Walmart and the common good
There is nothing better for ending poverty in the long-term than creating sustainable employment opportunities. Walmart is one of the world’s best at creating jobs. In 2009, the world’s second largest corporation reported nearly $400 billion in sales worldwide, according to its 2009 Sustainability Report. The company employs more than 2.1 million people worldwide, including more than 1.4 million in the United States. In its international operations, Walmart creates employment opportunities in situations where there are not very good employment alternatives. In 2008 alone, the retailer created approximately 63,000 jobs around the world including more than 33,000 stateside. Despite the social good of job creation, Walmart finds itself the object of attack for not doing more.
But creating jobs is one of the most significant ways companies can contribute to the common good because employment is the platform for wealth creation and allows people to meet their needs. Companies like Walmart are not morally obligated to do anything philanthropic outside of normal business operations, like give money to charities, because the company already meets the demands of justice by creating sustainable employment opportunities, and Walmart does so for 2.1 million people.
Walmart says it is primarily beholden to its customers, shareholders, and employees, and it does so by focusing on sustainability instead of random “social responsibility” activities. Sustainability allows the company to keep profitability as its primary objective while recognizing that in doing so the company provides customers what they need at a low price. Walmart’s sustainability goals include using 100 percent renewable energy, creating zero waste, and selling products that sustain natural resources. These measures are not out of some moral duty. On the contrary, they make Walmart more profitable. Walmart CEO Mike Duke explains:
“The fact is sustainability at Walmart isn’t a stand-alone issue that’s separate from or unrelated to our business. It’s not an abstract or philanthropic program. We don’t even see it as corporate social responsibility. Sustainability is built into our business. It’s completely aligned with our model, our mission and our culture. Simply put, sustainability is built into our business because it’s so good for our business. Sustainability helps us deliver on our Every Day Low Price business model. Using more renewable energy, reducing waste and selling sustainable products helps us take costs out of the system.”
Walmart is so serious about sustainability that it is now being criticized for being too sustainable and green. In the end, most Walmart customers don’t care about Walmart’s contribution to the common good through job creation and sustainability but simply enjoy purchasing products at low prices, especially at Christmas!

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top49 Comments to “Walmart and the common good”
I think that what galls Mr. Lurie (the critic) is the fact that Walmart is able to do what they are doing without the help of the government and groups like Mr. Lurie’s; therefore, no cogent argument can be made for having to CONTROL Walmart.
Report comment to moderator
Every December, the Hendersonville Lions Club has a dinner for the VIP (visually impaired persons) in our community. WalMart always provides us with $50.00 gift cards to give the VIP’s for presents. That’s about $1000.
It’s a good thing.
It gives WalMart good advertising, community service and the cards are spent there, with something added, I suspect.
It’s good for the Lions, we have a gift to give the attendees.
And, of course, they get a gift card.
Report comment to moderator
I still find it amazing how the NYC area has no WalMart. WalMart jobs arent minimum wage. Entry jobs even when they pay lower are often transitory temp jobs folks take while en route to something better and more long term.
But the unions and political poohbahs up there said “Nope”.
No to WalMart despite all the folks who no doubt would love to work there.
As Perot used to say “It’s just sad.”
Report comment to moderator
If I didnt know better I’d swear this essay above was by Tokarev and not Anthony Bradley
Report comment to moderator
Why is Home Depot or Lowes different than WalMart?
Report comment to moderator
Exactly what I have said about WalMart, while many slam them–they provide lots of jobs. When people boycott WalMart it only hurts the employees.
Report comment to moderator
I live in a small, isolated town, but we DO have a WalMart and a Home Depot. We can go to Eureka, CA, 78 miles or Medford, OR, 130 miles, for anything else.
Report comment to moderator
Bob (#7),
I very respectfully submit that if your “small, isolated town” has both a Home Depot and a Walmart, then it is hardly what many of us would call isolated.
Report comment to moderator
#1
Slam Dunk!!!
If the libs don’t control it, to them — IT’S EVIL!!!!
Report comment to moderator
I’m currently not the biggest fan of shopping at Walmart, but that’s only because Target is closer to our house (about 4-5 blocks away), and shopping at Walmart on Long Island is like fighting Christmas lines all year round. Well, shopping in any store can feel busy year round on Long Island, especially when you’re not originally from here.
