How right I was! You should have seen the poor checkers, trying to get various and sundry bags to stay open (they're not hanging conveniently on the lazy Susan, like Wal*Mart bags can!) while loading them. I joked to my friend about how inefficient this is, and the checker said, "You're not kidding."
Even worse, we didn't bring in enough bags. We only expected to pick up a few things, so we only brought in one shopping bag apiece. Roaming about, though, we each decided there were more things we couldn't live without. The poor checker had to try to cram things into the bags we brought; is it our "fault" for not bringing more bags, or should Wal*Mart make it easy for us to buy more than we planned by not requiring us to bring our own bags?
Of course I knew this would occur. How could it not? Anyone who's ever spent a day looking at manufacturing plant efficiency could see this train wreck coming--and remember, this particular store has had a month and a half of being bagless to (supposedly) work out the kinks! Bad, bad, bad. Inefficient. Inconvenient. This is what happens when you try to appeal to lefties.
And the (sarcastic) good news for Wal*Mart continues with this story:
In the important holiday quarter ending on January 31, net sales at Walmart’s 3,400-plus US stores fell 0.5 per cent year-on-year to $71bn (€52bn). Comparable store sales declined 2 per cent. Customer traffic also fell.
I contributed to this, playing my small part by not shopping at any Wal*Mart store in January.