have to spend strategically.

I have questions.

 

So, spending less on an item possibly makes someone a cheapskate and the first retailer someone stops at has an ethical claim to their dollars? If a person can't afford something at one store, but it is offered cheaper elsewhere, well that's too bad, they have to shop at the more expensive store, ethically speaking? Shopping around to get the best price on something is unethical?

 

Do we consider that retailers charge what they charge in order to maximize their profit either via pricing or volume of sales? So retailer are trying to make as much money as possible, no?

[creekland]

I have questions.

 

So, spending less on an item possibly makes someone a cheapskate and the first retailer someone stops at has an ethical claim to their dollars? If a person can't afford something at one store, but it is offered cheaper elsewhere, well that's too bad, they have to shop at the more expensive store, ethically speaking? Shopping around to get the best price on something is unethical?

 

Do we consider that retailers charge what they charge in order to maximize their profit either via pricing or volume of sales? So retailer are trying to make as much money as possible, no?

 

But still, if you know retailer #2 has what you are likely to want at an affordable price, try it on, etc, there.  Then there is absolutely no ethical problem at all.  Only move on to the more expensive stores if you can't find what you like.  Folks do that all the time - esp if on a budget.

[saraha]

Maybe they believe they are adding value that a larger or online store can't provide. 

 

Here's another example of a small store providing good service/value.  I was having some problems that seemed to be related to the cheap, worn-out walking shoes I was wearing.  A friend recommended a store that specializes in waking and running shoes.  I resisted - I don't like spending a lot of money on shoes - but finally went.  The store clerk spent at least 30 minutes with me, watching me walk, asking me questions about the kind of pain I was having, what type of walking I do... then brought out several pairs of shoes for me to try.  She showed me how to properly lace them, watched me walk in each one... you get the picture.  I walked out in my new shoes.  Yes, they were cheaper online, but I wouldn't have known what to order if I'd gone online first.  And no online store could have given me the service that store did.   

 

 

Can you tell me what store this is?  Sorry to hijack!

[Catwoman]

Is it unethical to go to a b&m store and shop for something, maybe even try it on, discuss with the salesperson, decide it costs too much, don't purchase the item, then go to a different b&m store, see the same thing for cheaper and buy it there?

In other words, once you've used the first store's services you are ethically obligated to purchase the thing from them if you decide to purchase it?

I don't think you're obligated to buy anything from anyone. It's your money and you can do what you want with it.

 

If I'm shopping in a high end store and see something I like and the salesperson helps me by giving me more information about it (or whatever,) I still get to decide if I want to buy the item at that store or shop around to see if I can find it at a better price. Maybe that item is very nice but it isn't worth the higher price to me, but if I find it cheaper elsewhere, it will be worth the lower price so I'll buy it at that store.

 

I don't call it unethical. I call it smart shopping. :)

[gaillardia]

At an independent and popular burger joint we went to last summer, when the server brought our drinks, she tipped the tray in my direction and spilled my drink all over my lap. 

What would you have done? I was gasping, shocked, and standing by the time it all had stopped dripping, I nervously laughed. She felt dumb over it, brought lots of napkins and a fresh drink while we continued to sit.

Food was brought after a while. Meanwhile, my leather and suede flipflops were stained and ruined, my shorts were stained, it wasn't looking too good for my purse and part of my top was wet and stained.

At the end when our bill was brought, she hadn't given us a free drink, free fries, free anything.

I was sticky, still wet, and feeling too miffed toward her to say anything polite. I know it was an accident, but where was my compensation? My dh left her ZERO tip.

What was wrong with us that we didn't get up and walk out when the spilling happened? We were hungry!

 

 

[EmseB]

But still, if you know retailer #2 has what you are likely to want at an affordable price, try it on, etc, there.  Then there is absolutely no ethical problem at all.  Only move on to the more expensive stores if you can't find what you like.  Folks do that all the time - esp if on a budget.

 

So am I hearing correctly that I should not go into "more expensive stores" to window shop or look around or anything?

 

Is it unethical to, say, browse around in a Pottery Barn knowing I can't afford their stuff?  Because if I am in a HomeGoods a couple weeks later and find something similar for less it would now be unethical to buy it because I saw it in a more expensive store first?

