Wal-Mart is the perfect example of how good economic work

[earthmama]

Ok ... now that I have your attention, I need a super duper good response to this. I am part of another message board for mommies and I am sick of this woman who suck Bush's you know .

Please help me come up with the worlds bestest response to this.

[trotsky]

1. Wal-Mart *is* the perfect example...

of how to "successfully" run a business while exploiting people and local governments and forcing small businesses to close. You know, those small businesses that Republicans always claim they support.

[MercutioATC]

2. How about just not shopping at Wal-Mart if you don't like what they do?

With the exception of illegal labor practices (which are not unique to Wal-Mart) they have a great business model in that they provide us with what we want, cheap one-stop shopping.

Don't blame Wal-Mart...they're just filling a market...and they're doing it very successfully.

[Bridget Burke]

3. The only WalMart I've ever been in was a depressing dump.

This was before I knew about their business practices. And they do treat their employees worse than most retailers.

[MercutioATC]

5. Try a Marc's some time.

Talk about depressing...


They're hiring checkout people and shelf-stockers to cater to a mostly low-income clientele. They don't need the benefits that come from happy, experienced employees.

[quisp]

8. No, you should definately blame Wal-Mart

They have ruthless business practices that don't contribute anything to the local community.

One of the things they do is buy up all the advertising in the local newspaper which 1) denies local retailers advertising space and 2) makes the editorial staff sympathetic to Wal-Mart. Then when the local stores have closed Wal-Mart pulls it's advertising and the local newpaper fails.

[MercutioATC]

9. Isn't that more commonly known as free enterprise?

Since when did Wal-Mart have a duty to anybody other than their shareholders? They don't play nice? So what? Playing nice isn't usually profitable.

It all comes back to us (as a society). Wal-Mart exists because we want it to. They're not evil, they're giving us what we want.

[noiretextatique]

20. the notion that businesses are only responsible to their shareholders

is outdated, but i'm NOT surprised it's back in these regressive times.
where do you draw the line? i hope it's not where bush, inc does, e.g., easing environmental regulations. all that does is transfer the cost, say of cleaning up some corporation's toxic waste, right back to us.
as with health benefits...if Wal-Mart doesn't provide health insurance, who pays when their employees get sick? right...we do.

[Bill McBlueState]

29. it's a right-wing notion at its core

which is why I'm always surprised to see defenders of Wal-Mart on a progressive message board.

[MercutioATC]

32. I didn't say that I liked the idea, it's just a truth.

Our laws allow Wal-Mart to operate as it does. If you want change, change the laws...

[SmokingJacket]

63. Giving someone what they want isn't necessarily a moral act.

Crack addicts want crack, so it's okay to give it to them?

You can come up with a better defense of the free market!

Because a society allows something, or even makes something easy or pleasurable to do, doesn't mean it should be done -- paving over Yellowstone park and replacing with a Six Flags would certainly make it more profitable (at least until the supervolcano erupted...).

All I'm saying is that I think companies -- who get their profits out of the people and infrastructure of the society around them -- have a responsibility to NOT act like parasites, to give back as good as they get. Sure, it's not a legal responsibility.

But I'm not interested in supporting a business that doesn't even make a small attempt at playing nice.

[Ron Green]

66. Pure Adam Smith economics is pretty much out of date.

People often cite the "Invisible Hand" without giving a thought to the "Invisible Foot." The fact is that consensus can be manufactured, and when a company the size of Wal*Mart is calling all the shots to not only employees and suppliers, but even consumers (who have had all other shopping options in their town removed,) then it's no longer free enterprise; it's just economic hegemony.

[Clark2008]

74. That's simply not true.

A.) They could never buy up all the advertising space in a newspaper and B.) The news-ed side of the room HATES the ad side of room and vice versa. Always has, always will. There is no sympathy coming from the news-ed staff because of advertisers. Now, this might influence the publisher, but it's not going to do diddly to the news department (unless the publisher forces a story).

How do I know? I was a reporter for local dailies for 10 years.

[whistle]

4. How good economics works.... where in China?

...WalMart imports all of its goods from third world countries and essentially pays slave labor prices. Then WalMart floods the U.S. with these cheap imported goods, driving it's weakest competitors, small business retailers, out of business, flooding the local labor markets with unemployed workers who are forced to seek work at WalMart for minimum wages. Adding insult to injury, WalMart refuses to provide its workers with any benefits such as health-care, and creates a situation where its minimum wage employees qualify for government funded Medicare, thus draining those funds that are paid for by taxpayers. There is nothing free about free market economics.

