Carman Fox

Target Canada giving up, closing all 133 stores

asma

Member
Oct 17, 2009
115
4
18
Personally I think target failed because it was not very inviting even though it was modeled identical to USA stores that have been around for decades, in Canada they always felt drabby such as they never looked open at nights and when you walked in it had no atmosphere that you were going to get a deal because the layout was always compared to Walmart and a smart businessman knew that the crossborder Target customer were already going to check them out but they are a small percentage compared to possible new non crossboarder Walmart shoppers that you are trying to sway into Target customers which would have to be the case to succeed as per example they hid the food section at the back which when you walked in nothing was there to make you buy something out of impulse and make you go in further looking for a deal,Starbucks up front not Macdonalds ,Starbuck customers don't need to go to Walmart and Walmart customers can't afford to go to Starbucks hence Starbucks in Target were never busy,but in the USA Targets they have all sort of deals at the front entrance of cheap fast foods from pizza huts to hot dogs like Costco hmmm they seem to do good in Canada my take anyhow,just sad to see them go + liked Zellers too, kinda reminded me of Walmart ,deals by the door,clothing + electronics at the back,bright lit up at night sound familiar!
 

Avery

Gentleman Horndog
Jul 7, 2003
4,789
19
38
Winnipeg
Personally I think target failed because it was not very inviting even though it was modeled identical to USA stores that have been around for decades, in Canada they always felt drabby such as they never looked open at nights and when you walked in it had no atmosphere that you were going to get a deal because the layout was always compared to Walmart and a smart businessman knew that the crossborder Target customer were already going to check them out but they are a small percentage compared to possible new non crossboarder Walmart shoppers that you are trying to sway into Target customers which would have to be the case to succeed as per example they hid the food section at the back which when you walked in nothing was there to make you buy something out of impulse and make you go in further looking for a deal,Starbucks up front not Macdonalds ,Starbuck customers don't need to go to Walmart and Walmart customers can't afford to go to Starbucks hence Starbucks in Target were never busy,but in the USA Targets they have all sort of deals at the front entrance of cheap fast foods from pizza huts to hot dogs like Costco hmmm they seem to do good in Canada my take anyhow,just sad to see them go + liked Zellers too, kinda reminded me of Walmart ,deals by the door,clothing + electronics at the back,bright lit up at night sound familiar!
A new record - 245 words in one sentence! :eek:
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,543
7
0
Calgary
Agreed 100%.

To add to the comment on the NDP .......... here in BC they are aggressively running a campaign to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That will definitely help business?

Cannot not ever figure out why socialists are always so stupid.
Thats the NDP for you...yes let's up the minimum wage to $15...yeah and everything else goes up 20% or more to pay for the wage slave increase.

It is a good thing that the NDP(Federally) wont be the Opposition after the next Federal election.It will be the Lieberals under Justine because of name recognition and the abscence of the Quebec protest vote.The Bloc will get a few more seats due to losses to the NDP and hopefully all of those idiot NDP MP's dont get to qualify for the solid gold MP pension plan.

I see the Conservatives getting a thin majority but a majority in Paliament is a majority...sure as hell cant see Canadians voting in Justine into being Prime Minister....who the hell wants a pot smoking drama teacher running this country?

SR
 

Sir_frixalot

Big Pink Steel
Nov 15, 2006
227
1
0
Calgs
Target Fails, End result: prices can go UP!
Oil drops, dollar drops, End result: retail prices can go UP! Fuel prices go down, travel gets cheaper!
Fuel drops, shipping drops, End result: retail prices should go down (don't hold your breath though)

What should you do? Take a road trip!
 

