WAL-MART: the mark of satan

[Qdrop]

some of you may have seen this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

watch the whole thing online.


We just had a company annual meeting....and one of the topics was Wal-mart (we hate them) and the Chinese threat.

Our company is being personally affected by Walmart (as the program will show you) as we are providers for Sonoco (pringles) who are suppliers for Walmart.

[ASsman]

Yep, and I am scared. I must find the heart of wal-mart and destroy it!

[Qdrop]

Yep, and I am scared. I must find the heart of wal-mart and destroy it!
at this point....that would be China.....

[checkyourprez]

at this point....that would be China.....


China cant stop, they wont stop...

[QueenAdrock]

Yep, and I am scared. I must find the heart of wal-mart and destroy it!

You go ahead! I'm gonna go buy these screwdrivers!

[Whois]

Shall I play Cartman?

"Suuure, I'll help you guys destroy the Wal*Mart"

"Kyle, I'll bet you $5 that you crap your pants when you die."

[FunkyHiFi]

I've seen interviews & news reports lately about bipartisan(!!) efforts to repeal that "permanent normal trade relations" bill signed back in 2000 because of its destructive effects on our country. I really REALLY hope this happens, and soon.

[Bob]

we must take the ring to china and destroy it in the fires in which it was created

[Qdrop]

for those that actually want to take action and learn more:

http://factchecker.purpleocean.org/
(some of the "facts" are debatable and the connections seemed forced, but interesting)

http://www.purpleocean.org


...rather pro-union, which i have an issue with, but anything anti-walmart can't be too bad.

[ASsman]

I've seen interviews & news reports lately about bipartisan(!!) efforts to repeal that "permanent normal trade relations" bill signed back in 2000 because of its destructive effects on our country. I really REALLY hope this happens, and soon.
Communist swine.

[FunkyHiFi]

Communist swine.
What's wrong with a little teamwork and brotherly love among fellow Americans? :)

You're not one of those macho guys who would walk a mile in the rain to a gas station after his car crapped out while refusing a ride from someone who looked like Nicole Kidman just to prove how independent and proud you are, are you? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, a helping hand every once in while and some basic human empathy sure can make a difference in a society (or a city, town, family or friend for that matter).

[paulk]

What's wrong with a little teamwork and brotherly love among fellow Americans? :)

You're not one of those macho guys who would walk a mile in the rain to a gas station after his car crapped out while refusing a ride from someone who looked like Nicole Kidman just to prove how independent and proud you are, are you? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, a helping hand every once in while and some basic human empathy sure can make a difference in a society (or a city, town, family or friend for that matter).

I would refuse anything coming from Nicole Kidman. The only movie she looked decent in is Birth.

[EN[i]GMA]

for those that actually want to take action and learn more:

http://factchecker.purpleocean.org/
(some of the "facts" are debatable and the connections seemed forced, but interesting)


Come on Q, that site is weak.

You're right it's facts are debatable.

Honestly, a point can be made that Wal Mart isn't good for America, I don't agree, but I see the rationale, but that website doesn't do it.

[Qdrop]

GMA']Come on Q, that site is weak.

You're right it's facts are debatable.

Honestly, a point can be made that Wal Mart isn't good for America, I don't agree, but I see the rationale, but that website doesn't do it.

i didn't say it did "do it"...

the real point of me posting that is for anyone who wants to take a small action can use that site to do so.....

[EN[i]GMA]

i didn't say it did "do it"...

the real point of me posting that is for anyone who wants to take a small action can use that site to do so.....

K, that's cool.

Your right as a consumer and all that shit.

[iceygirl]

i agree entirely on the evils of wal mart, however, it doesnt change the fact that i, like a lot of other people i know, simply can't afford to do the majority of our grocery shopping anywhere else. wal mart is cheap, cheap, cheap, and i would love to be able to go spend our money at the mom and pop joints here, but its just way to expensive to even consider it.
yeah, in the future, when we are making more money and can be more choosy, i hope to not have to depend on wal mart for most of my grocery shopping. but, until then, it is what it is. a cheap place to shop.

[Ali]

China cant stop, they wont stop...once you pop... (http://www.pringles.com/)! :D

[Qdrop]

once you pop... (http://www.pringles.com/)! :D

it's funny you mention that...

Pringles is the exact link my company has with Walmart.....and the reason Walmart's price driving tactics effect me and my company.

wait, i already said that.... :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

i agree entirely on the evils of wal mart, however, it doesnt change the fact that i, like a lot of other people i know, simply can't afford to do the majority of our grocery shopping anywhere else. wal mart is cheap, cheap, cheap, and i would love to be able to go spend our money at the mom and pop joints here, but its just way to expensive to even consider it.
yeah, in the future, when we are making more money and can be more choosy, i hope to not have to depend on wal mart for most of my grocery shopping. but, until then, it is what it is. a cheap place to shop.

i understand that...
but it is important to know HOW Walmart gets those prices so low....and what the end result can likely be for our economy.

[ASsman]

i agree entirely on the evils of wal mart, however, it doesnt change the fact that i, like a lot of other people i know, simply can't afford to do the majority of our grocery shopping anywhere else. wal mart is cheap, cheap, cheap, and i would love to be able to go spend our money at the mom and pop joints here, but its just way to expensive to even consider it.
yeah, in the future, when we are making more money and can be more choosy, i hope to not have to depend on wal mart for most of my grocery shopping. but, until then, it is what it is. a cheap place to shop.
Uh, so how'd you survive before Wal-Mart? Or have you conditioned yourself to where you must save all this money buying from them and spent the rest elswhere, it seems like you must.

Really? How much do you make a year, how many kids do you have. Cause I know people who aren't making money, lots of them.. And they don't shop at wal-mart.. I guess they must not be eating.

[racer5.0stang]

Although the mom and pop stores are more expensive, quality is the key. Many times the mom and pop store will have better quality which will justify the extra expense in comparison to Wal-Mart.

[Qdrop]

i think what it really comes down to is people not really caring about the results of thier actions.

maybe if people spent as much time thinking about and believing what the "walmart's" of america can and likely will do to this economy as they do about global warming.... :rolleyes:

people get all fuckin upity about a still very contraversial scientific topic that may raise our global temp 0.6º in the next century....not even in our generation....

but something like this that will effect virtually ALL of us within the next 10-15 years is all second page stuff.

fuckin fickle, mush-headed amercian public.

lemmings.....

[Ali]

i think what it really comes down to is people not really caring about the results of thier actions.like reducing greenhouse emissions, Mr Kettle?

maybe if people spent as much time thinking about and believing what the "walmart's" of america can and likely will do to this economy as they do about global warming.... :rolleyes: one is ever so slightly LESS importnat than the other. Can you guess which? Hint: Air you breathe, water you drink, food you eat, vs. cheap crappy goods. Take your time, I know it's hard.

people get all fuckin upity about a still very contraversial scientific topic that may raise our global temp 0.6º in the next century....not even in our generation....and who gives a FUCK about the next generation, right? Fuck them, we'll be dead by then, we don't fucking care.

but something like this that will effect virtually ALL of us within the next 10-15 years is all second page stuff. no it won't. It will affect the tiniest billionth of a percentage of nobody compared with what will happen if we don't rein in Global Warming.

market forces vs the forces of nature

Walmart's one symptom of capitalism, Global Warming's another.

I give not a fuck about the economy of America, but I give lots and lots of fucks about Global Climate change.

US economy's fucked, Walmart or no Walmart. They are just being good Capitalists, what are you complaining about?

[Qdrop]

well, i would expect no sympathy from a lefty frenchman.

even if you were born in England....

[BGirl]

maybe if people spent as much time thinking about and believing what the "walmart's" of america can and likely will do to this economy as they do about global warming.... :rolleyes:


Actually I think the two are related.

[Qdrop]

i would just argue that we should concentrate on the most imminent and understandable threat.

granted, there is plenty of economic uncertainty with how mega-retail stores like walmart and their tactics will effect the US and the world...
it's still much more predictable, understood, and tangable then global warming.

we must prioritize....

[BGirl]

Environmental devastation isn't so hard to understand.

Yo, I used to go door to door for an environmental organization and the people who understood it best were those who lived near where a disaster had taken place. I saw how sick these people were, they were truly suffering, and they were so grateful someone was fighting the powers that be on the issue.. they didn't have much money either but were more generous than a lot of people in the 'bougie' neighborhoods as we called them.



But thanks for having a thread about Wal-Mart. (y)

They are related.

[Ali]

well, i would expect no sympathy from a lefty frenchman.

even if you were born in England....WTF does that have to do with anything?

[abcdefz]

We just had a company annual meeting....and one of the topics was Wal-mart (we hate them) and the Chinese threat.



Check this week's issue of Newsweek.



I think a lot of us don't have much conscience about where we spend money. If we looked at it as voting -- each dollar we spend tells the world what we support and want more of -- it's pretty shocking.

I try to do a lot of my shopping at independent stores, but it's getting harder all the time because they're closing down or, in some cases, the variety of stock is poor or the items really are just way more expensive.

For instance: my telephone/ansering machine just blew out. Aside from the possibility of our local independent thrift store having a functioning unit (which I can't test at the store and can't return if it doesn't work), there are no sole-proprietor stores in this area that sell telephones. Zero. Zip. Maybe there's some shaky business on Market Street in San Francisco that's selling knock offs, but around here, my choices are Circuit City, Target, Staples, Best Buy, K-Mart, Pac Bell, and so on. If there's some private place, it's not in my phone book.

How'd that happen? Corporate-owned businesses moved in and gobbled up the market. Who's responsible for that? The community that allowed it to happen. Shopping smart doesn't always have to mean finding something at the cheapest possible price.

Yet, that's what we do as private citizens, then complain when stuff like education is cut or horrible food is served to our kids at schools. Well, they're farming everything out to companies that will provide the service for the cheapest possible price!

We have to get over this whole idea of a priviledged standard of living. We don't have to have cable TV or 1.4 cars for each person. That money is much better spent supporting each other in community and enriching life in that way. When the private grocer down the street goes out of business and we just shrug and say "that's life," we're all cheapened a little.

[fansince87]

I can't believe I'm defending the evil empire but here goes:
Wal-Mart does not trample all small businesses. We do not sell everything so we send a lot of customers to local businesses to obtain the goods and services that we don't have. I've seen small business owners thank people at Wal-Mart for sending them customers and helping to increase their business.

What businesses? Locksmiths, local automotive repair shops, local meat markets ( a lot of Wal-Mart employees do not buy meat from Wally World), and Radio Shack (not a small business but I myself recommend that place to 2-5 people a day). I almost forgot to mention meth lab operators. They can buy everything they need in convenient one stop shopping. Just kidding, the stores are actually very serious about preventing that type of thing!!!

As far as their environmental track record, each store is given a (too) limited amount to budget for environmental causes and the company just announced that it would preserve an acre for every acre developed (of course the preserved acreage is only in the Louisana, Arkansas range... Lee Scott, if you're reading this "What's up with that?".... instead of whatever state they're building in.)
Of course it would help out the environment a lot (and save money) if the following steps were taken:
Don't allow morbidly obsese people ride the motorized carts. If they had to walk, they wouldn't be walk far enough to get to the Little Debbie's display but more importantly, we wouldn't have to repair and replace the carts as much.
Don't make the stores so cold. It costs money and energy to cool a 200,000 sq foot building to 65 degrees.

Our health insurance sucks too. They tell us that they pay for 2/3 the cost of the insurance. If that's true then they're getting ripped off. And a lot of associates are on Medicaid and food stamps but maybe if the employee discount covered food too, the folks could save the state some money. There's a lot of inequity in people's paychecks. Some people barely scrape by while other people make roughly the same as a LPN.

Even with all the flaws though, we've got a lot of great people working here (in Florida at least) and I hope that we can fix the things that suck and keep the things that are good. We should bring back the Made in America program and get more serious about the environment (by having stores raise money for the Nature Conversancy or the Audubon Society the same as they do for Children's Miracle Network, the United Way, and the Cancer Society). We should also stop building stores in Florida and Texas.

[abcdefz]

Moe Tucker worked for WalMart and said they were very stingy with raises.

[Qdrop]

i'm not even advocating not shopping at any chain store.

i'm not neccessarily anti-chain...i believe in competition and capitalism and the market system....i just think there needs to be limits on gains and capital size....to prevent monopolistic practices....

if your town only has ONE main super-mega store, with scarcley any significant competition....that is not a good thing.
that store can dictate price, and has no incentive to raise quality, ect...
the customer becomes thier slave.

remember, competition is key to a more just capitalism.
it must be preserved.

but the real issue i have with such retail monoliths like walmart, is that the sheer size that they have achieved in the market lets them literally dictate thier suppliers price, and they constantly force that price lower and lower to unreasonably low numbers that all but require thier suppliers to go overseas to reduce labor and material costs.
it fucks american suppliers and our workers.....and, likely, our economy.

now there is some debate here....
you can contrast the global warming debate with the debate on how walmart will effect the american economy:

the global climate system, like the our a country's economy, is very complex and not perfectly understood or predictable.
for every action (good or bad) there tends to be a reaction that helps to balance things out....a sort of natural law.

will the jobs lost by suppliers and manufacturing jobs going over seas kill our economy? to me, it seems it will have a least a significant negative effect. and i think we understand the economy a little better than global climate patterns.

while walmart will offer lower prices to the american public (good), i find it difficult to believe that that positive effect to the consumer economy will make up for the job and industry loss.
you can't buy if you don't have job/money.

and your average blue collar worker does not have the time or money to go back to school and learn a computer/tech skill (which is where our job core is being pushed to).
practices such as this by walmart are destroying american manufacturing.


i personally can and have felt the effects of walmart's practices on my own job and company...and they can be attributed back to walmart with ease. they are really undeniable.

the debate is just how much those negative effects will spread before/if they get balance out in the economy.

[BGirl]

We have to get over this whole idea of a priviledged standard of living. We don't have to have cable TV or 1.4 cars for each person. That money is much better spent supporting each other in community and enriching life in that way. When the private grocer down the street goes out of business and we just shrug and say "that's life," we're all cheapened a little.

word

This was in Newsweek? Nice.

[Qdrop]

I can't believe I'm defending the evil empire but here goes:
Wal-Mart does not trample all small businesses. We do not sell everything so we send a lot of customers to local businesses to obtain the goods and services that we don't have. I've seen small business owners thank people at Wal-Mart for sending them customers and helping to increase their business.

What businesses? Locksmiths, local automotive repair shops, local meat markets ( a lot of Wal-Mart employees do not buy meat from Wally World), and Radio Shack (not a small business but I myself recommend that place to 2-5 people a day).
at it's current state...walmart isn't a direct threat to EVERY store or shop within it's area....
it doesn't carry every product, or specialty products.
at this point, that is not a fear of mine.

but this could change...i'll write more about that later.



Our health insurance sucks too. They tell us that they pay for 2/3 the cost of the insurance. If that's true then they're getting ripped off. And a lot of associates are on Medicaid and food stamps but maybe if the employee discount covered food too, the folks could save the state some money. There's a lot of inequity in people's paychecks. Some people barely scrape by while other people make roughly the same as a LPN.
Walmart is becoming rather notorious for it's paultry employee services, from benefits to pay...

the real problem here is a "future" one.

at this point, if you don't like how walmart treats you...you can go somewhere else.
free market.

the problem is when walmart's predatory practices on other local competitors causes other competition to jump ship.

i mentioned earlier that such practices could lead to enslaving local customers...but it could also enslave local employees...with the shitty pay and benefits.
where else will you go?
most walmart employees have limited educations and limited finances to begin with....particularly in small towns....
when you lose options, you lose leverage.

We should bring back the Made in America program that's the thing...due to walmart's "price nazi" tactics...thier suppliers are being forced, more and more, to go overseas for labor and materials.

and Walmart is rather notorious for it's generous importing of cheap asian goods...that they mark up 50-80% !!

good for america?
debatable to say the least.

[EN[i]GMA]

i'm not neccessarily anti-chain...i believe in competition and capitalism and the market system....i just think there needs to be limits on gains and capital size....to prevent monopolistic practices....

Sounds great in theory, but the application of these 'fairness' laws have often been more unfair than the market could ever dream of being.


if your town only has ONE main super-mega store, with scarcley any significant competition....that is not a good thing.
that store can dictate price, and has no incentive to raise quality, ect...
the customer becomes thier slave.

Show me one place where this has happend.

Just one.

It's illogical. If this town was big enough to support a Wal Mart in the first place, it could support a lot of other stores as well.

Do you know that Wal Mart actually DRAWS in business, instead of drawing it out? A Wal Mart was recently built near me, and do you know what sprung up beside it? An electronics store, a clothes store, a sporting goods store, and sears outlet, and about 6 others, all built in the same complex as the Wal Mart.

What do you think drew them there? Do you think they would be there if not for the Wal Mart?

Let's apply some logic here. If people are spending less money on sundries, they can spend more on other things, things that 'local stores' sell, increasing their profits. If more people have jobs or are making more, more money is infused into the local economy, helping everyone.

Tell me, how can people be enslaved when they made the concious decision to shop there in the first place? It isn't slavery if you consent. Do you believe people just might have to reap what they sow?

But all of this is pointless because you can't prove that Wal Mart ever has or ever will make any place it's 'slave'.


remember, competition is key to a more just capitalism.
it must be preserved.

Preserve competition by destroying competition.

That's logical.


but the real issue i have with such retail monoliths like walmart, is that the sheer size that they have achieved in the market lets them literally dictate thier suppliers price, and they constantly force that price lower and lower to unreasonably low numbers that all but require thier suppliers to go overseas to reduce labor and material costs.
it fucks american suppliers and our workers.....and, likely, our economy.

Fuck the suppliers, greedy bastards.

Why should I pay their insane markup?

Define 'unreasonable'. Obviously if the market can easily supply the goods at that price, it's very reasonable.

Can you prove there has been a net deficit for Americans?

It's estimated that Americans have saved $600 Billion dollars due to trade from China, and Americans have made over $400 billion from trade TO China.

Can you prove that Wal Mart/China have COST America more than that 1,000,000,000? If not, you're argument is non-existant.


the global climate system, like the our a country's economy, is very complex and not perfectly understood or predictable.
for every action (good or bad) there tends to be a reaction that helps to balance things out....a sort of natural law.

Sounds good.


will the jobs lost by suppliers and manufacturing jobs going over seas kill our economy? to me, it seems it will have a least a significant negative effect. and i think we understand the economy a little better than global climate patterns.

Do you have any facts, figures, circumstantial or empirical evidence to back this up? I can prove it's HELPED America to the tune of at least 1 Trillion dollars, among other things.

Can you prove that it's hurt America?

And this is avoiding the point of how fucking selfish it is to deny China anything just because it would benefit us more. The same people that bitch and moan about the poor in the 3rd world are the same ones that want to end trade with them. Hypocrites.


while walmart will offer lower prices to the american public (good), i find it difficult to believe that that positive effect to the consumer economy will make up for the job and industry loss.
you can't buy if you don't have job/money.

It has. Over 20 million jobs were added during the '90s and unemployment is decently low as-is.

Wages are going up, consumer prices are going up, GDP is going up, everything is looking fine from an economic standpoing.

There is simply no factual basis for this, and really no logical one, if you understand global trade.

The cheaper the goods, the more that are bought, the better the economy does, the faster it grows, the more jobs it can supply, here and abroad, for everyone.


and your average blue collar worker does not have the time or money to go back to school and learn a computer/tech skill (which is where our job core is being pushed to).
practices such as this by walmart are destroying american manufacturing.