[Word Nerd]

It reminds me of return fraud. The rest of us have to jump though hoops to return stuff because some people abused the more generous return policies we grew up with.

 

My dad worked for KMart in the 60s. He said people would come in right after hunting season to return their rifles and that once a man obtained a full refund for empty paint cans because he said he wasn't satisfied with the paint (that was dried onto his walls and he was not replacing).

 

I was working as a holiday temp at Sears during college when a testy woman came in lugging a beat-up Kenmore vacuum behind her that was probably decades old and demanded a refund because it didn't work well anymore. I was more flabbergasted that a customer service rep gave her a refund than I was at the gall she had to so blatantly abuse a generous return policy.

Edited March 16, 2017 by GalaxyGal

[creekland]

So am I hearing correctly that I should not go into "more expensive stores" to window shop or look around or anything?

 

Is it unethical to, say, browse around in a Pottery Barn knowing I can't afford their stuff?  Because if I am in a HomeGoods a couple weeks later and find something similar for less it would now be unethical to buy it because I saw it in a more expensive store first?

 

Actually, you get to decide whatever ethics you want... ;)

 

ps  Something similar is not necessarily the same and window shopping is not the same as knowing exactly what you want except size, etc, and going to a local shop to figure that out only to head back home to buy it online for less.  But argue whatever you like.

[Artichoke]

Is it unethical to go to a b&m store and shop for something, maybe even try it on, discuss with the salesperson, decide it costs too much, don't purchase the item, then go to a different b&m store, see the same thing for cheaper and buy it there?

 

In other words, once you've used the first store's services you are ethically obligated to purchase the thing from them if you decide to purchase it?

 

 

Just my opinion:

 

Do you go to the boutique lingerie store for custom fit and advice? Then yep you should purchase from them.  Go to REI  for backpack advice and customer fit, then yep you should buy there.  Go to the independent bike shop for advice on what to buy and custom sizing, then please buy from them.   Spend a lengthy  time at the homeschool booth for advice, then yep you should buy from them.   Basically, if you choose to use the expertise of the store employees, then imo you should purchase the item from them.  

 

ETA:  I didn't  address your window shopping question.   If you're only window shopping, then feel free to not buy. To me, it's when you take lots of staff time or  ask for custom service that you should purchase at that store. 

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Artichoke

[Artichoke]

I don't think you're obligated to buy anything from anyone. It's your money and you can do what you want with it.

 

If I'm shopping in a high end store and see something I like and the salesperson helps me by giving me more information about it (or whatever,) I still get to decide if I want to buy the item at that store or shop around to see if I can find it at a better price. Maybe that item is very nice but it isn't worth the higher price to me, but if I find it cheaper elsewhere, it will be worth the lower price so I'll buy it at that store.

 

I don't call it unethical. I call it smart shopping. :)

 

 

At a large store, then maybe.  At a mom and pop, then I think you should give them the sale.   It takes time for custom fittings, not to mention the product knowledge and advice.  

[Catwoman]

Just my opinion:

 

Do you go to the boutique lingerie store for custom fit and advice? Then yep you should purchase from them. Go to REI for backpack advice and customer fit, then yep you should buy there. Go to the independent bike shop for advice on what to buy and custom sizing, then please buy from them. Spend a lengthy time at the homeschool booth for advice, then yep you should buy from them. Basically, if you choose to use the expertise of the store employees, then imo you should purchase the item from them.

I agree with this, unless the employee keeps pressuring you to buy something that costs more than you wanted to spend and discourages the more affordable options. In that instance, I see no problem with trying to find a better price elsewhere on the more expensive item.

[Artichoke]

I agree with this, unless the employee keeps pressuring you to buy something that costs more than you wanted to spend and discourages the more affordable options. In that instance, I see no problem with trying to find a better price elsewhere on the more expensive item.

 

 

Well sure.  That goes further into a poor service experience.  You may or may not want to buy the more affordable option there depending on your experience in the shop.  I think my ire is reserved for those who go into a shop looking for great service and knowledge with no intention of buying from that establishment.  

[Catwoman]

At a large store, then maybe. At a mom and pop, then I think you should give them the sale. It takes time for custom fittings, not to mention the product knowledge and advice.

I agree -- and I would even feel the same way about a larger store where I know the employees are on commission.

 

Most of the time, though, store employees aren't providing much time, help, or advice and are basically just giving some basic information about their products.

 

OTOH, we shop at a particular independent shoe store for my ds17 and gladly pay their insanely high prices because their service is so good and because they go out of their way to help ds find shoes that fit him properly. I could get the same shoes much cheaper online, but it wouldn't seem fair to do that.

 

Also, when I'm shopping for clothing and a salesperson runs back and forth to bring me different sizes and styles to try when I'm in the fitting room, I think she deserves the sale, even if another store is less expensive. I don't mind paying extra for good service.

[TechWife]

I have done similar. I know the store likely doesnt stock my size, and I wont be in town long enough for a special order to get to the hotel room. I am looking at material quality and color, and if it works for me I will order and ship to home. Most times a tourist store wont do that, but it gives me a vendor name and if I search I can find a store online willing to sell my size. Bought a pair of shoes that way last week. Am I supposed to never enter a b&m store that refuses to stock my size? Really, I am tired of being marginalized so the store can maximize profits. If they are going to sell a particular line, they should stock all sizes or just post a big sign at the door saying what sizes they stock, and direct those who dont fit to not waste their time, since they wont be able to order and ship to home.

I do this at Talbots. They simply don't stick my size, but I want to see the colors, see the drape of the fabric and feel the fabric as well. If I were able to purchase in the store, someone would earn a commission. However, it's impossible for me to do that so I go home and order online. I asked about their "red phone" for placing catalog orders and she said I could use it. I asked her how she would get credit for the sale and she said that they never get credit for catalog sales, even when they are placed in a store. Since then, I have tried to discourage their salespeople from helping me - I tell them that I'm just browsing so they are free to earn a commission by assisting another customer.

[Bluegoat]

I have questions.

 

So, spending less on an item possibly makes someone a cheapskate and the first retailer someone stops at has an ethical claim to their dollars? If a person can't afford something at one store, but it is offered cheaper elsewhere, well that's too bad, they have to shop at the more expensive store, ethically speaking? Shopping around to get the best price on something is unethical?

 

Do we consider that retailers charge what they charge in order to maximize their profit either via pricing or volume of sales? So retailer are trying to make as much money as possible, no?

 

Being a cheapskate, in my mind at least, means you aren't willing to pay for the value of what you are buying.  You aren't paying the true cost of the resources needed, or the labour. 

 

But sometimes retailers will overcharge - in which case they are being greedy.  Making as much money as possible is, IMO, an degraded moral value, in the same way that not paying for the real value of things is. 

 

What happens a lot, though, in our retail climate, is that retailers will make the cost seem lower than it really is, so we don't feel like we are being cheapskates.  They may underpay workers, perhaps offering only jobs that don't qualify for benefits or union busting, or buying from sweatshop type factories.  Or perhaps they buy products that are produced in cheaper but environmentally damaging ways.  Or ones that are made to break sooner.

 

That tends to create the illusion, for the customer, that the price points they are offering are what is most fair, when in fact it's on the back of others and is really an example of not paying the real costs for the product.  That is just invisible to the customer.

 

The other issue is with this, in the long term, these kinds of corner-cutting will come back on us.  If we buy goods that are poorer quality or use damaging methods to produce, we or our kids will live with the results.  If we buy from the online store or one owned far away, it is our dollars that are going out of the community and don't return.  And with online or poorly paying companies, we can expect the jobs available in our own community will reflect that. 

 

This is where the values of making as much as possible or saving as much as possible, without regard for the true costs of the work and product, gets us - jobs that barely pay, or none at all, an increasing divide between the rich and poor, clothes that fall apart in a week and appliances in 5 years, and environmental degradation. 

[EmseB]

Actually, you get to decide whatever ethics you want... ;)

 

ps  Something similar is not necessarily the same and window shopping is not the same as knowing exactly what you want except size, etc, and going to a local shop to figure that out only to head back home to buy it online for less.  But argue whatever you like.

 

I'm not arguing anything, I'm trying to figure out, ethically, what lines people are drawing.

 

I like shopping for certain things. I enjoy browsing. I get decor ideas from expensive catalogs that I have no intention of purchasing from.  On the other hand, there are places I will shop for quality items that cost a bit more.