When we lived in a small town in Southern Illinois and Walmart was the only big store in town, I really enjoyed shopping at Walmart.
Good for them for keeping their prices low by not letting employees unionize. Unions have made things very expensive, because the workers/employees get paid more, and they are probably to blame for so many things being outsourced outside of the US.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing better for ending poverty in the long-term than creating sustainable employment opportunities. Walmart is one of the world’s best at creating jobs.
Jobs yes but are they long term sustainable jobs?? Can Walmart jobs sustain a middle class?
In its international operations, Walmart creates employment opportunities in situations where there are not very good employment alternatives.
In China, India and Central America maybe but they did not succeed in Europe other than the UK. So yes they provide employment but they can’t match the employment standards in the EU.
because employment is the platform for wealth creation and allows people to meet their needs.
Only if they pay well enough
Report comment to moderator
#10
Good for them for keeping their prices low by not letting employees unionize. Unions have made things very expensive, because the workers/employees get paid more, and they are probably to blame for so many things being outsourced outside of the US.
They outsource because you the consumer want lower prices no matter the consquences. Hence, unions are only too expensive because of consumer demand.
Many other retaillers can keep pace with Walmart yet are unionized so I hardly think that labour costs are the entire difference.
Report comment to moderator
The success of Walmart depends on a cheap source of labour not only for suppliers but also for their retail stores. Hence they can suceed in India, China, Central America but not the EU. Their success in UK and US illustrates the difference between Anglo-Saxon econmies and EU standards.
As for Canada — its a constant battle betweeen the unions and the retailer. similar to Canada itself a constant battle to define itself as either a EU style social democracy or an Anglo-Saxon economy.
Report comment to moderator
Ha, silly HRW.
Walmart failed in Germany, mainly because it failed to do its research and put those with German experience in charge.
This is also why they did better in the UK. UK doesnt have any different of a labor pool than Germany, but they speak english.
Germany’s retail market was cramped and stagnate. Walmart unlike names like IKEA and Aldi and Metro all offer a portion of retail that none of their competitors can match.
Walmart failed, because it failed to do what it does so well in America, understand the market and cater to the markets needs. It has ZERO to do with labor costs.
A solid paper is here:
http://www.iwim.uni-bremen.de/publikationen/pdf/w024.pdf
Report comment to moderator
It’s alot like when Sega tried to drop the Dreamcast touting online gaming from a console. They failed to understand that the market wasnt ready for it, nor did they make any attractive reason to partake.
Report comment to moderator
The opening abstract of your link clearly summarizes Walmart’s problems;
due to an incredible degree of ignorance of the specific features of the extremely competitive German retail market. Moreover, instead of attracting consumers with an innovative approach to retailing, as it has done in the USA, in Germany the company does not seem to be able to offer customers any compelling value proposition in comparison with its local competitors.
it failed because it couldn’t apply the model they used elsewhere — including cheap labour costs — in Germany. And unable to be flexible or allow for independent thinking in lower management.
In its original foray into the Cdn market, it sent US lawyers to fight union drives — they promptly broke the labour code and some stores were temporary unionized. Since then they have employed the same techniques as McDs when unionization occurs, they close the shop.
Report comment to moderator
Are some people forgetting that many people need the kind of jobs that Wal-Mart provides.
What about a retired person who wants a little extra money?
What about a college student who can only work part-time?
What about an untrained mother who just wants a bit of extra cash for her family?
What about a high school or college drop-out trying to break into the world of the employed?
People in those categories can’t exactly get top level jobs in the corporate world.
Report comment to moderator
11. If a person wants to make a career of Wal-Mart there are management jobs, buyer jobs, specialty jobs. Or you can learn a trade like butcher, florist, cake decorating how to run a business and start your own company. I started out in retail and at no time did it occur to me that I was going to make enough money to comfortably raise a family stocking shelves or running a cash resister my entire life. Before you can get more from a business you need to give more.
Report comment to moderator
“So yes they provide employment but they can’t match the employment standards in the EU.”
Huh… and can the EU still match their own employment standards?