johnniejetpack

come fly with Johnnie....
Feb 6, 2008
1,876
166
63
Yea it's awesome shopping in the states if you can find the deals. With an 80 cent dollar the exchange always sucks up some of the savings. Still cheaper on some things however. Target missed the mark :doh:
 

hornygandalf

Active member
To add to the comment on the NDP .......... here in BC they are aggressively running a campaign to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That will definitely help business?
Yep! It indeed will help business. When Seattle raised their minimum wage, they experienced a boost to the economy and had the fastest rate of small business establishment in the US.
Raising the minimum wage helped the economy as it gave a lot of people money to spend. It was good for business. Paying people more than a subsistence level income actually helps the economy, and doesn't lead to high levels of unemployment... as is claimed by some.
Henry Ford realised that when he raised the wage for his factory workers way above the standard some 100 years ago, enabling his workers to truly become consumers.
 

hornygandalf

Active member
Socialists tend to think they have the majority of the working class, and to some extent maybe they do.........They get into power and spend all the money on social programs.
Eventually doubling back on their promises they can't possibly afford to keep....Still holding onto the impossible dream of unlimited funds coming from the very wallets of the people that voted for them.They then attack the wealthy ,who employ these people, or own the very businesses that support the foundation of the economy they are trying to manage.
They figure if your not a team player....You don't belong.

Maybe more people would vote for you....If you didn't treat us like assholes...Thats my analysis.
I would prefer money being redistributed to the working class than redistributed to companies and the wealthy, which seems to increasingly be the current state of affairs.
 
Jan 10, 2007
140
2
18
Yep! It indeed will help business. When Seattle raised their minimum wage, they experienced a boost to the economy and had the fastest rate of small business establishment in the US.
Raising the minimum wage helped the economy as it gave a lot of people money to spend. It was good for business. Paying people more than a subsistence level income actually helps the economy, and doesn't lead to high levels of unemployment... as is claimed by some.
Henry Ford realised that when he raised the wage for his factory workers way above the standard some 100 years ago, enabling his workers to truly become consumers.
Arhhh no its called inflation and small businesses will just employ less or give less hours to make up for the loss.

The only other alternative is to increase prices .... inflation.

Then everyone is back to square one except everything is now priced higher.

Sorry I just do not accept the socialist mumbo jumbo.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,491
8
38
on yer ignore list
i liked what target had to offer - until it was time to pay for it! :eek:

they simply misread what canadians were willing to pay for consumer goods
 

screwtape1963

Member
Sep 17, 2004
71
0
6
The question to ask is this:

Should society allow business to operate solely for the benefit of the business owners or should society expect business owners to provide value to society as a whole in return for being allowed to operate?

An example could be that of a hypothetical business owner owning 7 or 8 Tim Hortons and offering so low wages that he cannot entice sufficient local employees to work for him. He then petitions the government to be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers to run his restaurants at rock bottom wages. The restaurants provide no benefit to Canadian society, no employment, no tangible goods & no foreign exchange.

Should we facilitate such a business model that is a parasite on society for the benefit of one citizen? Or, by denying access to non-citizen workers does society force business to choose business models that support the broader society?

The larger problem is that somebody actually has to make real income in order to buy all the goods and services that business wants to sell, but wages have not been growing in line with the economy for decades. This has been facilitated by the central banks trying to stimulate the economy by reducing interest rates to essentially zero so that the lack of income growth has been offset by borrowing to continue the drive for growth.

But people can only carry so much debt before servicing the interest on it consumes any meager gains in income. So the economy stalls. At that point you have three options: hold the course and get stagnation (as seen in Japan for 20 odd years with actual deflation), raise interest rates and get a depression or inflate away the debt. Deflation is a business killer because the consumer attitude is "Why buy today when it will be cheaper tomorrow" and tomorrow never comes. Depression is a business killer because people just cannot buy, even if they wanted to borrow, banks are less likely to lend. Inflation isn't that bad for business because the consumer know that if I don't buy it today, it will cost more tomorrow and any debt I take on today will be paid with cheaper dollars tomorrow.