[Massacure]

6. if the market were free, there would be no government regulation.

No medicare to drain. No labor laws to evade. You get what I'm saying?

[MercutioATC]

7. Ummm...that's how they keep prices so low...

...and that's what people here in the U.S. seem to want.


Sounds like a pretty successful business model to me.

[trotsky]

10. I don't necessarily think that most people would "want" those low prices

if they knew exactly how Wal-Mart achieves them. The average DUer is a lot more informed about this kind of thing than the average Wal-Mart shopper. Since the media doesn't care to inform the masses, how else can they learn?

[MercutioATC]

14. I guess my issue is this:

I believe education is a great thing. I have no problem informing people that Wal-Mart uses cheap overseas labor, hires "part-time" employees to avoid paying benefits, drives small local shops out of business, etc.

What I do have an issue with is demonizing Wal-Mart. Like almost everything else, Wal-Mart's business practices have both benefits and drawbacks. I think both should be weighed before making a decision.

[trotsky]

16. I don't see any problem with demonizing Wal-Mart.

In fact, I think we need more of that. Companies who exploit workers (here and around the world), make taxpayers pay for their healthcare program, and unfairly compete with local businesses should be blamed and demonized as much as possible.

Slowly, it's catching up with Wal-Mart. They've ruined too many small communities and handcuffed local governments. If this keeps up, Wal-Mart's supposedly wonderful business model will come crashing down in flames.

[MercutioATC]

19. That's fine. I think it's a product of emotionalizing the issue, though.

As I see it...

Wal-Mart doesn't "exploit workers". Nobody is forcing people to work there. They know what they're getting into when they join and they're free to quit at any time.

Wal-Mart doesn't "make taxpayers pay for their healthcare program" either. If those people were unemployed, some of them would be drawing some sort of government support anyway. Again, these people CHOOSE to work at Wal-Mart. It's any business' choice whether to provide healthcare benefits or not as long as they comply with federal labor law.

Wal-Mart doesn't "unfairly compete with local businesses". There's nothing unfair about obtaining a product at a lower price and selling that item to the public for less than your competition.

Does Wal-Mart have an overall positive effect on communities? I don't think so. That's not the goal of a business, however, nor should it be. Wal-Mart's duty is to its shareholders, not communities.

[trotsky]

22. Wow, you really don't know what it's like for other income groups, do you?

The very notion of having a "choice" where you work is foreign to a whole lot of Americans.

[MercutioATC]

26. I see "help-wanted" signs almost everywhere I go.

No, they're not for jobs that offer decent compensation, but let's compare apples to apples.

If Wal-Mart's salary and benefits are so horrendous and there are a lot of other low-paying jobs out there, why would people choose to work at Wal-Mart rather than someplace else?

[trotsky]

30. You're confirming my point.

You don't know what other jobs are out there. And you don't know what it's like for someone who doesn't live where you live, and doesn't have other choices.

You are assuming what you believe is true, is true for everyone.

[MercutioATC]

33. Of COURSE the job market is regional...

I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. However, there is no shortage of low-paying jobs that don't offer benefits in many places. You're discussing regional economics, not the evils of Wal-Mart.

[trotsky]

36. Wal-Mart takes advantage of regional economics.

Why do you think they primarily got started in small towns? Very poor labor market - people DIDN'T have a choice as to where they worked.

You still have no clue as to how others live.

[MercutioATC]

37. Let's just agree to disagree.

As far as my having "no clue as to how others live", I suppose that'd depend on which "others" we're discussing.

[HughBeaumont]

35. He lives in Westlake, a well-to-do suburb of Cleveland.

Generally isolated from the problems of those without the life situations that allow for better wages.

[MercutioATC]

44. Yes, I do

...but I bought into the "cheap seats"...

...and I grew up on a dairy farm that went under because of escalating feed and fertilizer prices and the government's decision to lower milk supports.

I do have at least SOME perspective, here.

[HughBeaumont]

50. It's not the perspective in question -

It's your wholesale lack of compassion and empathy that's the problem, common when talking to pro-business types.