 

I feel like retailers can charge whatever they like and I can discern if I'm willing to pay that price or not.  If I'm not, and I happen to see that item somewhere else for a lower price than I'm willing to pay, it seems like people are saying that it is unethical to not buy the more expensive item.  I've never even had that thought cross my mind, so I'm asking questions about where the line is.

 

In short, I have never thought that bargain shopping was unethical.

 

Then again, I have never really bought into the idea that buying local or buying mom and pop is somehow better or more ethical than buying from Amazon either, so I'm sure that puts me in something of a minority here.

[creekland]

If I'm not, and I happen to see that item somewhere else for a lower price than I'm willing to pay, it seems like people are saying that it is unethical to not buy the more expensive item.  I've never even had that thought cross my mind, so I'm asking questions about where the line is.

 

In short, I have never thought that bargain shopping was unethical.

 

Then again, I have never really bought into the idea that buying local or buying mom and pop is somehow better or more ethical than buying from Amazon either, so I'm sure that puts me in something of a minority here.

 

For the top (that I quoted), no one is saying anyone has to go out and find the most expensive place to buy an item.  We are only saying it's unethical to use the perks of the more expensive place (like trying things on, etc) when you know you plan to actually buy the item elsewhere - like from Amazon.

 

Why do you think the latter?  I've yet to hear anyone think buying from Amazon or Big Chain is just as good as local mom and pop...  Everyone knows they tend to be less expensive so can fit tight budgets and are useful that way, but they also don't provide local jobs and it sends your $$ out of the community rather than keeping it in.  Then too, you're supporting high paid CEOs (and more) vs local community members (who may or may not be wealthy, but usually have more of a community bent when spending themselves).  Most folks can sense this easily if they think of their own source of income - and imagining that going away by folks preferring a non-local competitor (whether overseas or merely out of town/state).

[EmseB]

For the top (that I quoted), no one is saying anyone has to go out and find the most expensive place to buy an item.  We are only saying it's unethical to use the perks of the more expensive place (like trying things on, etc) when you know you plan to actually buy the item elsewhere - like from Amazon.

 

Why do you think the latter?  I've yet to hear anyone think buying from Amazon or Big Chain is just as good as local mom and pop...  Everyone knows they tend to be less expensive so can fit tight budgets and are useful that way, but they also don't provide local jobs and it sends your $$ out of the community rather than keeping it in.  Then too, you're supporting high paid CEOs (and more) vs local community members (who may or may not be wealthy, but usually have more of a community bent when spending themselves).  Most folks can sense this easily if they think of their own source of income - and imagining that going away by folks preferring a non-local competitor (whether overseas or merely out of town/state).

 

I don't think that there's any particular merit to someone else having a job in a different town than there is to someone having a job in my town. I don't think a small store front shop is more inherently virtuous than a large online retailer. I don't think a CEO making money is negative, while a small business owner making less money while charging more and using more resources per capita is more positive.

 

I don't think that using more resources to produce/buy something more expensively is necessarily a form of conservation or ethics

 

Mom and Pops generate less jobs, less income, and cost more for people to shop there. Dollar for dollar they are more costly in all ways to run.  That doesn't mean they are bad, it's just that I don't think there's any particular virtue in it for the sake of having small stores in a community.  My neighbor could work at Best Buy, or he could work at the local electronics store.  The fact that he works at Best Buy doesn't mean we are somehow not going to have community anymore or be friendly.  Best Buy has a more efficient distribution system, hires more people, is able to get more stock in at a cheaper price so more people can afford to buy their items.  The smaller store requires more resources to do the exact same thing at a higher price.  Online retailers have to hire people from some communities in order to function.  So that may mean they hire thousands of people in the next state over, but I'm unsure why people over there are less deserving of jobs than people in my local community.

 

That, and every store starts out small.  Some are better at efficiency, pricing, customer service than others and they grow.  In today's world, that's going to mean online businesses grow because they don't pay for store fronts.  This isn't a bad thing, IMO.  More efficiency is a kind of conservation of resources.

[jewellsmommy]

Just curious, I know we are mostly talking about clothes and accessories...so are cars an exception to this. Don't most people go into 1 place look at a car, maybe test drive it, decide they like it but go to at least one other lot to see who will give them the better deal? Or look online to see if another lot has better perks such as free oil changes for life or whatnot. The sales people are on commision and most car lots are local (franchised) but local. So, is this also unethical or is it different because it's expected/socially acceptable?

[mommaduck]

The key here is "custom service". Yes, if you are getting custom service, then it is disrespectful and unethical to waste the person's time and then buy it elsewhere with the information they worked to get you (ex. custom lingerie shop).

[jewellsmommy]

I have to say, I will sometimes look at things online. I will "use" amazon or walmart for their reviews, but decide I want to see it in person or I don't want to wait for the item (even though both offer 2 day shipping, I sometimes want it now) and I will go a local store and maybe spend the same amount or maybe it is a few dollars more, but I get it now. Is it equally wrong to use amazon's resources online if I intend to buy in a b&m store and I know it at the time? 

 

 

[jewellsmommy]

The key here is "custom service". Yes, if you are getting custom service, then it is disrespectful and unethical to waste the person's time and then buy it elsewhere with the information they worked to get you (ex. custom lingerie shop).

 

When you are buying a car, it is "custom" service. So, does the same apply?

[mommaduck]

It is distressing to see so many schools eliminating nurses and librarians. CNA's replacing RN's?! Uhm, CNA's are not a lower form of RN. There is no comparison. LPN, I could somewhat understand, but still not the same. But CNA? Hell, no.

[mommaduck]

When you are buying a car, it is "custom" service. So, does the same apply?

 

We walk the lots ourselves and research online before going in. I don't know of a case where we have decided on a vehicle, wasted on salesperson's time and then just gone to another. If we left empty-handed, it was simply because of one of two reasons 1) we simply decided not to buy or 2) the salesman was crooked as hell. With car salesmen, the price is fluid and they try to wring out more than necessary. It's not the same as walking into a custom clothing store and having someone take the time to take your measurements for a custom fit that will be sewn up there in the back room and then taking those measurements to another seamstress.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think that there's any particular merit to someone else having a job in a different town than there is to someone having a job in my town. I don't think a small store front shop is more inherently virtuous than a large online retailer. I don't think a CEO making money is negative, while a small business owner making less money while charging more and using more resources per capita is more positive.

 

I don't think that using more resources to produce/buy something more expensively is necessarily a form of conservation or ethics

 

Mom and Pops generate less jobs, less income, and cost more for people to shop there. Dollar for dollar they are more costly in all ways to run.  That doesn't mean they are bad, it's just that I don't think there's any particular virtue in it for the sake of having small stores in a community.  My neighbor could work at Best Buy, or he could work at the local electronics store.  The fact that he works at Best Buy doesn't mean we are somehow not going to have community anymore or be friendly.  Best Buy has a more efficient distribution system, hires more people, is able to get more stock in at a cheaper price so more people can afford to buy their items.  The smaller store requires more resources to do the exact same thing at a higher price.  Online retailers have to hire people from some communities in order to function.  So that may mean they hire thousands of people in the next state over, but I'm unsure why people over there are less deserving of jobs than people in my local community.

 

That, and every store starts out small.  Some are better at efficiency, pricing, customer service than others and they grow.  In today's world, that's going to mean online businesses grow because they don't pay for store fronts.  This isn't a bad thing, IMO.  More efficiency is a kind of conservation of resources.

 

This generally isn't true.  The amount of return to the local economy from local business is significantly more than with big businesses, and they tend to create more jobs, not fewer, and better quality ones as well.  There is actually a lot of research that's been done on the effect of local vs non-local business on local economies and it's consistently hown to be significant.

 

The other issue often is, local businesses are invested in the community - they have an interest in what it is like, and customers see their employees, how they are treated and such.  It's easy not to notice a company like Amazon is undermining good employment practices, or the imported beef comes from a place polluting the river.  In a local industry, you see the river, you may know the fellow being employed in an unsafe warehouse.

[jewellsmommy]

We walk the lots ourselves and research online before going in. I don't know of a case where we have decided on a vehicle, wasted on salesperson's time and then just gone to another. If we left empty-handed, it was simply because of one of two reasons 1) we simply decided not to buy or 2) the salesman was crooked as hell. With car salesmen, the price is fluid and they try to wring out more than necessary. It's not the same as walking into a custom clothing store and having someone take the time to take your measurements for a custom fit that will be sewn up there in the back room and then taking those measurements to another seamstress.

 

As to the bolded, I get that. The examples above mentioned getting personalized service as pertains to the shopping, selection and retrieving of products but then ordering from an online retailer...not taking info to another seamstress etc. But I would agree with what you are saying.

 

I am curious because the car lot is the same situation as some others posted. You use a person's time if you test drive and then they attempt to negotiate a price etc. But if you suspect another lot may negotiate lower or give you more for your trade in, do ethics obligate you to stay at the first car lot anyway?

[Bluegoat]

Just curious, I know we are mostly talking about clothes and accessories...so are cars an exception to this. Don't most people go into 1 place look at a car, maybe test drive it, decide they like it but go to at least one other lot to see who will give them the better deal? Or look online to see if another lot has better perks such as free oil changes for life or whatnot. The sales people are on commision and most car lots are local (franchised) but local. So, is this also unethical or is it different because it's expected/socially acceptable?

 

It might depend how the industry is set up - with cars, seeing what can be offered is part of the job of the salesperson, on the other hand probably it isn't ethical to play games around it.  A lot of people hate car shopping, partly I think because of this sort of negotiating and the hard sell, it isn't always great for the salespeople either.

 

Plus, especially with used, there is a lot of dishonesty in car sales.  I wonder if these things aren't related though.

[creekland]

I don't think that there's any particular merit to someone else having a job in a different town than there is to someone having a job in my town. I don't think a small store front shop is more inherently virtuous than a large online retailer. I don't think a CEO making money is negative, while a small business owner making less money while charging more and using more resources per capita is more positive.

 

I don't think that using more resources to produce/buy something more expensively is necessarily a form of conservation or ethics

 

Mom and Pops generate less jobs, less income, and cost more for people to shop there. Dollar for dollar they are more costly in all ways to run.  That doesn't mean they are bad, it's just that I don't think there's any particular virtue in it for the sake of having small stores in a community.  My neighbor could work at Best Buy, or he could work at the local electronics store.  The fact that he works at Best Buy doesn't mean we are somehow not going to have community anymore or be friendly.  Best Buy has a more efficient distribution system, hires more people, is able to get more stock in at a cheaper price so more people can afford to buy their items.  The smaller store requires more resources to do the exact same thing at a higher price.  Online retailers have to hire people from some communities in order to function.  So that may mean they hire thousands of people in the next state over, but I'm unsure why people over there are less deserving of jobs than people in my local community.

 

That, and every store starts out small.  Some are better at efficiency, pricing, customer service than others and they grow.  In today's world, that's going to mean online businesses grow because they don't pay for store fronts.  This isn't a bad thing, IMO.  More efficiency is a kind of conservation of resources.

 

So are you in favor of guaranteed minimum income then when there aren't enough jobs in a community?  Or are you thinking everyone should move to where the jobs are - creating vast metropolises with overpriced housing many of those Best Buy workers can't afford and practical ghost towns elsewhere?  This latter is what has happened in many places already...  It's a good part of what I don't like seeing and what has changed my views on where we spend our money.

 

I disagree with you that large companies create more jobs.  I believe if you look at stats (overall stats), small businesses have more.  When large businesses take over (or smaller ones merge), jobs get lost.

 

Just curious, I know we are mostly talking about clothes and accessories...so are cars an exception to this. Don't most people go into 1 place look at a car, maybe test drive it, decide they like it but go to at least one other lot to see who will give them the better deal? Or look online to see if another lot has better perks such as free oil changes for life or whatnot. The sales people are on commision and most car lots are local (franchised) but local. So, is this also unethical or is it different because it's expected/socially acceptable?

 

I don't know how others buy cars.  We look online first and decide what we want, see where it is, and go get it (or try it out to make sure we like it, then get it).  Many dealers have online ways of looking at cars, both new and used.  Used can also be found on craigslist, etc.  BTDT.  I'm not a "shopper" so going to multiple lots doesn't appeal to me at all!

[bibiche]

At an independent and popular burger joint we went to last summer, when the server brought our drinks, she tipped the tray in my direction and spilled my drink all over my lap.

What would you have done? I was gasping, shocked, and standing by the time it all had stopped dripping, I nervously laughed. She felt dumb over it, brought lots of napkins and a fresh drink while we continued to sit.

Food was brought after a while. Meanwhile, my leather and suede flipflops were stained and ruined, my shorts were stained, it wasn't looking too good for my purse and part of my top was wet and stained.

At the end when our bill was brought, she hadn't given us a free drink, free fries, free anything.

I was sticky, still wet, and feeling too miffed toward her to say anything polite. I know it was an accident, but where was my compensation? My dh left her ZERO tip.

What was wrong with us that we didn't get up and walk out when the spilling happened? We were hungry!

You should have spoken to the manager or owner, who would have offered to pay the bill for cleaning and/or replacing your damaged items.

 

Your server was undoubtedly inexperienced and didn't know that she should do other than apologize (or possibly she was afraid to tell her manager because she didn't want t get in trouble or lose her job). In a situation like that, unfortunately you have to take charge to make sure things are taken care of.

[Bluegoat]

Servers don't always have the authority to do anything, anyway.  That being said - small places often will not offer the same kinds of free stuff that big chains will, tey just can't afford it.

 

 

[regentrude]

Just curious, I know we are mostly talking about clothes and accessories...so are cars an exception to this. Don't most people go into 1 place look at a car, maybe test drive it, decide they like it but go to at least one other lot to see who will give them the better deal? Or look online to see if another lot has better perks such as free oil changes for life or whatnot. The sales people are on commision and most car lots are local (franchised) but local. So, is this also unethical or is it different because it's expected/socially acceptable?

 

To me that is a weird way to purchase a car. Do people do that?

We research online, compare specs of the different candidates that offer the features we are looking for, and select the best car for our purpose. Next we check which dealer in the vicinity has the vehicle we want to purchase with the details we want.

Then we go to that location, test drive the car, and buy if it works out.

Same process for used or new vehicles.

 

Going around from lot to lot seems a very inefficient way - not to mention that chances somebody local would have the car I want are pretty much zero.

Edited March 16, 2017 by regentrude

[mommaduck]

To me that is a weird way to purchase a car. Do people do that?

We research online, compare specs of the different candidates that offer the features we are looking for, and select the best car for our purpose. Next we check which dealer in our state has the vehicle we want to purchase with the details we want.

Then we go to that location, test drive the car, and buy if it works out.

Same process for used or new vehicles.

 

That's how we've always done it. The one time we did walk away, we didn't buy for over a year after that. We simply weren't certain and didn't like the salesman.

[creekland]

We research online, compare specs of the different candidates that offer the features we are looking for, and select the best car for our purpose. Next we check which dealer in our state has the vehicle we want to purchase with the details we want.

Then we go to that location, test drive the car, and buy if it works out.

Same process for used or new vehicles.

 

This is us exactly.  I was beginning to wonder how abnormal we were...

[jewellsmommy]

 

 

 

I don't know how others buy cars.  We look online first and decide what we want, see where it is, and go get it (or try it out to make sure we like it, then get it).  Many dealers have online ways of looking at cars, both new and used.  Used can also be found on craigslist, etc.  BTDT.  I'm not a "shopper" so going to multiple lots doesn't appeal to me at all!

 

Yes. We did our research online too. I'm not talking about that part.

 

We narrowed it down to 2 cars through research. But, we had to drive one to know for sure. We had a top runner and runner up depending on how they felt to drive and fit etc. I don't know any way around that. I am short and ds is tall, we had to at least sit it in it first. KWIM?

 

We only had to test drive one because we really liked the first. The attendant then started the negotiation process. But during the process, we just felt that they were undervaluing our trade in. So, the next day we went to a different lot and we got a much better deal on both the trade in and the car.

 

The first guy put time in (the test drive and negotiation) so should he have gotten the sale under some feelings here? Or is there an exception for cars?

[bibiche]

Servers don't always have the authority to do anything, anyway. That being said - small places often will not offer the same kinds of free stuff that big chains will, tey just can't afford it.

Even a small place should take responsibility. If they don't, they won't remain in business for long.