Right now, a bout of inflation with slowly rising interest is likely the least harmful way to get out of the hole that this latest round of Reaganomics has gotten us into.
The better question, in my opinion is this: Since when has it become the norm in a free and democratic society for citizens to have to ask "society" (i.e. "the government") for PERMISSION to do things?

So according to you, a business owner should only be ALLOWED to own and operate a business if he "provides value to society as a whole" rather than just working for himself?

Wow! ... Just ... Wow!
 

hornygandalf

Active member
The better question, in my opinion is this: Since when has it become the norm in a free and democratic society for citizens to have to ask "society" (i.e. "the government") for PERMISSION to do things?

So according to you, a business owner should only be ALLOWED to own and operate a business if he "provides value to society as a whole" rather than just working for himself?

Wow! ... Just ... Wow!
Go back and read Adam Smith and see what he wrote about business owners having a moral responsibility to society. He was very aware of the potential problems of capitalism when naked greed takes over (as we see in current society). He argued that along with their freedoms, business owners had a moral responsibility to society. This is the part of capitalism that appears to have been lost and forgotten. And it will be the downfall of Western civilisation as a result.
 
Jan 10, 2007
140
2
18
The question to ask is this:

Should society allow business to operate solely for the benefit of the business owners or should society expect business owners to provide value to society as a whole in return for being allowed to operate?

An example could be that of a hypothetical business owner owning 7 or 8 Tim Hortons and offering so low wages that he cannot entice sufficient local employees to work for him. He then petitions the government to be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers to run his restaurants at rock bottom wages. The restaurants provide no benefit to Canadian society, no employment, no tangible goods & no foreign exchange.

Should we facilitate such a business model that is a parasite on society for the benefit of one citizen? Or, by denying access to non-citizen workers does society force business to choose business models that support the broader society?

The larger problem is that somebody actually has to make real income in order to buy all the goods and services that business wants to sell, but wages have not been growing in line with the economy for decades. This has been facilitated by the central banks trying to stimulate the economy by reducing interest rates to essentially zero so that the lack of income growth has been offset by borrowing to continue the drive for growth.

But people can only carry so much debt before servicing the interest on it consumes any meager gains in income. So the economy stalls. At that point you have three options: hold the course and get stagnation (as seen in Japan for 20 odd years with actual deflation), raise interest rates and get a depression or inflate away the debt. Deflation is a business killer because the consumer attitude is "Why buy today when it will be cheaper tomorrow" and tomorrow never comes. Depression is a business killer because people just cannot buy, even if they wanted to borrow, banks are less likely to lend. Inflation isn't that bad for business because the consumer know that if I don't buy it today, it will cost more tomorrow and any debt I take on today will be paid with cheaper dollars tomorrow.

Right now, a bout of inflation with slowly rising interest is likely the least harmful way to get out of the hole that this latest round of Reaganomics has gotten us into.
"An example could be that of a hypothetical business owner owning 7 or 8 Tim Hortons and offering so low wages that he cannot entice sufficient local employees to work for him. He then petitions the government to be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers to run his restaurants at rock bottom wages. The restaurants provide no benefit to Canadian society, no employment, no tangible goods & no foreign exchange."

I know you are just using this as an example and maybe you have taken your points of contention to extremes but my reply would be:

1. I do not believe that any Canadian business could hire 100% temporary foreign workers. What about management?
2. Even if we take your scenario at face value how can you say it has no benefit to Canadian society. The company would have to pay corporate taxes on it profits. Collect GST on its sales. They would have to buy services and products from other Canadian business ie. food supplies, repairs, advertising, rents etc. Those other business would employ Canadians and they would have to buy services and products from other Canadian businesses, pay taxes etc etc.

"Should we facilitate such a business model that is a parasite on society for the benefit of one citizen? Or, by denying access to non-citizen workers does society force business to choose business models that support the broader society?"

Why does the government have to do this. If the vast majority of Canadians are of similar mind set to yourself then those business would simply fail as you and others who feel the same way can avoid doing business with those enterprises. Doesn't the consumer have the final say?