My wife's friend's husband is the same way. He defends job offshoring and tax cuts for the rich with a passion. The problem with this though, is that he's a "prince" - an heir to daddy's business and completely clueless to the struggles of those around him. He doesn't even grasp why what he's saying is aggravating and arrogant.

[MercutioATC]

51. I wasn't aware somebody was looking for compassion and empathy here

I thought we were talking about Wal-Mart's business practices. I can have compassion for the less fortunate and still state my belief that Wal-Mart is neither evil nor the cause of the problem.

For the record, I support neither job offshoring nor tax cuts for the wealthy...

[HughBeaumont]

56. But see, you're NOT compassionate . .

Otherwise, you'd be able to understand that some people don't have the opportunities that others have to improve their situations. I'm not seeing that from you thus far.

Much of what WalMart does steps over the line as far as business fairness is concerned. NE Ohio ChinaMarts have no short supply of shady and unfair business practices.

[MercutioATC]

59. I'd disagree.

I DO understand that some people don't have opportunities that others do. That's a much larger issue than Wal-Mart's business practices to me, though.

I don't believe you can create an economic environment that limits restrictions on business and then complain that businesses aren't playing nice. It's like telling a child that they can throw a ball at whatever they'd like with no repercussions and complaining when they break a window. It's just that simple for me.

[MercutioATC]

49. And, after checking YOUR profile, Avon Lake ain't no slum, either...

ESPECIALLY for a developer...


:eyes:

[HughBeaumont]

53. The difference between Avon Flake and Westlake

is that people from Westlake actually ARE rich, whereas people from Avon Lake are in hock up to their eyeballs and PRETEND to be.

Trust me, I live in the po' folks section of town. I live in a 55-year-old normal house that needs waterproofing, a new bathroom and a new roof, I drive an 8-year-old Cavalier, I have a 5-year-old PC, I make WAY less than you think I do and I'm one downsizing/financial disaster away from losing everything I've worked for . . . which isn't much by any stretch, believe me.

[MercutioATC]

55. Some are, some aren't.

I live in an 82-year old house on a nice lot. It's not one of the new $400k+ monstrosities. I have two cars. One is 9 years old and one is 22. My PC is 4 years old and I built it myself.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest, but you're the one who brought the subject up. I DID grow up on a dairy farm in Wellington and it DID go under. I may not understand true poverty, but I don't agree with your use of where I now live as support for the idea that I couldn't possibly understand the issues of people with less money.

[Tsiyu]

61. What is the goal of business?

To pay poverty wages, destroy the environment, knock out small businesses? Wow, so you are saying, unlike the REST of we lowly citizens, corporations can be criminals, like unruly children destroying whatever they like as long as they make a profit? That is NOT AMERICAN. That is a master/slave situation, and anyone who encourages it, anyone who says "they don't have to give -just GET GET GET!!!!!!!!TAKE, TAKE, TAKE!!!!!!! Take it all!!!!!!!" is so much a part of the problem, I hope these people wake up real soon.

You see, we used to say businesses were noble because they increased the tax base and they increased the standard of living through jobs. If businesses don't have to do a goddamned thing for anyone, if they don't have to pay a fair share of taxes and if their employees are also having to supplement their incomes with food stamps and other government programs, what the hell does America need them for?

They are on high dollar welfare and YOU SUPPORT THIS?????? You make me cry, really, for what my nation has become. It is so damned sad, I can't believe "progressives" support the plantation Masters. I really can't....

[prolesunited]

67. No, people will continue to shop there

I point out facts about Wal-Mart all the time to my coworkers. Someone brought in cookies recently and I refused to eat them because they came from Wal-Mart.

One person who I view as intelligent and informed said he would continue to shop there regardless. He just cared about lower prices -- no matter how they are achieved.

Although their model may work in the short term, it is ultimately unsustainable. If you look at recent economic data, low-end retailers are not doing so well. Wal-Mart customers, typically those just making ends meet, do not have much expendable income.

However, upscale retailers are posting great results. Hmm... could it be the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

[trotsky]

71. That's true, I guess it has to start affecting them more directly

for them to take any notice. Pretty much the way it is with most things today. *sigh*

[HughBeaumont]

11. To all involved?

Communities? Environment? Resources? Their rank-and-file that they refuse to pay or give decent beneifts to? The ballooning trade deficit?

[MercutioATC]

15. No, to Wal-Mart's shareholders

(the only group it has to answer to)

[noiretextatique]

12. i'm sure Wal-Mart's employees want health insurance too

but of course, they aren't important in that successful business model.

[MercutioATC]

17. Exactly!

"they aren't important in that successful business model."

Wal-Mart has other priorities. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Wal-Mart has to realize that it's sacrificing employee quality and prospective employees have to realize that they won't be getting benefits. As long as both parties understand this, I don't see the issue.

[HughBeaumont]

23. Yeah, who cares that

their business practices discourage free enterprise?

Who cares that Wal-Mart places capital and bargaining power back where it belongs - in the hands of the affluent that run it?

Who cares that 100 years of labor/union progress is now officially over?

Who cares that our trade deficit is growing like a mountain thanks to ChinaMart?

Who cares that one-sided economies generally lead to disastrous results?

Just because faith-based crapshoot-ology is the supposedly infallible cornerstone for modern American economics does NOT make it right for everyone. This is why I HATE taking to economic libertarians.

[MercutioATC]

24. I'm not sure what you mean by "faith-based crapshoot-ology", but

it IS an original-sounding phrase....

Wal-Mart is not the cause of your litany of catastrophes, it's a product of them.

[HughBeaumont]

27. Wal Mart is DEFINITELY the cause of a ballooning Trade Deficit.

AND free-enterprise discouragement.

How is it not? Please explain. Wait until this store starts swallowing up your Best Buys and Circuit Cities.

[MercutioATC]

31. THE cause??? You're kidding, right?

Wal-Mart is a product, not a cause.

It exists in its present state because:

1) Our labor laws allow it to do things like hire a bunch of "part-time" employees and not provide them with benefits,

2) Our trade agreements allow it to import inexpensive goods from other countries and sell them for less, and

3) PEOPLE SHOP THERE!

If it wasn't Wal-Mart, it'd be somebody. If you want to change things, change the laws.

[HughBeaumont]

40. Sure, because the common man can do that so easily!

Not corporate-owned politicians from both sides.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

42. I'm just suggesting that Wal-Mart is a product of existing laws, not the

cause.

If we allow the same conditions to remain, "killing" Wal-Mart won't matter...somebody else will step right into it's shoes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. There's a bit of chicken/egg thing going on here.

People shop there because of low prices. And if the economy wasn't so devastated by the Walmart model of business, they would have enough money to shop elsewhere. As things are, most people feel they have to go for the lowest price, because it makes a serious difference in their budgets.

Henry Ford, my favorite fascist, offered his workers salaries and benefits that were double the prevailing rate, so that they would be able to buy his product.

Walmart forces its workers to subsist on salaries and benefits that are half the prevailing rate, so that they can only afford to buy at its stores.

And I'll tell you something else. The people don't make the laws. The power structure makes the laws, and Walmart is the largest power structure in the world. Its economy is larger than that of many countries. A hundred thousand peoples' votes are of less importance than a single lobbiest's hundred thousand dollars.

Walmart is doing to the entire nation what business has been doing to inner city ghettoes for decades. But it's doing it in rural communities where the populace is unlikely to rise up and burn the bastards out.

[MercutioATC]

47. I agree that Wal-Mart compounds the problems, but I still think

it's a matter of what's allowed. No change is going to be effected without one of two things happening:

1) Laws change to force Wal-Mart to change its business practices or,

2) people overwhelmingly decide not to shop at Wal-Mart.

Of the two, I see #1 as being more attainable. In fact, I don't think #1 is even remotely possible, especially if we try to shove it down people's throats as a "Wal-Mart is evil" issue.

[noiretextatique]

57. unfair labor practices used to catch people's attention

my father, a UAW member, told me never to cross a picket line when i was a kid, and i never have. when safeway workers were on strike here in the bay area last year, i was amazed by the number of people who crossed the line. people just don't care anymore. they are more concerned about low prices and convenience than anything else.
and after reading about wal-mart's lobbying power...i doubt even #1 is attainable, at least not now.

[MercutioATC]

58. Labor is definitely in trouble.

And I say that as a union member looking at the possibility of pay cuts and split shifts.

[noiretextatique]

62. i hope things work out for you

at least some of us will never cross your picket line.

[noiretextatique]

25. the issue is: who pays for Wal-Mart's sick employees?

who covers the cost of health care for Wal-Mart's employees, since the company doesn't? they are paid low wages, so they probably can't afford to buy their own insurance. so...what is the true cost of Wal-Mart's "cheap" products, when we are paying for their employees health care needs?

[MercutioATC]

28. The same people who pay for health care for the unemployed...

...and the same people who pay health care for all part-time workers without healthcare benefits...us.

My point is that there's no legal requirement to provide certain benefits (including healthcare) for part-time employees.

[noiretextatique]

38. you are correct about that

no legal requirement. and with the foxes in the henhouse, we can't expect any legal requirement soon. meanwhile, we continue to subsidize Wal-Mart and its shareholders. ain't 'free enterprise' grand?

[MercutioATC]

39. We do agree on that.

I believe health coverage should be available (through either employers or the government) to ALL Americans. Unfortunately, I also think you're correct that there'll have to be a pretty major power shift to make it happen.

[pnb]

41. How do we subsidize someone

by paying for something they have no obligation to pay for in the first place?

Health benefits, as far as I know, are just that...benefits, not part of every job. Its not that we pay for the healthcare of those people instead of Wal-mart. We pay for it instead of the employees.

[noiretextatique]

43. no legal requirement...i suppose that's the same as obligation

of course, providing health insurance has been a standard business practice for some time now, especially with big corporations. some people believe it is a good business practice because without it, workers tend to be less productive...sick people generally are less productive.
and of course, most people, even those who make decent money, can't afford to pay for health services without some form of insurance, since healthcare can be rather costly these days.
i am sure companies would be happy to relieve themselves of the expense of healthcare costs, if and when a more sensible system is in place.

[pnb]

54. I agree with you that it is good business

If I were a business owner, I'd want to offer it so that I could have happy, more productive employees.

Even though it is standard and I think we both agree normally the smart thing to do though, I don't think of it as an obligation but rather more of a perk. That was the initial purpose anyway back when employer provided health insurance started coming into play anyway.

[noiretextatique]

60. sure...it's a benefit

and of course, it's a benefit that some companies, particularly small businesses just can't afford to offer. it really isn't a perk anymore...it has become a necessity, because few can afford to get sick without it. of course the problem is not with employers, but with the entire healthcare delivery system.
speaking of which, i'd better get to work so i can keep my insruance :D

[GiovanniC]

18. Like He Said, Walmart's Business Model Has Benefits and Drawbacks

Without the benefits.

[newportdadde]

13. Walmart is filling a market niche.

One stop shopping at sometimes lower prices. Consumers like my wife enjoy the ease of taking a toddler to one place and getting most of the products they need. And many like my wife do NOT buy everything there, for instance she knows meat etc is cheaper at the good old Price Chopper, the selection is better there as well for various products.

As a matter of self preservation in todays economy people will choose the cheapest place for themselves to buy goods and often times this is Walmart. Thats what we do, sure we could all stand up tomorrow and say look we aren't paying for XYZ jeans at that cost 3 bucks to make by slave labor but get charged 25, but we won't do that either.

Another business model - Ebay, we could all be out buying new items at full price but instead we buy used... is this hurting someone? Probably... do most Americans care... No.


If Walmart didn't fill it someone else would have.

[MercutioATC]

21. Thanks, that's part of what I was attempting to say.

You seem to have done it an a much less inflammatory way.

[noiretextatique]

34. apples and oranges

Ebay is an electronic marketplace where both used and new items are sold. even some big retailers (the smart ones) rent space there. Sellers, not Ebay, keep most of the profit from their sales. and btw, Ebay provides health insurance to its employees. Ebay was a great idea...wish i'd thought of it.

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, is a predatory business model, a successful one, but predatory nonetheless. the decline in union power (and brainwashing about unions) is probably another factor in its success.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. You have heard, of course, that the only Walmart in North America

to successfully unionize has shut its doors. Saw a bit about it on TV last week. Up in Canada.

Had nothing to do with the union, of course.

[noiretextatique]

52. no, of course not

nothing at all to do with the union :eyes:

[demgurl]

46. My reply to this.......

A lot of stores have nasty business practices in front of the customers and even more behind the scenes. Walmart happens to be one of these stores.

As a woman and a former rape victim (I refuse to believe I am a victim any more, I have taken back my life) I can not quietly stand by while Walmart has decided not to carry the morning after pill. Walmart said they decided to not carry this medication due to a lack of market demand and, yet, here is what one media article had to say about that:

http://erights4all.com/now/winterparknow/walmart2.htm

<snip>
Citing the ban as strictly a "business decision" -- despite the fact that 9 out of 10 top pharmacies carry it and Preven has sold 1.3 million units in its first three months -- Wal-Mart's refusal to provide Preven demonstrates how far reaching the attack on womens'reproductive freedom has become.
<snip>

I will not uphold a company's right to business if they try to set my rights back to the start of the century. Walmart has driven other stores out of business and when they refuse to carry the morning after pill for rape victims, they are not seeing the big picture. The victim will have no place to go and this is hard to face after having such a traumatic incident happen to them.

Walmart does not believe in treating their workers fairly and in giving them proper benefits. Recently the government was looking at stats of employees for a particular state. They saw that Walmart workers, above all others in the state, took advantage of certain government programs. The hypothesis goes that the employees had to do this because they are not being paid enough and do not get benefits.

The government, consequently decided to do a study in all of the other states just to see if they get the same results. Walmart raised Cain over this and demanded that they stop! This is a stupid list and Walmart wanted a cease and desist issued. What have they got to hide?

Benefits for workers is even more important now that the bankruptcy bill has been passed and will be enacted in October. A good majority of those who declare bankruptcy are due to either being laid off/losing a job or a devastating sickness. These instances are mostly due to unforeseen circumstances that the person can not control. With this new bill, these workers can not just write off the debt. They will have to work for years and years to pay this back.

The lay offs can not be avoided - some can but I will not get into incentives, from the government, to keep workers in our country rather than outsourcing. The health insurance can be worked on. Companies have gotten too greedy. They want to get as much blood off of their workers without giving anything back. This country must change to support our system, and give our citizens the best life possible. People dying because they do not have the insurance or the money is unacceptable.

Walmart is the model for greedy companies who do not wish to give back to the employees who make their store possible. They destroy other people's livelihoods within our communities. There would have been a time, in our history, that we would have cast off a company such as this and said, "Not in my community." They lower their prices to systematically destroy the competition and then they raise them when there is no competition.

They refuse to have unions since this would only serve to hurt the bottom line. Walmart is growing at a smaller percentage than Target but they have so many stores that this still is giving Walmart a tidy profit. They could afford to give workers higher wages and benefits but choose to thumb their noise at the people who allow them to open their doors.

It is not OK to think to ourselves that it is OK because it is not us, our family or our friends who are effected. The thing is, people were greedy. They saw the low prices and figured to heck with all of Walmart's immoral practices because all we cared about was the bottom line in our wallets. Now it has spread. Other companies sat up and took note of Walmart's business guidelines and our country has slowly gone downhill. Now it would seem that there are more people without insurance than with. Now more and more people are having trouble making ends meet because of gas prices causing the price of everything to rise. Now it finally is coming home to roost and people we know are being effected. We may not immediately see the exact correlation of our actions as a country but they are there.

At some point we have to wake up and decide that we are going to fight to have a better life. We can not let things happen to one if it is not happening to us. We need to reconnect to each other as it used to be. And we have to dig down deep inside and fight for what is right for each other.

If you have researched Walmart and their business practices and you still decide that it is moral to go there - not because they treated you nicely a few times, but you have examined your conscience and your soul and you have decided you do not care who is hurt by this store, then you should go ahead and shop there. Just remember that shopping there is saying that whatever Walmart does is fine with you and you support their actions. Just remember to see the connection when one of the people you know is effected, by another company, because of the practices of Walmart. It does spread.

I can not condone the things this store does to other people and therefore spend my money in other places. I will not have my fellow Americans being treated his way, I care too much.

[depakid]

64. Wallmart is an excellent example of externalizing costs

(meaning everyone else pays for the true costs of their business- sort of like socialism) while privatizing profits to a very few.

Wallmart's policies suck money out of local communities- thereby degrading the multiplier effect of local currency circulation (among small businesses) and helps to impoverish everyone in the process.

On thing I like about Peak Oil is that Wallmart will soon (within 10-15 years) be toast... it's not a sustanable business model.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. If good economics works by replacing high-paying jobs with low-paying ones

then give me back bad economics, please.

[HughBeaumont]

68. I think "bad economics" also involves . . .

CEOs not making 411 times their average workers, the enormously wealthy NOT getting tax cuts and an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

;-)

[fob]

69. The race to the bottom in terms of prices and wages is NOT good

economics. Granted, it will generate profits for a goodly amount of time but what happens when they get to the bottom and the only way for wages to go lower is to buy an island and enslave the people. Will your friend THEN question the strategy?

Here's Mallwart's "plan"
Start out with American worker's working hard and selling American products in a giant one stop shop to get the amount spent per trip UP for a certain overhead.

Bring in smaller mfg'ers and increase their market share until they are pretty much entirely reliant on MW. Then negotiate pricing DOWNWARD which they HAVE to accept or go out of business. If they do go under, buy 'em out at bargain price, ship production overseas.

Cut prices, squeeze vendors, lower wages, provide no benefits (but hand out welfare packages with application), demand tax breaks from cities desperate for (any) jobs, Ship production overseas.

When you lower prices and margins you have to do more volume, at some point you will be unable to cut wages anymore (Us worker to Mexican worker to Chinese worker to SLAVE?) and rising costs in other areas (bush* oil cronies) will negate any growth in volume. Then what do you do? You close your giant store and leave that infrastructure to crumble and open up a SUPERGIANT store which allows you to "supersize" your race to the bottom.

Business by definition exists only to produce a profit, it has no human qualities to it and sees workers as a "cost" like the trash pick up service. That doesn't mean a business model HAS to be devoid of humanity. Mall-wart seems to think otherwise.

[_testify_]

70. I've worked for Wal-Mart

About 8 years ago I moved to a new city and I had a hard time finding work. I only have a HS education, and the only interviews I could even get were for minimum wage retail jobs. I took a job at Sam's Club (owned by Wal-mart) because they would pay me $8.00/hr (versus 5.15 or 5.50 for the other potential jobs I was offered), offered health, dental, and life insurance (versus no insurance whatsoever unless I was promoted to management), the opportunity for overtime, etc. They paid for my forklift operator training, and bumped my wages .50 when I finished the training.

They treated my professionally, fairly, and I never saw anything but outstanding customer service provided. All in all, that job got me through a rough patch when other employers could only offer me part-time minimum wage work with little hope of advancement.

Do I like to see hard-working small business forced under because of Wally World? Of course not. But to blame Wal-Mart for that is ignorant in my opinion. Ultimately, we choose where to shop because it's OUR MONEY. We have decided that we'd rather hold on to a little more of our paycheck each week than to spend more and take some sort of noble stand shopping at smaller businesses. That's not Wal-Mart's fault.

And for the record, the small businesses I've worked for (including my own family's) have been the disgusting, greedy SOBs that use every opportunity to squeeze the consumer and employee alike...

Flame on!

[Pockets]

72. Good point

The nice thing about mom and pop businesses though are that they are more likely to teach specialized skills, besides just retail, warehouse, and stocking 'skills'. For instance if you work at a bike shop you will learn the intricacies of bicycle mechanics.

I agree that there are many businesses that deserved to be demonized as much as Wal-mart. I'm not clear on why Target and K-mart are let off the hook (although I do know the reasons given). They are just as bad. Many mom and pop businesses are just as bad too. Some Dems make horrible employers as well.

[applegrove]

73. Point out that Walmart using its size to keep the costs from suppliers

way down is the same system that works with universal health care. And why universal health care is a cheaper system than what the US has with private health insurance.

And why every western nation in the world has some form of universal health care.

Except the USA.

[nomatrix]

75. You are supporting China's military

http://www.alternet.org/story/21658/

"And, to top it off, the Beast's business model could not operate without the connivance of the authoritarian regime in China. You probably never heard of a guy named Wang Jun, but he's one of Wal-Mart's main men in China. Aside from being involved in a company called Poly Technology, which is the weapons-trading arm of the People's Liberation Army, Jun runs a Chinese state-sponsored investment company and ensures that Wal-Mart's wishes are known and satisfied by those running the Communist Party. In China, Wal-Mart has a ready supply of underage children and under-waged adults to produce its products. The point here is that Wal-Mart is no free-market miracle: Its profits are a result of an artificial suppression of wages. Wal-Mart could not operate in a truly free market--if such a thing even existed. Instead, Wal-Mart is in cahoots with the Chinese government, raking in profits by condoning the violation of basic international labor standards."

[nomatrix]

76. here is the bestest response earthmama

http://www.liberalpatriot.org/JS%20Archives/js032905whosupcoms.htm

Who Really Supports Communists?


J.G. Schwam - May 16, 2004

"The favorite epithet of hard line Bush supporters for those that publicly oppose Bush’s policies is “communist” or Marxist. The fact is that we are deep into bed with the largest communist power on earth, China. How is it that that those that fear and loathe communism with venom support a president that has made a crusade of facilitating the export of millions of American jobs to a communist nation? How can Republican voters support Republican legislators that support a policy disenfranchises small business across the nation form the ability to operate in a fair trade environment in their own country. It is absurd to assert that a communist nation that has state maintains price controls on and subsidizes commodities prices across the board is competing fairly. In communist China heavily subsidized state owned companies supply food, gasoline, coal, steel, petrochemicals, fertilizer, electricity, minerals and virtually ever raw industrial material. How can republicans reconcile a trade policy that expects US workers and industry to compete with a communist government that sells electricity to its industry at pennies on the dollar of what it costs in the United States? Yet the people these voters blindly support a party that promotes a tax policy that rewards companies that export jobs to nation has an artificially controlled cost of living that is nearly one one hundredth of our own?

Who is it that supports communists, those that support Republican trade policies or those that oppose them?

Ten years of Republican trade policies have placed us in economic jeopardy at the hands of communists. US Comptroller General David Walker has stated repeatedly that the gigantic amount US debt foreign held largely by China places our nations economic future on a knife edge of economic suicide. China's and Japan's, central banks now hold close to $1 trillion of Treasury bonds and bills. One nation, a communist nation holds almost a quarter of all publicly held U.S. debt. US dependence on foreign debt to support its own increased almost 20% in the single fiscal year 2002 to 2003. This alone is a shocking indictment of the escalating, reckless and irresponsible deficit spending of a Republican dominated US government."

Please go to the link for the rest.....

[nomatrix]

77. Buying the Dragons Teeth

http://www.timesoftibet.com/articles/150/1/Buying-the-Dragon&%2339%3Bs-Teeth-by-Jamyang-Norbu-la

"Buying the Dragon's Teeth maintains that there are three direct reasons not to buy Chinese-made products. These are that such products are often made in prisons or labor camps, that they may be made by enterprises owned by the Chinese military (presumably this is less of an issue since the PLA has supposedly divested itself of such enterprises) and that they are definitely made by a disenfranchised labor force. The book gives other reasons as well, including China's repression of religion, forced abortions and sterilization, indiscriminate use of the death penalty, commercial harvesting of organs of executed prisoners, torture in prisons, psychiatric persecution of political prisoners, military occupation and cultural genocide in Tibet, repression in East Turkestan, press and Internet censorship, nuclear weapons proliferation, and unfair and corrupt business practices. The book also answers the usual questions and objections regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of a boycott."

I hope this helps. There are many articles on Sam Walton's business practices in securing the cheapest products. You've got to ask yourself, who saves?

We are supporting slave labor.

[Selatius]

78. Wal-Mart IS a GREAT EXAMPLE of "good economics"

This is what capitalism is all about.

To be a capitalist is to be an owner of resources or the means of production. There is simply no point for a capitalist to remain in business if he cannot make a profit.

The only difference between Costco and Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart decided that they should forego ethical and moral dilemmas that prevent other enterprises from "going all out." It seems that by not allowing moral/ethical reasons to get in the way, they've made themselves the largest retailer in the world.

By investing relatively little in worker health care and wages and using Chinese labor who are paid less than a dollar an hour, they've gained a competitive advantage in that the money saved from this cost cutting has been used to reinvest back into the business and expand the enterprise even further. Is this moral or ethical?

The most lethal capitalists are the ones that show no mercy to anyone, not in the marketplace and certainly not to their workers. To get to the top requires that you must pull out all the stops. If you want to dominate a particular market, you've got to do whatever it takes to get there.

You interpret "whatever it takes" to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

The point is all capitalism is predatory to some degree. The question is to what extent is predation tolerable? Most people argue about that point.

Others argue that there doesn't have to be predation. These folks are known as socialists instead.

[tjwash]

79. ALL retail sucks.

Circuit City fucks their employees over every bit as much as wally world does, much more so now that they took the commisions away from the sales staff.

Whose fault is it? If we don't have the balls to stand up to these vultures by forming unions and demanding the respect, then we deserve every bit of the abuse heaped on us.