[Bluegoat]

Yes. We did our research online too. I'm not talking about that part.

 

We narrowed it down to 2 cars through research. But, we had to drive one to know for sure. We had a top runner and runner up depending on how they felt to drive and fit etc. I don't know any way around that. I am short and ds is tall, we had to at least sit it in it first. KWIM?

 

We only had to test drive one because we really liked the first. The attendant then started the negotiation process. But during the process, we just felt that they were undervaluing our trade in. So, the next day we went to a different lot and we got a much better deal on both the trade in and the car.

 

The first guy put time in (the test drive and negotiation) so should he have gotten the sale under some feelings here? Or is there an exception for cars?

 

It seems like you are looking for a rule, when what there is is a principle.

[Bluegoat]

Even a small place should take responsibility. If they don't, they won't remain in business for long.

 

I doubt they would deny they caused the spill and would apologize.  And that is a pretty big one, I would tend to expect they'd offer something, maybe even a free meal.

 

But margins in food are small, and many people seem to expect free stuff for very minor reasons, as a matter of course.  Sometimes, s^&t happens in life and you don't need compensation.

[jewellsmommy]

It seems like you are looking for a rule, when what there is is a principle.

 

Nope. Just interested in the points of view based on a different set of circumstances. I clarified my original question because it seemed that the question was misunderstood concerning whether the research was done on the lot or beforehand.

 

I am genuinely curious because our experience buying a car was similar to my mom's through the years and our friends. Except our friends ended up at a third lot before they liked the terms of agreement. So, based on my limited little world our experience was perfectly average. It didn't occur to me that by looking for a better deal that we were potentially abusing a system or of questionable ethics according to some. So I was wondering if this falls outside of the parameters that others listed.

 

I like to ponder the way other people think and see the world. Especially if it is different from my own. I just wanted to make sure that we were all working from the same 'jumping off' point thus the clarification.

[Catwoman]

Yes. We did our research online too. I'm not talking about that part.

 

We narrowed it down to 2 cars through research. But, we had to drive one to know for sure. We had a top runner and runner up depending on how they felt to drive and fit etc. I don't know any way around that. I am short and ds is tall, we had to at least sit it in it first. KWIM?

 

We only had to test drive one because we really liked the first. The attendant then started the negotiation process. But during the process, we just felt that they were undervaluing our trade in. So, the next day we went to a different lot and we got a much better deal on both the trade in and the car.

 

The first guy put time in (the test drive and negotiation) so should he have gotten the sale under some feelings here? Or is there an exception for cars?

  

It seems like you are looking for a rule, when what there is is a principle.

The principle doesn't necessarily apply when it comes to cars, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

 

I have received price quotes from different dealerships on vehicles with the exact same specs that varied up to $10k. I can't get those exact quotes without taking a salesperson's time because negotiations are involved. It's the same when they're valuing the vehicle I want to trade in. Someone has to take the time to inspect it and drive it and to come up with an offer for me.

 

I'm not going to buy any car I haven't test-driven because even two brand new cars with the same specs can have different quirks when I drive them, so that's going to take a salesperson's time, and I'm probably going to want to drive more than one vehicle before I make the decision to even begin negotiations.

 

One thing we always do, though, is deal with the same salesperson each time we go to a dealership. I wouldn't let one salesperson go to all the trouble of selling me on a particular car and then go back another day and buy that car from someone else. We buy a lot of cars, so we tend to have "our" salesperson at the dealerships we visit, so we generally call ahead to make sure they will be there when we arrive -- but that still doesn't make me feel obligated to buy a car from them unless the price and the trade value are right.

 

Are we the only people who shop for cars like other people browse in the mall? Just because we walk into a dealership and look at the new models and get some information from a salesperson doesn't mean we feel obligated to buy a new car every time we go there. We're just having fun and gathering information for the next time we want to make a purchase. (We do tell the salespeople upfront that we're just browsing, though -- we don't lead them on.)

[Granny_Weatherwax]

What about house shopping and going to open houses? I don't feel obligated to buy every house I look at. Lots of people attend open houses just for the sole purpose of being nosey.

 

-

I apologize for sticking in the post about the schools. I thought I had opened a different thread when I did that. I'm blaming Dayquil.