2007-03-16 03:05:52 · 5 answers · asked by momloveashlee 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
It will not hurt poor people. Usually it was the poorer person who laid away too much, and then lost their deposits because they couldn't afford their purchases.
Poor people are smart enough to save for something they want. It will slow down impulse shopping as well.
2007-03-16 04:18:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its simple, in business there is a principle that applies to this situation.
It is know as " the cost of goods held." While Wal-Mart provided a service that I have used. Every item held in Lay-Away, has/had an associated cost. And in most cases the cost outweighed the profit.
For example, any item damaged while in "lay-away" must be replaced at cost by the retailer. Each item was also a part of inventory for every audit and those items had to be accounted for. Imagine the cost in labor and time to secure and control those items. As well as restocking unclaimed items.
The concept is helpful but, the means do not justify the ends.
Lastly, it will not hurt the poor in any manner. If one is truly poor--picking up those items on the appointed date is more problematic than not having a delayed debt.
2007-03-16 03:26:07 · answer #2 · answered by FunkyMcNasty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see how you interpet that it hurts poor people. It cost extra to put stuff in layaway with fees. Just save the money up and then go buy the stuff. What's the difference?
2007-03-16 04:19:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, I never used it anyway, Had to wait in line too long. Not worth my time. Just save your money and pay all at one time, much quicker.
2007-03-16 03:14:21 · answer #4 · answered by All Natural Honey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They claimed that not enough people were using it...though I think people weren't using it because you could never get any help.
2007-03-16 03:09:47 · answer #5 · answered by candlefusion 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