Report comment to moderator
MIM
Yes
Report comment to moderator
“it failed because it couldn’t apply the model they used elsewhere — including cheap labour costs — in Germany”
Where was that in the abstract?
Their problems with labor cost were that they hired too many greeters as an example…Germans dont care.
The other problem with low cost, is that all the other businesses could match them without a problem.
It was not a “lack” of cheap labor. If anything it was too much labor…
Report comment to moderator
Exactaly — too much labour costs
The feature that allows Walmart to stand apart in the America is its lower labour costs. Target can employ much of the same supply techniques as Walmart but has slightly higher prices in some instances because they pay their workers more. In Germany they didn’t have that advantage — all retail employees are unionized and pay roughly the same amount, so Walmart couldn’t rely on cheap labour to give it an advantage. In other words, Walmart is no longer a revolutionary retailer (which may have been true 20 years ago) — its just a cheapskate boss.
A side note on the greeters; you would think they would learn from their Cdn experience — stores rarely employ greeters here. Initially they followed the American model but they discovered it set the shoppers ill at ease and they couldn’t find staff willing to do it. They also couldn’t find staff willing to show up early for team building. As a multinational retailer, you would thing they would be more aware of slight cultural differences.
Report comment to moderator
22. Having compared prices between Target and Wal-Mart there are only a few cents difference where they sell the same thing. Target however seems to sell higher end stuff.
Report comment to moderator
KBells is right. My daughter was working at Target when Walmart moved into a town near us. She applied to Walmart, because she would have been making more than she did at Target, even though she had been working at Target for a couple of years. She did not get hired at Target.
I know some others who lost jobs with benefits, who also went to work for Walmart to get the insurance coverage. It made a big difference.
I used to work in a store similar to Target and Walmart. I was part of a union, although I was in high school and college and usually worked part time, except in the summers or school vacations. Even with a union, one needed to add up every paycheck or we might be short. That business is now defunct.
I have seen bad managers in both Target and Walmart.
Not everyone needs a living wage job. I just don’t understand why that seems to be ignored in some people’s thinking. Some would rather take less and have the flexibility or the part-time job. Some want a job where they don’t have to think much or go to school for years to get it. Some a teens whose money is just for their own fun money.
Many of these people also don’t need insurance, BTW. My daughter’s were under our insurance until they finished college. For them to have another insurance company would have just increased our own hassles about getting things paid. I found this is true of some who have spouses with insurance plans.
It would be interesting to investigate why insurances are one area where they are allowed to collect from both people in a family (or more) but if it comes to paying only one company pays.
But that is another subject.
Every employer should pay a just wage before God. All wages do not have to be able to support a family.
Report comment to moderator
According to this Wal-Mart pays more on some jobs.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Target_Corporation/Hourly_Rate
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc/Hourly_Rate
Report comment to moderator
“In Germany they didn’t have that advantage — all retail employees are unionized and pay roughly the same amount, so Walmart couldn’t rely on cheap labour to give it an advantage.”
It wouldnt have mattered if they did is the point. Hourly wage wasnt the problem. Unionized wasnt the problem.
This is clearly evident because despite paying more per hour, the other German retailers could match Walmart..and still profit.
Target is no different than walmart. It’s just the Apple equivelent. They run a high end PR campaign and promote their “upscale” while trashing the competition. Meanwhile, they buy the same “crap” to sell to you (check the labels), and offer the same wages. In other words, its a pretty picture painted, but its the same parts on the inside.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13508
Cost-co is mostly nonunionized and they start a little higher in wage. But being a bulk store like Sam’s may be why they can keep other costs low enough to do so.
Report comment to moderator
“Not everyone needs a living wage job. I just don’t understand
why that seems to be ignored in some people’s thinking.”
Aye, I personaly think having lots of part time jobs is quite helpful. There is no reason to pay manager wage to stock boys…its just sillyness. If you wanna move up, work harder, apply, and even apply elsewhere.
Develop leadership, management, and experience skills. Walmart, Target, etc are great places to get started.
Report comment to moderator
27. Exactly it’s like people expect to automatically move up in the world without learning anything new, improving their skills or contributing anything but a warm body to the company. The key is to make the company need you.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that there is a “market” for non-living wage jobs for students, etc. However, that’s not Bradley’s claim. He claims Walmart creates sustainable jobs ie jobs that one can sustain a living with. KI, Thorn, and kbells appear to have agreed with my assertion that Walmart does not create sustainable jobs.
t wouldnt have mattered if they did is the point. Hourly wage wasnt the problem. Unionized wasnt the problem. This is clearly evident because despite paying more per hour, the other German retailers could match Walmart..and still profit.
So what went wrong
As for Target, my comments were based on my knowledge of Zellers ( a Canadian company owned by Target and offering Walmart like products). Its employees are significantly better compensated.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, according to the site I posted a department manager can make almost as much as I was making when I quit my job four years ago. This is a sustainable living for a double income family, a single person or a family who know how to be thrifty, unless by sustainable you mean a four bedroom house and a new care every year. If you want that you might want to look at another line of work.
Report comment to moderator
That should be “new Car every year”.
Report comment to moderator
kbells — all of you stated that some jobs do not have to be a living wage — ie part time retail, I agree. But that’s not Bradley’s claim — he thinks Walmart jobs are sustainable. Since we both agree the part time retail clerk/sales associate is not sustainable we are left with retail manager and pharmacy assistant. The difficulty we have with your links is they are median rates — geography must vary — for these wages would barely sustain a single person where I live.
Full time at $12/hr would equal $1920 a month gross. With payroll deductions, we might have $1650/mo. On the expense side of the ledger, minimum of $800 plus utilities for an apartment. If you shared an apartment or rental home, your share would be $450 plus utilities. Since most Walmarts are located in box malls away from public transport — you need a car. Car insurance is $150/mo for a 6 year old car. Telephone and internet would be $100. Gas would be approx $50/week. Food would be $50 to $75 per week. These are minimum cost. If you’re not sharing an apartment, you will have very little left over. Add car payments, gifts, etc and there’s definitely nothing left — Walmart retail management is not a sustainable wage.
BTW — $10/hr is minimum wage where I live. Unskilled laborers rarely get out of bed for anything below $15/hr. Educational assitants make $23/hr and a pharmacists makes at least $35/hr. You really don’t want to know what a teacher makes.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I was making $13 an hour before I quit my last job. It was the most I had ever made and I ate well, had a roof over my head, a car that worked and clothes on my back.
Report comment to moderator
Many if the Unskilled laborers got out of bed more often they would learn a skill.
Report comment to moderator
I do agree that where one lives makes a big difference in how far one’s wage goes. It also usually affects what one is paid.
I am curious as to whether or not you think that all the other stores in the same category as Walmart have sustainable jobs, HRW?
Report comment to moderator
A sustainable wage partly depends on how well a person/family budgets that income. I know a family with five children; the wife doesn’t work and the husband works a bit more than 40 hours a week at $10/hour. They get no government help of any form. Most families couldn’t “make it” on that, but then, I hear families making three times that much and thinking they can’t survive on their income. It really depends on what you do with it.
Wal-Mart doesn’t need to be able to pay enough to support a large family on one income; that isn’t their place in the social framework. If they double their employees’ wages, not only will they pay employees more than they are actually “worth,” but their prices will go up and they’ll lose customers. That’s a lose-lose scenario, as wonderful as doubled wages sound to idealists. Pay employees what you can afford to pay them, and if they need more, then they can get a second job or quit.
BTW, the laws requiring overtime pay, or certain benefits at certain numbers of hours, are quite hard on part-time workers, since they pretty much guarantee they won’t be able to get more hours if they want to work more hours. I experienced that with my own entry-level first two jobs; I’d have willingly worked a few more hours a week, but couldn’t because of overtime laws. I didn’t want the hassle of a second job, so I stayed at my one job that didn’t quite pay enough, though I was frugal and therefore managed to pay the bills.
Report comment to moderator
Wal-Mart doesn’t need to be able to pay enough to support a large family on one income; that isn’t their place in the social framework.
To a certain degree, I agree. However, management jobs should support a family (what’s a large family — 3 kids, 4?,5?) Again, Bradley’s point was that Walmart provides sustainable jobs and he’s wrong. And most of the commentators have more or less admitted that not all Walmart jobs can be considered sustainable.
I am curious as to whether or not you think that all the other stores in the same category as Walmart have sustainable jobs, HRW?
full time employment as a cashier, clerk, etc in most unionized grocery or department stores do provide sustainable jobs in my area. Cashiers make about $18/hr plus some benefits. This in part motivates countless unionization drives at Walmart stores. Walmart counters with intimidation, having very few full time staff, and promoting turnover.
; I’d have willingly worked a few more hours a week, but couldn’t because of overtime laws
No, you couldn’t because your employer deliberately tried to avoid paying you a fair wage and avoid responsibilities a democratically elected gov’t had decided were part of the price of being a corporation in today’s society.
Pay employees what you can afford to pay them,
the fact is Walmart can pay their employees more and still be in business as their profits demonstrate.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I said, “I’d have willingly worked a few more hours a week, but couldn’t because of overtime laws.”
You countered, “No, you couldn’t because your employer deliberately tried to avoid paying you a fair wage and avoid responsibilities a democratically elected gov’t had decided were part of the price of being a corporation in today’s society.”
No, not really. I was 20 years old with limited job experience (less than two years of part-time work at McDonald’s), few job skills, and very few social skills. I was an entry-level employee and was fairly being paid an entry-level wage (about 20% about minimum wage). On that wage, my sister and I shared an apartment and I saved some money in the bank. In other words, by world standards, they paid me a wage that allowed me a high standard of living (a comfortable though small apartment, a used car, all my basic necessities). I also had health insurance, paid holidays, sick time, and vacation time. So they didn’t pay me high wages, but they paid me enough to live on with a little bit left over.
I was young and healthy and could have comfortably worked an extra five to ten hours per week for a little more money to put aside for college, but I was worth four dollars an hour to my company; I wasn’t worth six. So I rarely got any overtime pay. If I could legally have worked a few more hours for that same four dollars an hour, it would have benefitted both my employer and me, but I wasn’t allowed to make such a contract, because the government had decided I couldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, if all salaries go up than all prices will go up which will mean that the new salaries will soon be “unsustainable” and have to go up again which will drive prices up and round and round and round we go.
Report comment to moderator
#37
“No, you couldn’t because your employer deliberately tried to avoid paying you a fair wage and avoid responsibilities a democratically elected gov’t had decided were part of the price of being a corporation in today’s society.”
#38
“—-because the government had decided I couldn’t.”
Interesting!! Two opposing views of the same facts.
FTR, I tend to side with the latter, in that govt has/is involved with that which is none of their concern at this level; questionably at any level!!!
But then, that’s what gov’ts do best, is it not??
Report comment to moderator
kbells
you are assuming there is no room for Walmart to absorb additional labour costs. Their profits demonstrate otherwise. Competitors demonstrate that it is possible to have a different business model in regards to labour costs and still be competitive.
Freedom/Cheryl
Democratically elective gov’ts have decided on a 36 to 44 hour week as the standard labour practice. Recognizing the need for flexibility, they have developed the concept of overtime as a standard labour practice. Companies frequently seek to evade their responsibilities under these conditions by hiring more part time workers or structuring working hours differently. In this situation, we have an example where democracy and capitalism clash and in fact this situation is representative of the constant dance between the people’s representatives and the demands of capital.
Report comment to moderator
41. Right. That worked out well for the U.S. Auto industry not to mention Europe. The labors get greedy. Nothing is ever enough. Soon it’s just not worth it. Not to mention there is no incentive for laborers to start their own business. Why go through the stress of being the boss when you can make just as much doing the same thing year after year.
Report comment to moderator
#41
“Democratically elective gov’ts have decided on a 36 to 44 hour week as the standard labour practice. Recognizing the need for flexibility, they have developed the concept of overtime as a standard labour practice.
And they could have just as well decided that this should be a 10-15 hour work week, or a 48 to 60 hour WW. Point is that gov’t is engaging in stuff that is not constitutionally their province – si??
“Companies frequently seek to evade their responsibilities under these conditions by hiring more part time workers or structuring working hours differently.
IOW, just using the LOOPHOLES that this same gov’t built into the system. Or maybe the added labor cost is not offset by the added “production” necessitating some o’time.
“In this situation, we have an example where democracy and capitalism clash and in fact this situation is representative of the constant dance between the people’s representatives and the demands of capital.”
Obviously this problem is a lot deeper than will ever be discussed here, BUT, IMHO, the less – LESS – govt gets involved in commerce, (or education, et al) the better it will flow for all but the lazy, arrogant, greedy, and liberals; regardless of the letter (R or D) after their name!
Report comment to moderator
” He claims Walmart creates sustainable jobs ie jobs that one can sustain a living with. KI, Thorn, and kbells appear to have agreed with my assertion that Walmart does not create sustainable jobs.”
Of course it creates sustainable jobs…is every job at walmart, entry level?
I dont think so. And no it shouldnt be limited to students either. Many go through down periods or were a failure of this lovely school system. Getting experience can far outweigh a jeopardy knowledge.
“So what went wrong”
Do you teach your kids without reading the material first? Do you read an entire post, or the links suggested? Because that question was already answered.
“As for Target, my comments were based on my knowledge of Zellers”
So you assumed..good job.
Report comment to moderator
41. Right. That worked out well for the U.S. Auto industry not to mention Europe. The labors get greedy. Nothing is ever enough. Soon it’s just not worth it. Not to mention there is no incentive for laborers to start their own business. Why go through the stress of being the boss when you can make just as much doing the same thing year after year.
The auto industry made several errors of management. Management made contractual obligations they later didn’t budget for. In part, its not their mistake entirely for it was impossible to foresee the rise in health insurance costs and its the cost of retiree insurance benefits which was the main downfall. The union fulfilled their obligations to its members but getting the best possible contract whereas the management failed to plan ahead to meet the contractual obligations they agreed to.
The US auto industry also became too reliant on the SUV market. During a temporary run of cheap oil, this was an easy profit maker but showed very little management long term planning.
Not everyone is inclined to start their own business and not everyone should. The economy does need a supply of labour and there’s nothing wrong with labour acting together to achieve the best possible contract for their labour.
Report comment to moderator
And they could have just as well decided that this should be a 10-15 hour work week, or a 48 to 60 hour WW. Point is that gov’t is engaging in stuff that is not constitutionally their province – si??
reductio ad absurdum arguments have on problem — they are absurd. the 40 hour work week was built on the common sense assumption that approx eight hours of labour was a “normal” work period. And in fact was more or less a standardization of farmer’s sunrise – sunset hours.
the less – LESS – govt gets involved in commerce, (or education, et al) the better it will flow for all but the lazy, arrogant, greedy, and liberals; regardless of the letter (R or D) after their name!
an unprovable assumption — merely an ideological assertion which doesn’t allow for practical thinking. In the past, gov’t has almost always been involved — mercantilism is responsible for the European exploration era, the technological advances in the post WWII were fueled by the military-industry complex. In both cases, commerce was heavily influenced by gov’t. The almost doubliing of life expectancy in the early 20th Century is due almost entirely to the establishment of public health departments throughout the western world — with public utilities — clean water, sewage treatment, etc providing the necessary structure to public health.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, not every job is sustainable and maybe some jobs are sustainable depending on local expenses and personal circumstances. However, thats not Bradley’s point — he lauds Walmart for providing sustainable jobs — the truth is not all their jobs are sustainable and the only place they’ve been able to create jobs are low wage countries and the UK/US.
Because that question was already answered.
not very well
So you assumed..good job.
its a fairly safe assumption since they are the same corporation and both are mostly unionized. Similarly, I assume Walmart Canada isn’t much different than Walmart USA. Its a fairly safe assumption and one I have to make.
Report comment to moderator
The statistics I have seen showed that when Walmart comes into an area the average wage goes down a little, but the average cost of living goes down a little more due to lower prices. This makes an average net gain in standard of living for those in the area.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the word sustainable in common usage today is you can make it mean anything you want. Usually it is used to bash big business by liberals and econuts, and usually has little connection to reality. For instance, usually what they call sustainable are small organic farms which are inefficient users of resources, produce lower yields, and there is not enough cows to produce the manure to grow these crops on a big scale. Also most soils will be depleted of some nutrients after a few years.
(Spell check thinks that I should change econuts to coconuts. How funny.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!