After a hideous experience at a Wal-Mart on Christmas Eve about 15 years ago (one lane open at 3 p.m., 45+ people in line – I counted, and management refused to open additional lines), I’ve not gone back.
Target has a better class of employee, the stores are better lit and cleaner, and the merchandise isn’t utter crap.
There are 3 or 4 Wal-Marts around here, and 3 Targets. I don’t know anyone who shops even sporadically at Wal-Mart. They ar ejust that nasty here – filthy, disorganized, and just plain gross.
We have one remaining K-Mart, I think. I went once and it was …bleak.
I wonder which Wal-Marts all you people go to. Whether it’s in Federal Way (near Tacoma) or Yakima, Wash., both the Wal-Marts I occasionally go to look fine. There’s no appreciable difference in customer clientele or service. Now Target does definately look better, but considering their higher prices it should.
Target does definately have better fashion choices. But what about people like me who don’t care about fashion? Or people who don’t want the most up-to-date fashions because they like old fashioned looks? Those buying for work use?
The one I can’t understand is how K-Mart is still around. No matter what location you’ve got haphazard stocking of goods, inattentive employees, and just an all around feeling of an unattended store.
I grew up shopping at K-Mart - we were poor folks. If I venture into one of their stores now everything just seems ‘ratty’. By that I mean more than unkempt and disorganized, I mean I get the feeling real rats are hiding behind the merchandise.
The first time I ever visited a Wal-Mart was years ago before they expanded worldwide. The family was visiting relatives in the south and they took us to Wal-Mart. As is human nature, even though we were poor we needed someone to look down upon, and it was easy to do that to our southern relatives, what with those dopey accents and all. We may have been poor, but we weren’t ‘southern poor’! Anywho, I always associated Wal-Mart with ‘sourthern poor’.
When I first met a Target I instantly knew that this was my kind of store! Clean, organized, fashionable! What more could one want? They definitely appeal to the middle class snob factor. I guess I am their ‘target’ audience.
Although, I did date someone who came from wealth and while we were together I took her to a Target. It was her first visit. Her reaction was much like mine was upon first entering that long ago southern Wal-Mart. So, I guess it’s all in your perspective.
The purpose of the tiny amount of phosphate in the water injected into the meat (less than 0.5%, as you point out) is to increase water holding capacity of the meat, allowing it to absorb more water than it would if you attempted to force plain old water into it. This is an old trick first used with scallops, I believe.
Phosphate is also used as a preservative in some cured meats, although that does not apply here, as we are talking about meats sold as fresh. While there may be a minor preservative effect, I have neither seen anything to suggest the magnitude of such an effect, nor have I seen anything which suggests that is the primary reason for phosphate+water injection.
I don’t object to the presence of the phosphate. A can of cola has enormously more of it, and there’s no reason to be afraid of something that occurs naturally in everything we eat. I object to the practice of adding water to a product sold by weight, for no other reason than to make the per pound price appear cheaper than it actually is. Plus, the extra water throws off some cooking processes.
You don’t necessarily have to go to a butcher shop to find non-enhanced meat. Some supermarkets buy sides or primal cuts and butcher them on site. I will admit that this is becoming rare.
I once saw woman changing her baby’s diaper in the shopping cart in a Wal-Mart. I’ve also seen used diapers in the parking lot. Dumped piles of cigarette butts are prevalent. If you can make it from your car to the door without stepping in a gob of spit, you’re lucky.
Maybe if you live where there are few options, it can look like a great thing, but in a place where there are other options, Wal-Mart moves quickly to the bottom of the food chain, shopping wise.
Wal-Marts vary a lot. This did not use to be true–years ago, the corporate hold over the stores was iron-clad, but in recent years I have noticed that Wal-marts in crappy areas are TERRIBLE–stuff strewn all over the aisles, basic commodities out of stock, sticky messes on the floor. I quit going to our “Community Market” (mini-Walmart, mostly groceries) because I kept getting moldy food–bread, for god’s sake, which should turn over every day at least. Better prices were nice, but not if I had to throw something away at soon as a bought it (not to mention the general insecurity about my food). Wal-marts in nice areas continue to be clean, well run places.
Meat naturally loses water during shipping/storage/handling. A great deal of water is lost in the time it takes to go from ye ol’ meat processing plant to the supermarket aisle. If too much water is lost, it adversely affects the flavor and color of the meat. One way of getting around this is to add phosphate to the product, allowing it to retain more water than it normally would. It does add weight, and I don’t doubt that some may inject excess water for the purpose of increasing the weight for sale, but it is much more than that. This study is actually looking at methods to predict waterholding capacity in pork, but in the abstract and introduction, the problem of waterloss in the pork industry is discussed briefly. Basically, by maintaining a high waterholding capacity, you get a juicier meat. As lean meats tend to have a higher amount of water than fatty meats, it becomes particularly important to maintain a high level of water in the product purchased by the end consumer, lest they be stuck with a dry cut.
Some markets of course get around this by stocking fresher meat or even butchering in store, but it’s generally more expensive to do so.
The real issue for me is that most of the clothing you can buy at Target is a better quality than that at Walmart. So let’s take a very basic item, say a polo shirt, that is conservative and appropriate to wear for work. It costs $5 at Walmart. A similar looking polo shirt costs $10 at Target. The better deal seems to be at Walmart, right?
However, due to the quality of the polo shirt, you can wear and wash your Walmart polo for about 1 year until it becomes too worn out to wear to work. On the other hand, you can wear and wash your Target shirt for about three years. At the end of three years, you have replaced your Walmart polo shirt two times for a total of $15, but have only spent a total of $10 on your Target shirt, making Target the better deal.
Of course, Target is still a box store, and you are going to end up with some bum items from Target, and you could get lucky and get a lot of wear out of a Walmart item. But in general, in aggregate, my experience has been that the higher price at Target is justified by the higher quality of the clothing. YMMV.
That being said, there’s many types of items I can find at a typical Wal-Mart that I won’t find at a typical Target. Wal-Mart sells paint, and it’s actually pretty good (at least the Kilz branded product); Target doesn’t. A generic Wal-Mart will have a garden center; I’ve only seen garden centers at Super Target stores, and that’s all. Wal-Mart sells a lot of hunting, camping and outdoors gear, while it’s nonexistent or sparse at Target. Notions such as fabric and other supplies for the kountry krafty krowd; common at Wal-Mart, nonexistent at Target.
There’s some good 'ol boy blue-collar workaday items I know I won’t find at Target if I went there looking for them, so I just go to Wal-Mart by default. One example: Ratcheting tie-down straps for car rooftop racks; I just knew they won’t be available at Target, so I went to Wal-Mart where I saw several brands and lengths.
Generally, a typical Target is great for Ikea-ish home items, decent clothing, home electrical products, and electronics. Otherwise, it’s Wal-Mart.
Oh … as for how Kmart survives, I think it’s elderly customers, at least in places where I lived that still had them. Old folks love “the big Kresge’s”; it’s inertia that keeps them shopping there.
I prefer Target, partly because their stores are more convenient but also because their products seem designed better. Walmart does have low prices, partly because it’s the biggest retailer (and therefore able to negotiate big discounts) but also because manufacturers sell cheaper versions of products to it. I don’t like Kmart because the stores are so decrepit and they tend to leave pallets of merchandise in the middle of the sales floor, making it difficult to move the cart around. The takeover by Edward Lampert and the merger with Sears that he engineered doesn’t seem to have helped.
While they certainly cite consumer satisfaction with the aesthetic aspects of the meat (flavor, juiciness, etc.) as one reason why high waterholding capacity is desirable; the concern over weight loss, reduced processing yields, and consumer dislike of purge in the package are given as other reasons why it is desired. None of these is given greater importance by the authors of the article. Waterholding capacity is a way to measure quality, then, for both the consumer (better taste) and the processor (higher weight sold). I agree with you, my initial comment that the sole reason for phosphate injection is to increase weight was off-base. Increasing waterholding capacity may be a win-win situation for both parties, but I am not convinced that better-tasting meat is the **primary **reason for meat suppliers to discount retailers do it. I suspect that it is a beneficial side-effect.
We have a Wal-Mart and a Target in the same strip mall so it’s no problem to shop at either one. Probably four times out of five we go to Wal-Mart. In every department, Wally has better prices and selection (neither store carries groceries, and there’s a Lowe’s next door, so neither has a particularly big hardware section.)
I’ll give Target the edge on clothes, but I won’t buy anything better than everyday clothing at either one so that’s not a big deal.
Target does generally seems a little nicer, but both of them are basically serve-yourself, mass merchandise, one-step-better-than-warehouse stores, so that’s a distinction with no real difference.