Good. Get it out of here. If it can't compete in the world market, it's wasting money (On inflated wages) rescources (On less efficient goods) and time (But not supplying it quickly enough). If these jobs are not BETTER than their Chinese counterparts, they are HAMPERING the world economy, raising the prices of everything you and I buy, slowing down the economy and reducing (Or artificially limiting) the amount of wealth in the world.

What benefit is there to paying a blue collar worker more, for a job done less effectively, to the economy as a whole? None. None at all.

And if the American companies CAN compete (Many can), than we know that they are good, efficient and effective, and it's likely the Asian competition that forced them to become better, more efficient, and faster.


i personally can and have felt the effects of walmart's practices on my own job and company...and they can be attributed back to walmart with ease. they are really undeniable.

You're thinking of yourself and the few people you know, not of the economy as a whole.

You can prove that negative affect, but add up how much money Wal Mart/globalization has saved you personally.

You can't do it.

Yeah, when you only have one side of an argument, it does seem pretty convincing.


the debate is just how much those negative effects will spread before/if they get balance out in the economy.

Walmart is 2% of our GDP.

If they were really that bad we would be feeling the effects right now.

[Schmeltz]

What benefit is there to paying a blue collar worker more, for a job done less effectively, to the economy as a whole? None.


Having never had an actual job yourself, it's probably very easy to suggest that the people losing jobs to your vaunted ideology should simply sacrifice their well-being for the greater good of the economy as a whole. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), people who live in the real world don't tend to see things in those terms.

I'll say it again: you're just as much a utopian idealist as the next guy.

[EN[i]GMA]

Having never had an actual job yourself, it's probably very easy to suggest that the people losing jobs to your vaunted ideology should simply sacrifice their well-being for the greater good of the economy as a whole. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), people who live in the real world don't tend to see things in those terms.

I'll say it again: you're just as much a utopian idealist as the next guy.

It's a little bit easier than telling a poor asian child he's going to starve because his parents don't have jobs though.

People in the 'real world' do HAVE to sacrifice for the economy as a whole. Do you think we should still make millions of typewriters a year? No? I didn't hear you bitching when their jobs were replaced by computers.

What if we would 'helped them out' and let them keep their jobs, and restricted computer growth? It would have been ruinous for the economy. No booming 90's and EVERYONE would be a lot poorer now.

Your view is so tragically myopic, it's incredible.

You would rather a few thousand people keep their jobs and force millions tosuffer because of that selfish view. You would rather have an asian starve than an american bumped down a tax bracket.

I'll tell anyone fired to find another job and quit bitching.

Progress waits for none and it's for their own good.

Isn't it blindingly hypocritical of you to cry for industrial workers who took their jobs from blacksmiths over the years?

Of course you don't see it that way, because you're unable to. You don't want to.

I'm the utopian idealist, but you're the one who would rather us live in the dark ages (For today is tommorow's dark age, is it not?) than advance. Yeah, THAT criticism doesn't ring hollow...

[Qdrop]

GMA']Sounds great in theory, but the application of these 'fairness' laws have often been more unfair than the market could ever dream of being.
examples?



Show me one place where this has happend.

Just one.

It's illogical. If this town was big enough to support a Wal Mart in the first place, it could support a lot of other stores as well.

Do you know that Wal Mart actually DRAWS in business, instead of drawing it out? A Wal Mart was recently built near me, and do you know what sprung up beside it? An electronics store, a clothes store, a sporting goods store, and sears outlet, and about 6 others, all built in the same complex as the Wal Mart.

What do you think drew them there? Do you think they would be there if not for the Wal Mart?

Let's apply some logic here. If people are spending less money on sundries, they can spend more on other things, things that 'local stores' sell, increasing their profits. If more people have jobs or are making more, more money is infused into the local economy, helping everyone.

Tell me, how can people be enslaved when they made the concious decision to shop there in the first place? It isn't slavery if you consent. Do you believe people just might have to reap what they sow?

But all of this is pointless because you can't prove that Wal Mart ever has or ever will make any place it's 'slave'.


my points on this aspect are purely speculation for the most part....these are things that, if left unchecked, would be the logical conclusion.

but yes, pure speculation....i admit that.
that really isn't the crux of my argument.

my main argument is with what they do to suppliers....

also, while the title of the thread is about walmart....i'm speaking ill off all mega-retail marts.....target, ect.

they all engage in similar practices. it's all about HOW these mega low marts get their prices so low....and WHO has to get fucked by it.


Preserve competition by destroying competition.

That's logical.


cap it so it stays hostile......force them to compete. no buy-outs.


Fuck the suppliers, greedy bastards.

Why should I pay their insane markup?
dude, fuck you.
i am one of thier suppliers.

insane mark up? it's called profit.....something you love.

and if these companies were getting turned down as suppliers purely becuase they insanely marking up their products, then why do they go OUT OF FUCKIN BUSINESS WHEN WALMART BOOTS THEM?
seems to me, if a supplier had a choice between reducing thier mark up or going bankrupt...they would choose the reduction and just cut profits.
but the reduction is just too great....they can't stay in business after a point.
walmart and others FORCE this into happening.


Define 'unreasonable'. Obviously if the market can easily supply the goods at that price, it's very reasonable. no, the american manufacturing/supply market CAN'T supply at that price...because our cost of labor is much higher due to a higher standard of living...then asia.
our labor cannot compete with asian labor....they just work for too cheap.
when american suppliers lose walmart's business to chinese suppliers, they lose jobs.


Can you prove there has been a net deficit for Americans? what proof do you want?


It's estimated that Americans have saved $600 Billion dollars due to trade from China, and Americans have made over $400 billion from trade TO China.
which americans?


Do you have any facts, figures, circumstantial or empirical evidence to back this up? I can prove it's HELPED America to the tune of at least 1 Trillion dollars, among other things.

Can you prove that it's hurt America?


shoot through here for the moment:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/

i honestly don't have time at the moment to pour alot figures at you....
tomorrow...

And this is avoiding the point of how fucking selfish it is to deny China anything just because it would benefit us more. The same people that bitch and moan about the poor in the 3rd world are the same ones that want to end trade with them. Hypocrites. well that's globalization. depends if you are for it or against it.



It has. Over 20 million jobs were added during the '90s and unemployment is decently low as-is.

Wages are going up, consumer prices are going up, GDP is going up, everything is looking fine from an economic standpoing. we all know the problem with alot figures, especially unemployment figures.
this has been talked about before.


There is simply no factual basis for this, and really no logical one, if you understand global trade. who wins and who loses in global trade?
i know who is supposed to win (everyone), but do they?
is there an imbalance?

The cheaper the goods, how do those goods become cheaper?

the more that are bought, not by the people who lost their jobs to chinese suppliers.

the better the economy does, the faster it grows, the more jobs it can supply, we ain't doin so hot at the moment.

here and abroad, for everyone. everyone?



Good. Get it out of here. If it can't compete in the world market, it's wasting money (On inflated wages) rescources (On less efficient goods) and time (But not supplying it quickly enough). If these jobs are not BETTER than their Chinese counterparts,
better? or cheaper? and why?

they are HAMPERING the world economy, raising the prices of everything you and I buy, slowing down the economy and reducing (Or artificially limiting) the amount of wealth in the world. who gets wealth?

look, i see your point....i'm just looking at from the other side as well.

who suffers? who gains?


What benefit is there to paying a blue collar worker more, for a job done less effectively, to the economy as a whole? None. None at all. i know what you are saying....

but when american lose thier manufacturing jobs at greater and great rates....we will suffer. all of us.

the cold fact of globalization is that if china and others are to gain....we need to lose....
that's how the balance takes place.

do you want to lose?

And if the American companies CAN compete (Many can), than we know that they are good, efficient and effective, and it's likely the Asian competition that forced them to become better, more efficient, and faster. as far as labor....that won't happen anytime soon.
our quality of life is too high....we just can't AFFORD to work for as cheap as the chinese....period.
you need to understand that.

greater efficiancy only goes so far.



You're thinking of yourself and the few people you know, not of the economy as a whole. am I?


You can prove that negative affect, but add up how much money Wal Mart/globalization has saved you personally.

You can't do it. dude, it could end up COSTING me my fucking job!
how about that!?!?





Walmart is 2% of our GDP.

If they were really that bad we would be feeling the effects right now. it's not just walmart...
and just wait....

[EN[i]GMA]

examples?

Numerous. Anti-trust laws were used to shut down businesses that did NOTHING wrong (Raise prices, restrict output), price ceilings and floors were instituted, not the for the 'benefit' of the public (They they don't benefit anyone), but just to prop up companies with political clout. Railroads were given area the size of France, and they used most of this to sell for clear profit. They were given this land, not because they needed it, but because they wanted it. Monopolies were FORMED by the government, just to keep up prices for powerful businessmen.

It goes on like this for a long time. I could get you some specific examples if you want.


my points on this aspect are purely speculation for the most part....these are things that, if left unchecked, would be the logical conclusion.

but yes, pure speculation....i admit that.
that really isn't the crux of my argument.

my main argument is with what they do to suppliers....

also, while the title of the thread is about walmart....i'm speaking ill off all mega-retail marts.....target, ect.

they all engage in similar practices. it's all about HOW these mega low marts get their prices so low....and WHO has to get fucked by it.

None has to get fucked by it. I don't know why you assume this. This isn't a zero-sum game where some gain and some lose; with global trade, everyone wins. Sure, you can point out specific, individual examples, but I can point out the economy as a whole.


cap it so it stays hostile......force them to compete. no buy-outs.


Cap it so companies have no real incentive to compete and end buyouts so companies don't have to fear losing. That'll sure help.


dude, fuck you.
i am one of thier suppliers.

I'm sad to hear that, but putting a name on it does nothing to change the underlying facts.


insane mark up? it's called profit.....something you love.

Only when I'm making it. Otherwise, it sucks.


and if these companies were getting turned down as suppliers purely becuase they insanely marking up their products, then why do they go OUT OF FUCKIN BUSINESS WHEN WALMART BOOTS THEM?
seems to me, if a supplier had a choice between reducing thier mark up or going bankrupt...they would choose the reduction and just cut profits.
but the reduction is just too great....they can't stay in business after a point.
walmart and others FORCE this into happening.

It doesn't really matter WHY their prices are higher, simply that they are.


no, the american manufacturing/supply market CAN'T supply at that price...because our cost of labor is much higher due to a higher standard of living...then asia.
our labor cannot compete with asian labor....they just work for too cheap.
when american suppliers lose walmart's business to chinese suppliers, they lose jobs.

Not always. Often, American ingenuity and technology outdoes the benefits of lower labor costs.


what proof do you want?

Any facts will do.


which americans?

Any who have purchased or used the goods, therefore, mostly all of them.



shoot through here for the moment:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/

I've seen the show. I wasn't convinced at all. Actually, I thought more of Wal Mart after watching it.


i honestly don't have time at the moment to pour alot figures at you....
tomorrow...
well that's globalization. depends if you are for it or against it.

It doesn't really matter anyway, the numbers don't exist.


we all know the problem with alot figures, especially unemployment figures.
this has been talked about before.

True, but there would be SOME sign that all these jobs were leaving, wouldn't there?


who wins and who loses in global trade?
i know who is supposed to win (everyone), but do they?
is there an imbalance?

No, no there isn't. We're getting richer over here, they're getting richer over there and the problems you suppose very simply, don't exist.


how do those goods become cheaper?

Reduced cost to make them.


not by the people who lost their jobs to chinese suppliers.

Yeah, until they find other jobs.


we ain't doin so hot at the moment.

Sure we are. The Economist predicts a 3.2% GDP growth this year, which isn't bad in a global economy that's slowing slightly.


everyone?

Yes.


better? or cheaper? and why?

If they weren't better or cheaper, or both, people wouldn't buy goods from there.


who gets wealth?

look, i see your point....i'm just looking at from the other side as well.

who suffers? who gains?

Everyone. Look at the industrial revolution. I'm sure you would have been railing against that as it happend, but look at its effects now.


i know what you are saying....

but when american lose thier manufacturing jobs at greater and great rates....we will suffer. all of us.

No we won't. American manufacturing jobs are WORSE than Chinese manufactung jobs. They cost more, the quality is no better, and it HURTS the economy.


the cold fact of globalization is that if china and others are to gain....we need to lose....
that's how the balance takes place.

do you want to lose?

No it isn't. This has been debunked for 300 years. People don't need to 'lose' anything. You're just talking out your ass. Both sides gain. They got employment, we get cheap goods. Who loses? I know who you're going to SAY loses, but you still can't prove that they are. Jobs are available, Americans are getting richer, and standards of living are rising.

What you're describing IS NOT HAPPENING. IT IS NOT VALID.


as far as labor....that won't happen anytime soon.
our quality of life is too high....we just can't AFFORD to work for as cheap as the chinese....period.
you need to understand that.

greater efficiancy only goes so far.

We have other advanteages, we're more highly trained, educated, have more in the way of technology and are good business people. It isn't always about labor costs.

And greater efficiency goes VERY far.


am I?

dude, it could end up COSTING me my fucking job!
how about that!?!?

Yeah, that's negative for you, but beneficial to almost everyone else in the entire world. And you seem to be doing alright, as is, not starved to death yet I see, which is what might have happend to the person who has your job now.


it's not just walmart...
and just wait....

This rings hollow...

[Qdrop]

GMA']Numerous. Anti-trust laws were used to shut down businesses that did NOTHING wrong (Raise prices, restrict output), price ceilings and floors were instituted, not the for the 'benefit' of the public (They they don't benefit anyone), but just to prop up companies with political clout. Railroads were given area the size of France, and they used most of this to sell for clear profit. They were given this land, not because they needed it, but because they wanted it. Monopolies were FORMED by the government, just to keep up prices for powerful businessmen.

It goes on like this for a long time. I could get you some specific examples if you want.

so you are really going to sit here and tell me there exist no examples where business regulation or anti-trust suites were good for the american public?
jesus, this will go on for pages....



None has to get fucked by it. I don't know why you assume this. This isn't a zero-sum game where some gain and some lose; with global trade, everyone wins. Sure, you can point out specific, individual examples, but I can point out the economy as a whole.
i just don't completely buy it.
i'm not against globalization....but i do recognize their will be some legitamate pain for certain countries while adjusting to it....until the 3rd world countries standard of living equals our and the playing field is equal (and labor costs equalize more).
if you don't see that....fine...i'll go quote dozens of sources from anti-globalization books (The World is Flat, ect) and you can counter with your own sources...and will go on for pages with no resolution.
face....we are BOTH dealing with theory here.



Cap it so companies have no real incentive to compete
what are you talking about? if a company is capped THEY HAVE to compete to survive....they can not buy out other competition...they must compete with them on every level. Profits made over the cap must be divided to the labor as bonuses...now THAT'S incentive.
now yes, a cap on capital worth could hurt R&D....there would have to be allowances for that


and end buyouts so companies don't have to fear losing. no....if they lose, they go bankrupt and close...and their capital is auctioned off to other competitors....and/or a new upstart company takes it's place and hires the old workers....
no conglomerates.......companies cannot sit back and get fat....pure survival of the fittest.



I'm sad to hear that, but putting a name on it does nothing to change the underlying facts.
fine. true enough.

but if you give no mercy....expect no mercy.
remember that...
..your mommy and daddy will not always be their to help you after college...



Only when I'm making it. Otherwise, it sucks. that's a great motto.



It doesn't really matter WHY their prices are higher, simply that they are. it does matter....they are higher because our standard of living is higher...and our labor costs must be higher.



Not always. Often, American ingenuity and technology outdoes the benefits of lower labor costs. tell that to the all the american companies that are outsourcing like mad. they sure don't agree with you....
what do they know that you don't?



Any facts will do. okay:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/interviews/lehman.html

"Why can't a Procter & Gamble or a Rubbermaid or a Huffy Bicycle or almost anybody, why can't they just say, "Look, we're not going to do it at this price"? This is Rubbermaid, after all. At the time, they were the most admired company in America. Why can't they just say: "I'm sorry. We're not doing it that way"? What gives Wal-Mart the ability to, as you put it, dictate the terms?

... Well, what's happening across America is Wal-Mart is eliminating competition. ... Wal-Mart is extremely fine-tuned on their ... pricing policies.

What do you mean... ?

... As a store manager, I'll give you an example. Memorial Day, I'd go out to the local competition and look at the price of, say, for example, ketchup, mustard, relish, mayonnaise. And if my competitor lowballed me on a price, if they undercut me on, say, Heinz ketchup, then what I would do is I'd come back and say, "OK, you're going to play with me on Heinz ketchup?" The company's policy that I followed was that "OK, I'll take it, and I'll match the price." OK? I'll match the price.

Then I would go back and check it the next day or the following day at the same competitor. And if they'd lowered their price again, then I'd come back, and I would lower my price 5 percent under their price, plus I'd hit five more items in that category. So I would not only take the ketchup; I'd take mayonnaise, mustard, relish, whatever was there, five other items in that same category, as if to say: "Don't mess with me. I'll come after you."

But isn't that good for the consumer? Isn't that exactly what Wal-Mart says it's doing? Isn't that American competition in the free market?

Well, it depends on what you describe as good. Good for the consumer? Maybe in the short run, but in the long run, no."

(now listen up)

Why not?

Well, because for Wal-Mart to be able to do that, if they're selling merchandise at these ridiculously low prices ... then there's a cost to that. And the cost in America is the low-paid American domestic workers that Wal-Mart has. They pay their people a poverty-level wage.

And also, by doing this ... they're really hurting the competition. Competition is supposed to be good for you, like you said. Competition is supposed to be good for consumers. But what ends up happening, I think, is if you don't have a level playing field ... then you eliminate competition. ...


What's the point of all this? Is this just to get lower prices?

No, it's bigger than that. You've got to look beyond that. Lower prices -- that's what Wal-Mart wants you to believe. It's all about low prices, "Roll back America," "We've got the low price every day."

But beyond that veil is, you have to look at when manufacturers that have their offices here in Bentonville -- they're required to do so by Wal-Mart corporate --when they go across that street to deal with the Wal-Mart buyer in the buyers' room, which is a little room about the size of this room, maybe 10 by 10. It's a ruthless situation, because the buyer already knows before that vendor walks in there how much your cost of production is, how much your cost of raw material is. So you're transparent. You're naked in front of that buyer.

Wal-Mart buyer.

Yes, the Wal-Mart buyer. Yeah, the Wal-Mart buyer knows all about you before you walk in, even knows the new product that you're going to come and present to him that day. They know that in advance. So you get there. You bring the product; you set it in front of them and say, "Here it is."

And the buyer says: "Look, I know what it costs you to manufacture that. We've been to your plant. We've seen your books. We want you to sell it to us for 5 percent on a dollar -- at cost -- lower this year than you did last year. And that's what we expect. Don't say you can't do it. There is no can't at Wal-Mart; you have to do it."


So what you're saying is Wal-Mart's got all the leverage in the situation?

Yeah. So let's say I'm Black & Decker or whatever. I go to Wal-Mart in Bentonville. I go walk across the street or drive across the street, because the Wal-Mart buyer's calling me. He wants to negotiate pricing. So I go over there and sit down with the buyer, and he says: "I want you to make those cordless screwdrivers this year for less than you did last year. We bought 60 train carloads last year. We're going to buy 160 this year if you can sell them to us at this price."

And there is no saying no, because Wal-Mart already knows the cost of your raw materials, the cost of your production, the cost of your shipping, the cost of your everything. They know everything. …

And so what do these manufacturers do? They walk away, and, you know, I can envision these phone calls that take place back to their corporate: "You're not going to believe what Wal-Mart wants us to do." "What is it this time?" "Well, they want us to sell that same product that we sold them last year, but they want it at a 2 percent discount in cost this year." And they're already just making ends meet.

So now the company has to look at it and say: "We can't make it here in America anymore. We might have a union plant where we're paying you good, living, union wages. I think we need to close this plant, maybe move it over to China or move it down to Monterrey, Mexico. We've got NAFTA, so let's take advantage of it."