"The larger problem is that somebody actually has to make real income in order to buy all the goods and services that business wants to sell, but wages have not been growing in line with the economy for decades. This has been facilitated by the central banks trying to stimulate the economy by reducing interest rates to essentially zero so that the lack of income growth has been offset by borrowing to continue the drive for growth.

But people can only carry so much debt before servicing the interest on it consumes any meager gains in income. So the economy stalls. At that point you have three options: hold the course and get stagnation (as seen in Japan for 20 odd years with actual deflation), raise interest rates and get a depression or inflate away the debt. Deflation is a business killer because the consumer attitude is "Why buy today when it will be cheaper tomorrow" and tomorrow never comes. Depression is a business killer because people just cannot buy, even if they wanted to borrow, banks are less likely to lend. Inflation isn't that bad for business because the consumer know that if I don't buy it today, it will cost more tomorrow and any debt I take on today will be paid with cheaper dollars tomorrow."


Perhaps the real problem is:

1. Certain portions of our population are living beyond their means. They want to have the "American" dream and they are willing to go into debt to get it.
2. Certain portions of our population want to have everything without working for it. I think some of us are not interested in the more menial jobs.
3. Maybe we need to work harder if we don't have a skill set that pays more. I remember my father telling me that my grandfather worked a full time job in the daytime and then worked at the small family distribution business at night. My father also did the same thing. (Of course sometimes the story gets blown up like my father telling me he had to walk uphill both going to and coming back from school in -60 degree weather)
4. Maybe we should live somewhere less expensive. Vancouver and most of the lower mainland is extremely expensive to live in. Why not move to PG or some other parts of the country that have more reasonable cost of living?

Some points I do agree with you:

1. Limit foreign workers. Agree 100% lets get Canadian working first. Of course that means some of us will have to work menial jobs. And some will have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
2. I also think that all government capital expenditures should be with Canadian companies operating in Canada when ever possible. It really pissed me off to hear that our BC ferries were being built in Germany. So what if it is not the cheapest. By buying in Canada we get to train our workers in skilled trades, develop industries and get the spin off effects of taxes from the workers and taxes from other businesses. I believe that this offsets the additional costs, if any, of not going to the lowest offshore bidder.
3. Deflation is not a good thing.

However I disagree that we need to legislate an increase in wages.
 

booblover

Well-known member
Apr 13, 2008
2,442
649
113
The CEO collected up to $70 million for the two years of work!! 15 000+ employees get to split $70 million and this asshole gets $70 million for a complete failure of a job?? Where's the logic? The whole company should be closed and let small Mom and Pops open back up. They seemed to be able to survive without any business degrees etc before these fuck up's from university with their degrees got involved.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,491
8
38
on yer ignore list
to canuck33660:

i would say that gst, income taxes, etc. shouldn't count when judging a company's social contribution. simply because if the company is not providing the service, then competitors will be, and then the competitors will be paying those fees because the market demands those services. those are simply costs of doing business, and anybody doing the business is required by law to pay those costs

it's the extra contributions that are being discussed i beleive. like employee training, employee advancement, employee enrichment, pension contribution matching, rewarding employee loyalty, profit-sharing plans (or something like it), etc. but not necessarily raising the minimum wage - and certainly not the predatory practices of some of the 'fuck-the-canadian-employee' types of companies, especially those that mis-use the temporary foreign worker legislation
 

PoorGuy

Well-known member
May 11, 2002
1,004
62
48
47
Have not province
This is the last week of what is formerly known as Target Canada. There's barely anything left. However, there's still quite a few home decors (mats, mirrors, lamps, frames, towels, benches, etc) that SP's can spruce up their incall with at 70% to 90% off.
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,421
6,533
113
Westwood
They may be closing early because their landlords have found new tenants.

Some of these stores are on very valuable property.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts