The Real Reason Toys R Us Is Closing

[GreenScapularedHuman]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

 

contraception | ˌkäntrəˈsepSH(ə)n | noun

 the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization. 

what part of the textbook definition of contraception am I or you not comprehending?   Doesn't "contraception"  in effect, mean to terminate pregnancy?

It says in your definition, very first sentence, 'to prevent pregnancy'.

2 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

I also have a degree in science in addition to three other degrees. I had a college roommate on the pill who experienced what you say isn’t possible. It almost caused her suicide. 

I was under the impression you held some sort of degree in theology, if you are wanting to call that a science, I respectfully and strongly disagree... but if its something else please do enlighten me. But please explain why there is virtually no study that confirms this wild speculation that contraception causes abortion? Because the studies that have been done, and there have been more than a few, show the opposite.  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

3 hours ago, little2add said:

While bankruptcy is the official reason, it isn’t the only or perhaps even the biggest reason why Geoffrey the Giraffe is being sent to the big zoo in the sky: Debt. Competition from online retailers like Amazon, as well as cheaper big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Target. Yes, bad customer service, too. All of these are the most commonly cited reasons for the ultimate failure of Toys R Us. But, hidden within their press release on the bankruptcy is a reason rooted in cultural trends, the stuff that ultimately makes or breaks economic indicators:

The decrease of birthrates in countries where we operate could negatively affect our business. Most of our end-customers are newborns and children and, as a result, our revenue are dependent on the birthrates in countries where we operate. In recent years, many countries’ birthrates have dropped or stagnated as their population ages, and education and income levels increase. A continued and significant decline in the number of newborns and children in these countries could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

I can see why you don't want to source your article... its from a rather far right and sketchy organization. I found this exact text you provided, which you didn't even put in quotations to indicate that it is from an article, at these two locations word for word: https://pjmedia.com/parenting/real-reason-toys-r-us-closing-no-one-wants-talk-birthrates/ and https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-real-reason-toys-r-us-is-closing-that-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-birthr Which looking up both they have a score of 'mixed' factuality which indicates this isn't so much a journalistic website of repute. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/ and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/

[little2add]

23 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

why there is virtually no study that confirms this wild speculation that contraception causes abortion? Because the studies that have been done, and there have been more than a few, show the opposite. 

Poopoo

27 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

journalistic website of repute.

Yes,  that maybe true , so is “NRP.ORG”

Sorry I meant “NPR.ORG” NPR is pure propaganda

[GreenScapularedHuman]

8 minutes ago, little2add said:

Poopoo

 

[little2add]

Nonsense 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

15 minutes ago, little2add said:

Yes,  that maybe true , so is “NRP.ORG”

Sorry I meant “NPR.ORG” NPR is pure propaganda

NPR has a borderline center-left lean and has a high factuality rating. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/ Which isn't too far from the BBC's rating, though the BBC has the highst factuality rating of 'very high'.  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ So NO, NPR is NOT propaganda (or even pure propaganda) and yes NPR is a reputable journalistic source. Also I would note that it doesn't have one of these gems hiding in its closet (yes, the source you used posted this article): https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/11/23/obama-dropped-leaflets-warning-isis-airstrikes/

Edited March 23, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[CatherineM]

My first degree is a bachelor of science in agriculture. My major was forest genetics. I intended to pursue a masters in forest genetics but at the time, women weren’t given those spots in forestry. That’s why I went to law school instead. After my JD I received a BA in pastoral ministry and a Masters in Theology. 

I’ve had my fair share of science classes. I’m also not a party line spouting, not listening to reality kind of pro-lifer. I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I adopt damaged and broken kids no one want. I work with the severely mentally ill homeless. I’ve defended people on death row, all in keeping with the ideal of conception to natural death. 

I have never taken the pill. I’ve never needed to. I’ve never used any kind of contraception. The pill can cause the death of a living child with a soul. That’s all I need to know. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

43 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

The pill can cause the death of a living child with a soul. That’s all I need to know. 

I find it very odd that you say you have a background in science but yet you are so easy to say you know something you cannot demonstrate and in face of evidence to the contrary.

I mean unless it really is just because the the chance is more than 0.00%, even if it be less than 0.01%, and I assume you are aware (if you have that background) chance doesn't mean actuality so... just because its virtually impossible because its not absolutely impossible... you say it can.

I find that very extraordinarily unscientific...

[little2add]

1 hour ago, CatherineM said:

keeping with the ideal of conception to natural death

"I find that very extraordinarily scientific" and insightful.  

[GreenScapularedHuman]

8 minutes ago, little2add said:

"I find that very extraordinarily scientific" and insightful.  

Yeah. Science is ALL about the evidence and demonstrability. To sit back and so easily make claims without evidence and in spite of contrary evidence is very extraordinarily unscientific.

Suppose your doctor saw you... said "I believe you have cancer" And yo ask why? And the doctor said "I just believe its so." Which you then go out, get an MRI done, and come back with the results to show your doctor... saying "I've had a full MRI done and there is no sign of cancer." To which your doctor says 'well... I don't believe that. I mean the MRI could of missed something and there are so many benign kinds of growths in everyone. You have cancer. I know you have cancer."

You would walk away from this encounter thinking you had a good doctor? Or thinking correctly that this doctor was a quack? Or would you very disturbingly think 'well doc lets get this unnecessary surgery to remove cancer we both know I don't really have because you can't accept reality?'

And while that might seem a little bit far fetched... there are practical realities to contraception. Contraception lowers the rates of unplanned pregnancies (which is good for children and decreases rates of abortion). Even if you consider contraception morally wrong (unlike an overwhelming majority of Catholics) in view of the very traditional and very conservative doctrines of the Catholic Church surely you agree with the Catholic Church's position that contraception is less morally evil than abortion?

So this argument that contraception is abortion based on nothing and counter to the scientific/medical community could lead to less contraception usage, thus more unplanned pregnancies, and thus more abortions. There is a very real world consequence of this unscientific thinking that results in a greater moral evil.

[little2add]

29 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

t contraception is abortion based on nothing and counter to the scientific/medical

  My findings are based on scientific evidence and data,  prenatal research,  clinical observations  from the moment of birth to pre-adolescence 

 My training is not out of the book or college classroom, it’s from being a grandfather and father  

 Whether or not you choose to  acknowledge my insight of this matter and Expertise is relevant ...

 I would love to chat some more but I have to attend a birthday party for my three-year-old grandson  In a couple of hours , and have to get ready 

Edited March 23, 2018 by little2add

[little2add]

Charles Lazarus, who founded Toys "R" Us 70 years ago, died Thursday, a week after the company announced it will be forced to shut down its U.S. operations.

Lazarus, 94, no longer held a stake in the chain. He started the company in 1948 when he was 25, anticipating that the post-war baby boom would create demand for baby supplies and toys. He remained CEO until 1994. 

the baby boom (Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964) is long over, and so has the demand for baby supplies and toys.  

it’s just a matter of time before the trends that toppled the troubled toy maker put the squeeze on businesses that cater to consumers of all ages.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

4 hours ago, little2add said:

Charles Lazarus, who founded Toys "R" Us 70 years ago, died Thursday, a week after the company announced it will be forced to shut down its U.S. operations.

Lazarus, 94, no longer held a stake in the chain. He started the company in 1948 when he was 25, anticipating that the post-war baby boom would create demand for baby supplies and toys. He remained CEO until 1994. 

the baby boom (Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964) is long over, and so has the demand for baby supplies and toys.  

it’s just a matter of time before the trends that toppled the troubled toy maker put the squeeze on businesses that cater to consumers of all ages.

This is where I disagree again, if we are talking about just the number of live births the United States birth rate is still well above the pre-WWII rate.

And a second chart that extends the years out a little bit.

Edited March 24, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[little2add]

did you factor in the population, then and now?  the population of the US nearly doubled from 1945 to 1961

The U.S. birthrate exploded after World War II. From 1944 to 1961, more than 65 million children were born in the United States

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 minute ago, little2add said:

did you factor in the population, then and now?  the population of the US nearly doubled from 1945 to 1961

The U.S. birthrate exploded after World War II. From 1944 to 1961, more than 65 million children were born in the United States

This was done by the American CDC... I can tell you that if you checked my link previously you would know that the idea that the America is at an all-time low birth rate is really a stretch of the numbers... but if we are talking about purely raw births (not births as a percentage proportion of the population) birth rates are about the same.

Which the slight decreases in overall American birthrate has a lot more to do with persons under 25 having less births, in particular teens.

[little2add]

 106.20 (1950) minus 62.90 (2014)= 33.3 per 1000 drop according to the CDC/NCHS

 

 

 

The fertility rate in the US, between 1950 and  2014 decreased significantly from 106.2/per thousand  down to 62.9/per thousand.   a drop of  33.3/per Thousand.   

 

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

49 minutes ago, little2add said:

 106.20 (1950) minus 62.90 (2014)= 33.3 per 1000 drop according to the CDC/NCHS

 

 

 

The fertility rate in the US, between 1950 and  2014 decreased significantly from 106.2/per thousand  down to 62.9/per thousand.   a drop of  33.3/per Thousand.   

 

 

If you took the time to read what I wrote... you could answer yourself. But lets try again...

The rate is based on a proportion of the population. Lets use another comparison to explain just a wee bit. The United States on gross GDP (PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) (meaning that it is adjusted for parity purchasing power, oversimplified meaning that differences in local markets and exchanges are accounted for) is currently holding place at the number two or three spot internationally depending on if you count the European Union proper. The gross GDP (PPP) for the United States is roughly 18.5-19.9 trillion dollars whereas China is roughly 21.4-23.1 trillion dollars whereas the European Union is 19.7-20.8 trillion dollars.  Thigh might give you the impression that China has a comparable if not surpassing economy/market compared to the United States and/or the European Union but that would be incorrect... Looking at countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (or per person) shows a different story... The United States ranges from 57-59 thousand dollars per capita (9th-12th) whereas the European Union (somewhere in the 20s-30s in ranking) has at an estimation 36-41 thousand per capita and China has a 15-16 thousand dollars per capita putting them well behind nations like Iraq.

So if you look at GDP (PPP) China is king of the hill whereas not really...

So how does this rate? The American population has seen life expectancy and overall population increase...


So what has happened since the 1950s isn't a sudden decline in births but rather proportional to the population people are simply not speeding up with the aging and growing population.

So in the same way that China's GDP (PPP) is a bit deceptive is the same way that the birth rate proportionally is a bit deceptive as you provide it... because there hasn't really been a decrease in births in the United States because its not taking into account that older generations and younger generations are having less children, the first because they had children already and aren't really in a position to keep having children, the second because of effective unplanned pregnancy prevention.

So this is why I concluded your argument that you deposited is false. Because the amount of children in America when Toys-R-Us was founded is roughly still in America today. So no... lack of children didn't cause the failure of Toys-R-Us...

Addendum: Maybe to put it even more simply... lets just use math... The population of the US in the 1950s was about 150 million and the US population today is about 300 million... so its about doubled. And just by coincidence (not coincidence) the birth rate per population dropped by about half.

To use an example of how this might look... suppose you have one hundred pennies every day to give to your living descendants... you start out with only a few... suppose you have five so they each get twenty cents. But then they have three children each children... so lets say you give out to 15 children and grand children so that drops to about six cents each. The reason isn't because you have less money but rather because its disturbing to a larger number.

[little2add]

The present overall fertility rate puts the United States population below replacement level, but that does not mean the population is declining.

In 2016, the fertility rate in the United States was the lowest it has ever been.

There were 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down 1 percent from 2015. There were 3,941,109 babies born in 2016.

In an analysis issued by the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers report that birthrates declined to record lows in all groups under age 30. Among women ages 20 to 24, the decline was 4 percent. For women 25 to 29, the rate fell 2 percent.

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

29 minutes ago, little2add said:

The present overall fertility rate puts the United States population below replacement level, but that does not mean the population is declining.

In 2016, the fertility rate in the United States was the lowest it has ever been.

There were 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down 1 percent from 2015. There were 3,941,109 babies born in 2016.

In an analysis issued by the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers report that birthrates declined to record lows in all groups under age 30. Among women ages 20 to 24, the decline was 4 percent. For women 25 to 29, the rate fell 2 percent.

So basically... we are moving the goal posts from there are less children to the birth rate has decreased...

What does that have to do with Toys-R-Us or your claim that there just werent enough children?

[little2add]

I see economics isn't your strong point, is it?  

please see the Washington post story linked below.  according to Toys R Us, which also operates the Babies R Us stores annual report, its income is linked to birthrates.  The change in the number of children born in the previous 12 years (and thus sitting right within the Toys R Us demographic), tracks closely with the company’s changing annual revenue.

Toys R Us’s baby problem is everybody’s baby problem LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/15/toys-r-uss-baby-problem-is-everybodys-baby-problem/?utm_term=.67d8d79b9e69

[GreenScapularedHuman]

21 minutes ago, little2add said:

I see economics isn't your strong point, is it?  

please see the Washington post story linked below.  according to Toys R Us, which also operates the Babies R Us stores annual report, its income is linked to birthrates.  The change in the number of children born in the previous 12 years (and thus sitting right within the Toys R Us demographic), tracks closely with the company’s changing annual revenue.

Toys R Us’s baby problem is everybody’s baby problem LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/15/toys-r-uss-baby-problem-is-everybodys-baby-problem/?utm_term=.67d8d79b9e69

One, we are discussing demographics NOT economics, sure there is overlap/relationships between the but come on lets not conflate the two... and if we are going to conflate lets call it what it really is which is 'socioeconomics'. Two, the rationale seems still pretty specious to me and based purely on the self-analysis of Toys-R-Us which I would just on the fact that they went under would count as pretty dodgy. The article you cite correctly points out 'There are, to be sure, numerous other factors at play. The same economic forces that encourage people to have children may also encourage them to splurge on toys, for example." However the article does point out a perhaps valid observation, more children just statistically means more profits, so the less more children the are the less their profits are, which if that was their only equation for running Toys-R-Us is hard to imagine how that business model failed... (I'm being sarcastic). Three, the article doesn't really address the fact that there are about the same amount of children as there was decades ago in America... but they do mention economic factors and less interested children played more of a factor...

So yes... I can see how more kids equals more profits by just sheer numbers... it also ignores economic realities (like decreasing disposable income and recessions), failure to adapt to the markets/demands of their choice demographics, failure to compete with competitors, and failure to suppress prices.

But by no means does this mean that there are less kids today than there was before... or was this the reason Toys-R-Us failed... to put it simply... 'There are to be sure numerous other factors at play.' I mean lets be really really honest, even if there were less kids... that is no reason for Toys-R-Us to go belly-up.

Edited March 25, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman