Turns out someone linked my "Tale of Two Companies" post on the Wal-mart message board. While the AOL hits were new, the RightWingNuttia reaction was old school:
"Standard procedure from your side to compare apples to oranges and pretend that you're exposing something. The gambling industry makes obscene profits compared to Wal-Mart."
So some Culture of (Wealthy) Life neocon sees my post and gets his hackles up, but not because of anything to do with reality. He knows instantly that Wal-mart giving workers 3 days pay compared to Harrah's 3 months shows Wal-mart and its management for what it is... cheap bastards when it comes to their workers.
I guarantee you the defender of Wal-mart's "honor" knows that his response is total bullshit; but just for the record, how did Harrah's do compared to Wal-mart? How is it that Harrah's can afford such a generous worker aid package while Wal-mart felt a pinch in it's wallet after 3 days pay?
Hmmm... well here it says Wal-mart earned a nice little chunk of change:
"The US firm said net profit for the three months to July 31 was $2.8bn, compared to $2.7bn for the same period a year ago."
Damn! That "obscene" profiteer Harrah's must have really been knocking it out of the park then; because, of course, that's the only reason those crazies paid their stricken workers 90 days versus 3 days for Walton's kids:
Looks like 2005 will be its best in years, and it's going to net $400 million in profits. Oh, notice that's for the year, while Sam's kids made that in a quarter.
Ahem... who's making the "obscene" profits?