Well, we are all entitled to our suspicions. Personally, I could care less whether the meat is treated with phosphates or not, as long as the label and the pricing reflect this and the meat’s flavor is reasonably good. Last time I purchased meat at Kroger, they did and it was. Phosphate-treated meat says that it is treated on the label (at least it does at Kroger) and is cheaper per pound than non-treated meat. It may not be as good as what you get from a decent butcher, but it’s certainly good enough for the price.
The nearest Target to where I live is hours’ away, in Tulsa Oklahoma. The next nearest is three hours drive away in Wichita. That’s how Wal-Mart survives in places like Kansas, at least.
We didn’t have a close Target until I was in high school (but a half hour away). Now there’s one in our town, since a few years after I graduated from college. I don’t think we had Wal Mart here until I was in high school.
Our town was centered around the K-Mart for most of my life. Until it went away when Wal Mart came
I’ve always felt that I can’t afford Target. I don’t actually shop at either one very often, but I am very cheap and feel like if I need underwear or a cutting board I am going to find the cheapest “this will do” version at Wal Mart.
The point that delphica makes about the cheaper product actually costing more in the long run is actually an economic phenomenon called uhm…something along the lines of “the cost of being poor.” If you only have $5 today and you need a polo shirt today, no way you can afford the $10 one.
And, being a fat chick, I will tell you that Target is really sorry when it comes to fat chick clothing. Their XXL is more like a Wal Mart Large. I would say the clothing at Target goes up to a women’s 20, max. I can always find something to wear at Wal Mart - no matter how cheap or ugly.
Really? Then Wal-Mart clothing must be huge, because I’ve always found that Target carries clothing that is one to two sizes larger than department store clothing. I can wear a girl’s size large easily, and usually have to find a women’s extra-small.
As for Wal-Mart, I’ve only been once and I never went back. I had heard the stories about it being redneck and trashy, but I was in a nice Southern California shopping center in a middle-class area. Inside: oh boy. Products strewn in the aisles, abandoned shopping carts blocking the lanes, and white trash with their bellies hanging out of their shirts (male and female). I couldn’t believe it, but the stereotypes were true!
That’s funny 'cause I live in Chicago and I have never found ANYTHING to be cheaper at Target. If it’s a brand name I can get it less at Wal-Mart or K-Mart.
And food Wal-Mart is easily the cheapest hands down. Every food item at Walmart is at least 50¢ if not more cheaper at Wal-Mart.
Walmart has always been a bottom-feeder place. Since they dropped their lowest prices advertising gimmick, they’ve regularly raised prices. Their grocery prices across the board are much higher than my local grocery store. Of course, once you’ve suckered people for years with “lower prices” (which they no longer have, if they ever did), the local Walmart customers (obviously not the brighest bulbs in town) have no idea they are getting screwed on basic foodstuffs and their general merchandise as well. (There are also reports Walmart has different price scales, depending upon the store and the neighborhood it’s located. In my unscientific research, the prices in a Walmart in a poorer neighborhood are higher than in a more affluent neighborhood.)
Also, our local Walmart deliberately misinterprets prices and does bait and switch. They must not get challenged very much because I see it every time I visit the store. The classic is a big sign near the merchandise with a specific price. When you take it to the checkout, it rings up at a higher price. We’ve caught them out several times, and every time, the clerk enters the (lower) sign price we tell them without checking with a manager for verification. They must be doing this, knowing the average shopper forgets the advertised (lower) price on the shelf is not the price that rings up on the register. (I’ve since talked with several clerks about this and all confirm my suspicion. They all give the same answer, “Yeah, we know but corporate says to do it anyway.”)
Nevertheless, Walmart is making a killing.
We don’t have any Target superstores, but I’ve been to them when I travel. Our local Targets have better merchandise, equivalent to better pricing than Walmart, and the stores all have a cleaner appearance. The prices are consistent, regardless of where the store is located.
The two remaining KMarts are in different towns, but located in the same type of lower income neighborhoods. Both have full shelves and few customers. Their prices are higher than Walmart. I suspect KMart is being run as a loss leader operation by its parent company.
We don’t shop Walmart for clothes. Sometimes Target. We can find better quality clothes at Old Navy, JC Penney and Kohls. Yup, Kohls. If you comparison shop, you can find Target/Walmart prices at Kohls, but the quality is far superior.
The next nearest is three hours drive away in Wichita. That’s how Wal-Mart survives in places like Kansas, at least.