**So you're saying Wal-Mart is shoving jobs out of America by the pressure it's putting on suppliers?**

What I'm saying is we hear a lot of talk today in the media, and especially going into this campaign, that it's all about manufacturers exporting jobs and "Benedict Arnold CEOs" exporting jobs.

Well, I say look behind that veil. Let's look at the cause and effect here. Here we have the world's largest retailer. Now, they've got to have some effect on these manufacturers. Look behind the manufacturers. The manufacturers are trying to deal with this ... retailer out there ... that wants to look at their books, that wants to "partner" with them on these things.[/i]




Any who have purchased or used the goods, therefore, mostly all of them.
but the many who lose their jobs to outsourcing don't. nor do thier kids. or surrounding businesses that see a reduction in consumers.

you've seen the documentary "Rodger and ME", i take it? tell me, how's Flint, Michigan doin?



True, but there would be SOME sign that all these jobs were leaving, wouldn't there? flint, michigan. want more?



No, no there isn't. We're getting richer over here, they're getting richer over there and the problems you suppose very simply, don't exist. sorry to take the "socialist" side here....but who makes most of that extra wealth?
come on, man....you know most of those profits stay right in the company and it corporate offices...it's not all distrubuted to the common consumer.
open your eyes.
companies don't outsource so "they can make america a great place and help thier fellow americans"...it's for profit....pure money-loving profit....and most of it stays right in their pockets.

Now, is Wal-Mart any different from Target or Kmart or Home Depot or any other retailer?

Well, yes, they are. Wal-Mart has a predatory pricing policy. They are always talking about bringing the prices down for the American consumer when it's all about, really, raising profits in Bentonville, Ark., and raising profits for the shareholders and continuing the growth, continuing the accountability to the quarterly earnings report that comes out every quarter. It's all about growth. It's all about profit.


And what's the cost of that? What's wrong with that? That's American. That's the way the market works. What's the cost of that? Is there a price that America is paying because Wal-Mart's shareholders are making more money? I mean, that's a very American thing to do.

... Yeah. Wal-Mart is making this profit basically on the backs of their workers. The workers are bearing the burden. The workers that have made this company great are being paid a poverty-level wage, lousy benefits, worked off the clock, cheated out of overtime. ... Gender discrimination lawsuits. Now, the company has [been] mistreating its workers, and they're making billions on the backs of their workers. So yes, there is a cost.

But I think the average American consumer doesn't see that. They see that shopping cart full of merchandise; those big, blue bags; and they saved $20 this week because they went to Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart doesn't pay their people a responsible wage. ...

-------------------------
... Wal-Mart's essentially saying it's doing a good job for its workers, and it's providing good jobs in the communities that it moves into, and it's helping fill holes when American manufacturing jobs and other jobs are lost. You apparently don't agree with that. Why don't you agree with the picture that Wal-Mart is putting forward about itself, saying it's doing positive things?

... For example, Wal-Mart says that 90 percent of its workers -- they were very skilled at saying this -- they said 90 percent of its workers have health insurance. But they may have it through their spouse's employer, who, by the way, may be a union employer. So a lot of times, the union contract employer is actually bearing an undue burden by picking up a Wal-Mart associate, for example.

I think the truth is more like 38, 39 percent of Wal-Mart associates take the health care program. The rest of them can't afford it or opt not to take it because it's so crappy, basically.


... One of the arguments made in Southern California against bringing in Wal-Mart stores is that they will dump an unfair burden on the public services of the local community, whether it's Inglewood or Los Angeles or wherever. And I just want to ask you, as a Wal-Mart manager who managed several stores in four different states, did you, in fact, counsel your employees to take advantage of public assistance because Wal-Mart wasn't providing adequate care for its employees?

I had a Rolodex on my desk, and I still have the Rolodex; I took it home with me. But it's full of business cards of social service outfits in the local city that I was running a store: indigent health care organizations that provided indigent health care, soup kitchens, everything, the United Way -- all these people that I had lined up that I would call in the event that an associate came into my office and said, "I can't afford to take my child to the doctor," "I can't afford groceries," or "I'm getting kicked out of my house," or whatever. And I would actually call these places. Many times, I would take the worker down to the United Way in my truck. They didn't know what to do. I'd take them down, help them make [an] application and get some help, you know.


So you actively encouraged and involved Wal-Mart employees, as a Wal-Mart manager, in using public assistance for programs and benefits that Wal-Mart itself didn't offer?

Yes, sir. Sure, I did it all the time. And I thought I was doing a good thing at the time. Now when I look back, I think, "Wow, that's incredibly poor that the company doesn't care enough about its workers to pay them a living wage and to help them with their medical costs, to pay for their medical expenses and things like that." ...


... If you were talking straight to American voters, what would you say about American jobs lost over the last decade and the role of companies like Wal-Mart?

It's an excellent question. I would say: "Look behind the veil. Look behind the smoke and mirrors." It's not just manufacturers that are making these decisions. They're being put in undue-pressure situations. They're being hammered on. Wal-Mart has a lot of these manufacturers in a chokehold. We're talking about the world's largest and most powerful and most profitable corporation that, by the way, happens to reside in "aw shucks" Bentonville, Ark., the good ol' boys: "We're just a bunch of good ol' people down here in Bentonville, Ark."

Well, the truth is they're ruthless; they're smart; they're intelligent. They're geniuses at making profit. They've taken the foundation that Sam built, and now it's on steroids. This company is out of control. I would say look beyond that.


But "Look beyond that"? What are you going to see? ...

Well, when you look at it, if you really look at it, these manufacturers are exporting jobs. Yes, they are. But why are they doing that? Because the cost of the goods -- the production costs, the shipping costs -- are being scrutinized every day by this company, by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is putting enormous pressure on these manufacturers. And these manufacturers want to stay in business; they want to stay afloat. So what do they end up doing? Many times, crushing good, American union jobs, manufacturing jobs. And these manufacturers in many cases are forced with a decision: Do we go to China? Do we go to Mexico? We've got NAFTA; we can use that as an excuse. Wal-Mart's eating our lunch. We can't get out of bed with Wal-Mart now. We've been in bed too long. We have nobody else to sell our merchandise to that matters anymore.



Reduced cost to make them. by forcing suppliers to outsource labor, and close companies and kill american jobs.



Yeah, until they find other jobs.
Flint, Michigan.

seriously, you're in the Ivory Tower right now....

you're average factory worker, particulary in small towns, just doesn't have all the options you think they do. many towns and cities are built around one big factory.
and people can't just get up and move....that costs alot of money.
do you understand this?



If they weren't better or cheaper, or both, people wouldn't buy goods from there. no, cheaper. it's all about cheaper.

and the thing is....walmart ISN'T always cheaper. read about thier "low price point" scheme in that interview.



Everyone. Look at the industrial revolution. I'm sure you would have been railing against that as it happend, but look at its effects now. it's a very differant world and very differant circumstances.



No we won't. American manufacturing jobs are WORSE than Chinese manufactung jobs. They cost more, the quality is no better, and it HURTS the economy. so if that trend continues....what will all of the american manufacturers and laborers do when most of thier jobs go overseas?
they can't afford to go back to school....

what do they do? go on welfare....so you can pay for them?
rob, steal?...they have families to feed.



No it isn't. This has been debunked for 300 years. People don't need to 'lose' anything. You're just talking out your ass. Both sides gain. They got employment, we get cheap goods. Who loses? the laborer who lost their jobs and can't get new ones. jobs that pay the same....

I know who you're going to SAY loses, but you still can't prove that they are. Jobs are available, Americans are getting richer, and standards of living are rising. i suppose time will tell.


We have other advanteages, we're more highly trained, educated, have more in the way of technology and are good business people. tell that to India...they're on our asses in that category.
i think you will be singing a differant tune when Rashish takes your job away in 5 years....


It isn't always about labor costs. for manufacturers, it is.

And greater efficiency goes VERY far. not far enough for the companies that prefer to oursource, apparently.

------------

Is Wal-Mart good for America?

... I don't think Wal-Mart is good for America because what's happening is, yeah, you can get maybe a bag of groceries more, or you might spend $50 at Wal-Mart and spend $50 at Target or Kmart and you might get a few more items at Wal-Mart because of the prices.

But there's a cost to low prices. And the cost is [that] good, American jobs are being shipped overseas. … Many times union jobs are going away, and those same people are having to go to work at Wal-Mart, making a fraction of what they made there and not getting good health care; not getting a good company-paid pension, company-paid health care.

So no, I would say Wal-Mart is not good for America. I think the average person out there that you run into in a Wal-Mart store may say: "Yeah, I love this place, because look at the stuff I can get. Look at the cheap prices." But there's a cost for these low prices, and many people don't realize that.


So in effect, what you're saying is Wal-Mart is good for customers, and Wal-Mart's not good for workers?

Yeah, I think Wal-Mart is temporarily good for the economy. Certainly the stock price, the investment value of Wal-Mart stock -- those things are good for our economy on a short-term [basis]. I think there's going to be a correction that takes place, though, eventually. I don't know what's going to happen.


... Is Wal-Mart good for America in the long run? ... You said in the short run, temporarily it's good, lower prices, and the stock value is good.

Well, what I mean by that is the consumer. It's good for the low-wage consumer, a blue-collar worker out there that is just barely making ends meet. Yeah, they can go to Wal-Mart, fill up their shopping cart and save $20, $30 that week, which may help to pay for the kids' lunches at school or whatever. It may help pay for their gas bill that month, or electricity bill. So yeah, Wal-Mart is good in that respect, OK?

But many people don't look behind that big, yellow smiley face that they show on TV and see the reality of what's happening to our economy here, what's happening to good, American jobs in the United States here. ... Workers are being worked off the clock many times. There's lawsuits, class-action lawsuits, in over 30 states right now of workers saying: "Enough is enough. I'm being worked off the clock, not paid for my overtime." ...

And look behind that yellow smiley face and see what's really happening to workers. Good, American jobs like at Thomson Electronics in Circleville, Ohio -- that poor guy making $15, $16 an hour, now he's [going to be] making a fraction of that, $7, $8 an hour, working 32 hours a week; a meager health care plan that he's got to pay for now, token health care plan; no pension; no future. There's a revolving door at Wal-Mart -- workers coming in, seeing the reality of it. They've been duped by the yellow smiley face many times. Then they go right back out the same door they came in a week later, a month later, a year later, whatever, however long they choose to stay. That's what's happening behind closed doors. That's what's happening [behind] that big, yellow smiley face. ...

[Ali]

Don't allow morbidly obsese people ride the motorized carts. If they had to walk, they wouldn't be walk far enough to get to the Little Debbie's display but more importantly, we wouldn't have to repair and replace the carts as much.Hahahaahahahahahahahaaaa!

I have an idea, replace the EXTRA WIDE seats with something that will support a normal human being.
Don't make the stores so cold. It costs money and energy to cool a 200,000 sq foot building to 65 degrees.What is with that, anyway? Why is every single building in the US refrigerated to, like, zero Kelvin in the summer? It costs a lot of money to... oh yes. Of course. Silly me.

[EN[i]GMA]

so you are really going to sit here and tell me there exist no examples where business regulation or anti-trust suites were good for the american public?
jesus, this will go on for pages....

I'm not saying that, no, and more importantly, it isn't relevent to the discussion.

My point was merely that such legislation is very flawed as well, and is not always the best solution.


i just don't completely buy it.
i'm not against globalization....but i do recognize their will be some legitamate pain for certain countries while adjusting to it....until the 3rd world countries standard of living equals our and the playing field is equal (and labor costs equalize more).
if you don't see that....fine...i'll go quote dozens of sources from anti-globalization books (The World is Flat, ect) and you can counter with your own sources...and will go on for pages with no resolution.
face....we are BOTH dealing with theory here.


Thought I haven't read, I thought THe World Is Flat was pro-globalization? At least that what's the Economist made it sound like in their review. They savaged it.

And yeah, there are books, compendiums even, if you will, of facts and figures detailing how good globilization is.

So yes, it is theory, but it's supported by lots of facts.


what are you talking about? if a company is capped THEY HAVE to compete to survive....they can not buy out other competition...they must compete with them on every level. Profits made over the cap must be divided to the labor as bonuses...now THAT'S incentive.
now yes, a cap on capital worth could hurt R&D....there would have to be allowances for that

How can a company ever buy out a competitor without competing?

I don't think you understand what profits are, or what purpose they serve in an economy. Without huge gains, many companies would have no reason to expand. Oil for instance. It costs millions upon milllions to expand and create new wells, this must be financed be profits. Without these profits, no company would have the money to expand, and then where would be able to expand.

Profts/losses are not bad things, at all, they are natural functions of the market that cannot be altered without serious consequences. You can't just cap profits, lest those companies have no reason to aim higher than those profits. It's a real and artificial cap on growth, nothing more.


no....if they lose, they go bankrupt and close...and their capital is auctioned off to other competitors....and/or a new upstart company takes it's place and hires the old workers....
no conglomerates.......companies cannot sit back and get fat....pure survival of the fittest.

What companies 'sit back and get fat' as it is now?


fine. true enough.

but if you give no mercy....expect no mercy.
remember that...
..your mommy and daddy will not always be their to help you after college...

No concern of mine.


that's a great motto.

It's the truth.


it does matter....they are higher because our standard of living is higher...and our labor costs must be higher.

Not always. There are other factors in production cost than labor. Americans cost more but are far more efficient, for instance.


tell that to the all the american companies that are outsourcing like mad. they sure don't agree with you....
what do they know that you don't?

Why do you assume they know anything more than I do? Where are the bread riots? The soup lines? The mass-clamor? The numbers of unemployed? The poverty? Show me something, because until I have proof, numbers not hypothetical people, I may as well just assume these people don't exist.




"Why can't a Procter & Gamble or a Rubbermaid or a Huffy Bicycle or almost anybody, why can't they just say, "Look, we're not going to do it at this price"? This is Rubbermaid, after all. At the time, they were the most admired company in America. Why can't they just say: "I'm sorry. We're not doing it that way"? What gives Wal-Mart the ability to, as you put it, dictate the terms?

... Well, what's happening across America is Wal-Mart is eliminating competition. ... Wal-Mart is extremely fine-tuned on their ... pricing policies.

What do you mean... ?

... As a store manager, I'll give you an example. Memorial Day, I'd go out to the local competition and look at the price of, say, for example, ketchup, mustard, relish, mayonnaise. And if my competitor lowballed me on a price, if they undercut me on, say, Heinz ketchup, then what I would do is I'd come back and say, "OK, you're going to play with me on Heinz ketchup?" The company's policy that I followed was that "OK, I'll take it, and I'll match the price." OK? I'll match the price.

Then I would go back and check it the next day or the following day at the same competitor. And if they'd lowered their price again, then I'd come back, and I would lower my price 5 percent under their price, plus I'd hit five more items in that category. So I would not only take the ketchup; I'd take mayonnaise, mustard, relish, whatever was there, five other items in that same category, as if to say: "Don't mess with me. I'll come after you."

But isn't that good for the consumer? Isn't that exactly what Wal-Mart says it's doing? Isn't that American competition in the free market?

Well, it depends on what you describe as good. Good for the consumer? Maybe in the short run, but in the long run, no."

(now listen up)

Why not?

Well, because for Wal-Mart to be able to do that, if they're selling merchandise at these ridiculously low prices ... then there's a cost to that. And the cost in America is the low-paid American domestic workers that Wal-Mart has. They pay their people a poverty-level wage.

And also, by doing this ... they're really hurting the competition. Competition is supposed to be good for you, like you said. Competition is supposed to be good for consumers. But what ends up happening, I think, is if you don't have a level playing field ... then you eliminate competition. ...


What's the point of all this? Is this just to get lower prices?

No, it's bigger than that. You've got to look beyond that. Lower prices -- that's what Wal-Mart wants you to believe. It's all about low prices, "Roll back America," "We've got the low price every day."

But beyond that veil is, you have to look at when manufacturers that have their offices here in Bentonville -- they're required to do so by Wal-Mart corporate --when they go across that street to deal with the Wal-Mart buyer in the buyers' room, which is a little room about the size of this room, maybe 10 by 10. It's a ruthless situation, because the buyer already knows before that vendor walks in there how much your cost of production is, how much your cost of raw material is. So you're transparent. You're naked in front of that buyer.

Wal-Mart buyer.

Yes, the Wal-Mart buyer. Yeah, the Wal-Mart buyer knows all about you before you walk in, even knows the new product that you're going to come and present to him that day. They know that in advance. So you get there. You bring the product; you set it in front of them and say, "Here it is."

And the buyer says: "Look, I know what it costs you to manufacture that. We've been to your plant. We've seen your books. We want you to sell it to us for 5 percent on a dollar -- at cost -- lower this year than you did last year. And that's what we expect. Don't say you can't do it. There is no can't at Wal-Mart; you have to do it."


So what you're saying is Wal-Mart's got all the leverage in the situation?

Yeah. So let's say I'm Black & Decker or whatever. I go to Wal-Mart in Bentonville. I go walk across the street or drive across the street, because the Wal-Mart buyer's calling me. He wants to negotiate pricing. So I go over there and sit down with the buyer, and he says: "I want you to make those cordless screwdrivers this year for less than you did last year. We bought 60 train carloads last year. We're going to buy 160 this year if you can sell them to us at this price."

And there is no saying no, because Wal-Mart already knows the cost of your raw materials, the cost of your production, the cost of your shipping, the cost of your everything. They know everything. …

And so what do these manufacturers do? They walk away, and, you know, I can envision these phone calls that take place back to their corporate: "You're not going to believe what Wal-Mart wants us to do." "What is it this time?" "Well, they want us to sell that same product that we sold them last year, but they want it at a 2 percent discount in cost this year." And they're already just making ends meet.

So now the company has to look at it and say: "We can't make it here in America anymore. We might have a union plant where we're paying you good, living, union wages. I think we need to close this plant, maybe move it over to China or move it down to Monterrey, Mexico. We've got NAFTA, so let's take advantage of it."

I've seen the show.

And none of that matters. That is a GOOD thing, but a bad one. It's a play on economic ignorance, nothing more. We obviously disagree very basically about this phenamona. I think what he described is a fantastic extension of the market system. It's lowering costs, drastically. Without this incentive to shave off every single last penny off the price, none would do it? This seemingly small costs add up. If Wal Mart forces goods to be produced and sold more cheaply, than it is serving it's purpose. If it isn't, shop elsewhere and bring down the titan.


**So you're saying Wal-Mart is shoving jobs out of America by the pressure it's putting on suppliers?**

Shipping jobs out as millions rush in to take their place. How horrific.


What I'm saying is we hear a lot of talk today in the media, and especially going into this campaign, that it's all about manufacturers exporting jobs and "Benedict Arnold CEOs" exporting jobs.

Well, I say look behind that veil. Let's look at the cause and effect here. Here we have the world's largest retailer. Now, they've got to have some effect on these manufacturers. Look behind the manufacturers. The manufacturers are trying to deal with this ... retailer out there ... that wants to look at their books, that wants to "partner" with them on these things.[/i]

The cause is prices higher than Wal Mart demands and the effect is lower prices for the consumer.


but the many who lose their jobs to outsourcing don't. nor do thier kids. or surrounding businesses that see a reduction in consumers.

you've seen the documentary "Rodger and ME", i take it? tell me, how's Flint, Michigan doin?

I don't know. Have you read any history books? How's the textile industry in Lowell Mass. doing?

Things change, jobs are moved around, jobs are done away with, it's the way the world works.

I really do hate to sound callous, but whenever I hear these arguments I


flint, michigan. want more?

Lo Ping, the Chinese infant who lived because her parents got a job.

Want more?

Do you see absurd this is? You are doing NOTHING but glaring at one minute piece of a giant equation and telling me to look how horrible things are. It's bigger than you, or I, or Flint Michigan, or even China or the U.S. This is global trade, and the good of the world truly is at stake.


sorry to take the "socialist" side here....but who makes most of that extra wealth?
come on, man....you know most of those profits stay right in the company and it corporate offices...it's not all distrubuted to the common consumer.
open your eyes.
companies don't outsource so "they can make america a great place and help thier fellow americans"...it's for profit....pure money-loving profit....and most of it stays right in their pockets.

And Henry Ford didn't start making cars out of the goodness of his heart, but he still revolutionized America and helped make it modern.

It's a myopic view. That's socialism in a nut-shell, I'm beggining to believe. Looking at one small part of a giant machine and finding the flaw in it, even though that piece is necessary to make the whole machine run.


Well, yes, they are. Wal-Mart has a predatory pricing policy. They are always talking about bringing the prices down for the American consumer when it's all about, really, raising profits in Bentonville, Ark., and raising profits for the shareholders and continuing the growth, continuing the accountability to the quarterly earnings report that comes out every quarter. It's all about growth. It's all about profit.

But of course prices were lowered, that's how they make their profits, by giving Joe Consumer what he wants. They can't just will profits into existance. Profits aren't the product of evil malfeance, profits are the side-effect of pleasing the consumer.


And what's the cost of that? What's wrong with that? That's American. That's the way the market works. What's the cost of that? Is there a price that America is paying because Wal-Mart's shareholders are making more money? I mean, that's a very American thing to do.

... Yeah. Wal-Mart is making this profit basically on the backs of their workers. The workers are bearing the burden. The workers that have made this company great are being paid a poverty-level wage, lousy benefits, worked off the clock, cheated out of overtime. ... Gender discrimination lawsuits. Now, the company has [been] mistreating its workers, and they're making billions on the backs of their workers. So yes, there is a cost.

But I think the average American consumer doesn't see that. They see that shopping cart full of merchandise; those big, blue bags; and they saved $20 this week because they went to Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart doesn't pay their people a responsible wage. ...[/i]

Wal Mart employs 1.7 million people. Do you think this people would be better off without Wal Mart?

Honestly, tell me, how would they be better off.



-------------------------
... Wal-Mart's essentially saying it's doing a good job for its workers, and it's providing good jobs in the communities that it moves into, and it's helping fill holes when American manufacturing jobs and other jobs are lost. You apparently don't agree with that. Why don't you agree with the picture that Wal-Mart is putting forward about itself, saying it's doing positive things?

... For example, Wal-Mart says that 90 percent of its workers -- they were very skilled at saying this -- they said 90 percent of its workers have health insurance. But they may have it through their spouse's employer, who, by the way, may be a union employer. So a lot of times, the union contract employer is actually bearing an undue burden by picking up a Wal-Mart associate, for example.

I think the truth is more like 38, 39 percent of Wal-Mart associates take the health care program. The rest of them can't afford it or opt not to take it because it's so crappy, basically.

Than don't work there. I'm not saying I like this particular policy, I don't, but the fact is, these people would be even worse of without Wal Mart. That's the truth that these people try to avoid.

Tell me, how would America work without Wal Mart? How would it be better?


... One of the arguments made in Southern California against bringing in Wal-Mart stores is that they will dump an unfair burden on the public services of the local community, whether it's Inglewood or Los Angeles or wherever. And I just want to ask you, as a Wal-Mart manager who managed several stores in four different states, did you, in fact, counsel your employees to take advantage of public assistance because Wal-Mart wasn't providing adequate care for its employees?

I had a Rolodex on my desk, and I still have the Rolodex; I took it home with me. But it's full of business cards of social service outfits in the local city that I was running a store: indigent health care organizations that provided indigent health care, soup kitchens, everything, the United Way -- all these people that I had lined up that I would call in the event that an associate came into my office and said, "I can't afford to take my child to the doctor," "I can't afford groceries," or "I'm getting kicked out of my house," or whatever. And I would actually call these places. Many times, I would take the worker down to the United Way in my truck. They didn't know what to do. I'd take them down, help them make [an] application and get some help, you know.


So you actively encouraged and involved Wal-Mart employees, as a Wal-Mart manager, in using public assistance for programs and benefits that Wal-Mart itself didn't offer?

Yes, sir. Sure, I did it all the time. And I thought I was doing a good thing at the time. Now when I look back, I think, "Wow, that's incredibly poor that the company doesn't care enough about its workers to pay them a living wage and to help them with their medical costs, to pay for their medical expenses and things like that." ...

Taken from: http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=76720

Watch as the Amazing Jonas stomps a leftist "economist" into the ground!

The federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. The workers listed in this article ALL make over that amount, unless I'm misreading.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml

According to our government, the poverty level for year 2005 is $9,570 a year for a single-person househole, living in the 48 continental U.S. states.

$5.15 X 40 hours per week = $206.

$206 X 52 weeks per year = $10,712

$10,712 - $9,570 = + $1,142 above the poverty level.

Wow, that was easy.

"But wahhh, Jonas, you evil, racist, white Nazi Christian, people need a living wage if they support a family."

Okay.

For a family of 4, that's two working parents plus two kids, the poverty level is $19,350 per year.

Two people working minimum wage, full-time earn $21,424 per year, which is 40 hours per person, per week.

$21,424 - $19,350 = $2,074 above poverty level.

So, basically, any business paying minimum wage (which Wal-Mart often pays WELL ABOVE) can live above the poverty level, with two children.

That was easy.



I'm not denying his evidence, but again, do you think people would be better off without Wal Mart? Would they be driving their BMW to their swanky uptown apartment after a long day of golf, if evil Wal Mart didn't mug them on the ride home?

I'm not conviced at all that Wal Mart is doing anything wrong. Not in the least.


... If you were talking straight to American voters, what would you say about American jobs lost over the last decade and the role of companies like Wal-Mart?

It's an excellent question. I would say: "Look behind the veil. Look behind the smoke and mirrors." It's not just manufacturers that are making these decisions. They're being put in undue-pressure situations. They're being hammered on. Wal-Mart has a lot of these manufacturers in a chokehold. We're talking about the world's largest and most powerful and most profitable corporation that, by the way, happens to reside in "aw shucks" Bentonville, Ark., the good ol' boys: "We're just a bunch of good ol' people down here in Bentonville, Ark."

Well, the truth is they're ruthless; they're smart; they're intelligent. They're geniuses at making profit. They've taken the foundation that Sam built, and now it's on steroids. This company is out of control. I would say look beyond that.

Less than convinced...


But "Look beyond that"? What are you going to see? ...

Well, when you look at it, if you really look at it, these manufacturers are exporting jobs. Yes, they are. But why are they doing that? Because the cost of the goods -- the production costs, the shipping costs -- are being scrutinized every day by this company, by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is putting enormous pressure on these manufacturers. And these manufacturers want to stay in business; they want to stay afloat. So what do they end up doing? Many times, crushing good, American union jobs, manufacturing jobs. And these manufacturers in many cases are forced with a decision: Do we go to China? Do we go to Mexico? We've got NAFTA; we can use that as an excuse. Wal-Mart's eating our lunch. We can't get out of bed with Wal-Mart now. We've been in bed too long. We have nobody else to sell our merchandise to that matters anymore.


by forcing suppliers to outsource labor, and close companies and kill american jobs.

Must be zombie jobs or something, because our unemployment rate (Flawed, but still) is nice and low, our growth is good, our economy is running smoothly and in no way has any proof that Wal Mart is bad been provided.


Flint, Michigan.

seriously, you're in the Ivory Tower right now....

you're average factory worker, particulary in small towns, just doesn't have all the options you think they do. many towns and cities are built around one big factory.
and people can't just get up and move....that costs alot of money.
do you understand this?

Don't talk to me about this. My father works in a setting exactly like this. Manufacturing, small town, centered around the company, etc.

He still has his job, but because his company (Though not doing the best) can and does compete in the global scene. It's not impossible, as it's happening.

Ivory Tower my ass.


no, cheaper. it's all about cheaper.

and the thing is....walmart ISN'T always cheaper. read about thier "low price point" scheme in that interview.

Irrelevent. People surely think it's cheaper. It's their own loss not to shop at places that truly are cheaper.


it's a very differant world and very differant circumstances.

Cop out. The mere fact that economies change destroys your static theory of wealth. How pointless this debate will seem in 300 years when the economy is so radically different that today seems like the dark age.

"But the poor women of Lowell!"


so if that trend continues....what will all of the american manufacturers and laborers do when most of thier jobs go overseas?
they can't afford to go back to school....

what do they do? go on welfare....so you can pay for them?
rob, steal?...they have families to feed.

Millions already have gone overseas, and NONE of this is happening. This is so absurd it's almost funny.

No forthought of how an economy functions, how things balance on their own, how things readjust, without intervention.

Jobs, good jobs, are being created every day and you still maintain the sky is falling. It isn't happening.


the laborer who lost their jobs and can't get new ones. jobs that pay the same....

i suppose time will tell.

It has been for 15 years, you've just been ignoring it.


tell that to India...they're on our asses in that category.
i think you will be singing a differant tune when Rashish takes your job away in 5 years....

Yeah, I'll be mad as hell! Damn dot-head should starve! Right?




Is Wal-Mart good for America?

... I don't think Wal-Mart is good for America because what's happening is, yeah, you can get maybe a bag of groceries more, or you might spend $50 at Wal-Mart and spend $50 at Target or Kmart and you might get a few more items at Wal-Mart because of the prices.

But there's a cost to low prices. And the cost is [that] good, American jobs are being shipped overseas. … Many times union jobs are going away, and those same people are having to go to work at Wal-Mart, making a fraction of what they made there and not getting good health care; not getting a good company-paid pension, company-paid health care.

So no, I would say Wal-Mart is not good for America. I think the average person out there that you run into in a Wal-Mart store may say: "Yeah, I love this place, because look at the stuff I can get. Look at the cheap prices." But there's a cost for these low prices, and many people don't realize that.


So in effect, what you're saying is Wal-Mart is good for customers, and Wal-Mart's not good for workers?

Yeah, I think Wal-Mart is temporarily good for the economy. Certainly the stock price, the investment value of Wal-Mart stock -- those things are good for our economy on a short-term [basis]. I think there's going to be a correction that takes place, though, eventually. I don't know what's going to happen.


... Is Wal-Mart good for America in the long run? ... You said in the short run, temporarily it's good, lower prices, and the stock value is good.

Well, what I mean by that is the consumer. It's good for the low-wage consumer, a blue-collar worker out there that is just barely making ends meet. Yeah, they can go to Wal-Mart, fill up their shopping cart and save $20, $30 that week, which may help to pay for the kids' lunches at school or whatever. It may help pay for their gas bill that month, or electricity bill. So yeah, Wal-Mart is good in that respect, OK?

But many people don't look behind that big, yellow smiley face that they show on TV and see the reality of what's happening to our economy here, what's happening to good, American jobs in the United States here. ... Workers are being worked off the clock many times. There's lawsuits, class-action lawsuits, in over 30 states right now of workers saying: "Enough is enough. I'm being worked off the clock, not paid for my overtime." ...

And look behind that yellow smiley face and see what's really happening to workers. Good, American jobs like at Thomson Electronics in Circleville, Ohio -- that poor guy making $15, $16 an hour, now he's [going to be] making a fraction of that, $7, $8 an hour, working 32 hours a week; a meager health care plan that he's got to pay for now, token health care plan; no pension; no future. There's a revolving door at Wal-Mart -- workers coming in, seeing the reality of it. They've been duped by the yellow smiley face many times. Then they go right back out the same door they came in a week later, a month later, a year later, whatever, however long they choose to stay. That's what's happening behind closed doors. That's what's happening [behind] that big, yellow smiley face. ...

If they're doing anything illegal, I hope they're sued to hell. Really.

Tell me, have median wages been going up or down?

I can't stress just how bullshit this is. Words don't exist for it. The only thing I can say that accurately reflects just how wrong he is, is, he's wrong.

Plainly.

It's good rabble rousing garbage, but it's simply not happening.

[Ace42]

GMA']I can't stress just how bullshit this is. Words don't exist for it.

What, like all adult males in switzerland owning a gun levels of bullshit?

[Funkaloyd]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm

[sjp]

to me any store that ends in mart is the mark of satan. I still can't believe sears merged with k-mart.

[Ace42]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm


That website is great. I have found several which might apply to me, but the clear cast-iron Racerstang Archtype is:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm

EricG:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bong.htm

Ali:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/sycophant.htm

[EN[i]GMA]

Gmsisko1:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/target.htm

[EN[i]GMA]

As I write this, there is a show on CSPAN on Wal Mart's business practices, for all interested.

[Qdrop]

GMA']

How can a company ever buy out a competitor without competing?

I don't think you understand what profits are, or what purpose they serve in an economy. Without huge gains, many companies would have no reason to expand. Oil for instance. It costs millions upon milllions to expand and create new wells, this must be financed be profits. Without these profits, no company would have the money to expand, and then where would be able to expand.

Profts/losses are not bad things, at all, they are natural functions of the market that cannot be altered without serious consequences. You can't just cap profits, lest those companies have no reason to aim higher than those profits. It's a real and artificial cap on growth, nothing more.



look, i can meet people half way on this....

like i've said before, i'm pro-capitalist in nature and ideology....

but i, like others, see far far too much exploitation and injustice in the system....
and i don't trust the system to police itself.
if WE THE PEOPLE show them were to aim the hammer, i DO think the gov't can police and should police...

i understand the necessity of profit...big profit...
innovation and general R&D apparently requires this......or is that just the established train of thought that we all believe?

i think there is some dogmatic thinking in the pure-free market way of thinking too...




Not always. There are other factors in production cost than labor. Americans cost more but are far more efficient, for instance. but the companies that are outsourcing don't see it that way...
and that's what matters, man.


And none of that matters. That is a GOOD thing, but a bad one. It's a play on economic ignorance, nothing more. We obviously disagree very basically about this phenamona. I think what he described is a fantastic extension of the market system. It's lowering costs, drastically. Without this incentive to shave off every single last penny off the price, none would do it? This seemingly small costs add up. If Wal Mart forces goods to be produced and sold more cheaply, than it is serving it's purpose. If it isn't, shop elsewhere and bring down the titan.
see, i think walmart (and the likes) play on consumers general economic ignorance.
you see that with their "low price checkpoint" tactics...
but on a bigger picture, the customer has no idea that these practices (and thier cooperation) can lead to decreased competition- which is always a bad thing.


Shipping jobs out as millions rush in to take their place. How horrific.
millions rush in?
what job industries are growing at such a rate?



The cause is prices higher than Wal Mart demands and the effect is lower prices for the consumer.
eh....you are only going to see this from one angle.


Things change, jobs are moved around, jobs are done away with, it's the way the world works.
i understand that.
but need it be so painful?


Lo Ping, the Chinese infant who lived because her parents got a job. i guess i would rather take care of americans first. not to be xenophobic....but i just makes practical sense for countries to look after the welfare of thier own citizens first, before they try and take care of Lo ping.


Do you see absurd this is? You are doing NOTHING but glaring at one minute piece of a giant equation and telling me to look how horrible things are. It's bigger than you, or I, or Flint Michigan, or even China or the U.S. This is global trade, and the good of the world truly is at stake.
hey, i'm all for the big picture.
and of course i see your point.

i'm often much the hardliner on things such as this as well...
but thier are limits to such sentiments....

i just think walmart's practices are inexcusably predatory, and irresponsible...and that can't just be covered up by low prices on some products.
you can't just keep falling back on that.


It's a myopic view. That's socialism in a nut-shell, I'm beggining to believe. Looking at one small part of a giant machine and finding the flaw in it, even though that piece is necessary to make the whole machine run. perhaps.



But of course prices were lowered, that's how they make their profits, by giving Joe Consumer what he wants. They can't just will profits into existance. Profits aren't the product of evil malfeance, profits are the side-effect of pleasing the consumer. wow, that is so over-simplified.



Wal Mart employs 1.7 million people. Do you think this people would be better off without Wal Mart? it's not about that....
it's about walmart treating those 1.7 million people better....and it's about walmart giving a shit about the the other thousands upon thousands of americans they adversly effect or WILL effect with thier predatory practices.



Tell me, how would America work without Wal Mart? How would it be better?
see above.


The federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. The workers listed in this article ALL make over that amount, unless I'm misreading.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml

According to our government, the poverty level for year 2005 is $9,570 a year for a single-person househole, living in the 48 continental U.S. states.

$5.15 X 40 hours per week = $206.

$206 X 52 weeks per year = $10,712

$10,712 - $9,570 = + $1,142 above the poverty level.

Wow, that was easy.

"But wahhh, Jonas, you evil, racist, white Nazi Christian, people need a living wage if they support a family."

Okay.

For a family of 4, that's two working parents plus two kids, the poverty level is $19,350 per year.

Two people working minimum wage, full-time earn $21,424 per year, which is 40 hours per person, per week.

$21,424 - $19,350 = $2,074 above poverty level.

dude, no family of 4 can function at $21k a year, before taxes.

come the fuck on.

just wait till you graduate, get a job, and get a family.

you are all about numbers and stats...and not reality.



Don't talk to me about this. My father works in a setting exactly like this. Manufacturing, small town, centered around the company, etc.
and if that company decided to outsource to china?


Irrelevent. People surely think it's cheaper. It's their own loss not to shop at places that truly are cheaper.

i'm all about self-reliance...
but that's criminal.
that is intentionally misleading the consumer public.



Millions already have gone overseas, and NONE of this is happening. This is so absurd it's almost funny.

No forthought of how an economy functions, how things balance on their own, how things readjust, without intervention.
perhaps....it seems fishy to me.

[EN[i]GMA]

look, i can meet people half way on this....

like i've said before, i'm pro-capitalist in nature and ideology....

but i, like others, see far far too much exploitation and injustice in the system....
and i don't trust the system to police itself.
if WE THE PEOPLE show them were to aim the hammer, i DO think the gov't can police and should police...

i understand the necessity of profit...big profit...
innovation and general R&D apparently requires this......or is that just the established train of thought that we all believe?

i think there is some dogmatic thinking in the pure-free market way of thinking too...

There could be some dogmatism in it, yeah, but I surely believe it, logically and reasonably.

I, very honestly, don't see this 'explotation' and injustice.


but the companies that are outsourcing don't see it that way...
and that's what matters, man.

They see the dollars and cents, which is what I'm talking about.


see, i think walmart (and the likes) play on consumers general economic ignorance.
you see that with their "low price checkpoint" tactics...
but on a bigger picture, the customer has no idea that these practices (and thier cooperation) can lead to decreased competition- which is always a bad thing.

It's not Wal Mart's job to educate them.

With all the heat aimed at Wal Mart specifically, you can't go anywhere without hearing how bad it is. Lack of 'education' isn't the problem.


millions rush in?
what job industries are growing at such a rate?

IT


eh....you are only going to see this from one angle.

Very likely.


i understand that.
but need it be so painful?

Define 'painful'.


i guess i would rather take care of americans first. not to be xenophobic....but i just makes practical sense for countries to look after the welfare of thier own citizens first, before they try and take care of Lo ping.

I wouldn't. I see the market as the only equitable way to solve this moral quandry. Let EVERYONE decide. You can still buy American, as can everyone, will they? Doubt it.


hey, i'm all for the big picture.
and of course i see your point.

i'm often much the hardliner on things such as this as well...
but thier are limits to such sentiments....

i just think walmart's practices are inexcusably predatory, and irresponsible...and that can't just be covered up by low prices on some products.
you can't just keep falling back on that.

perhaps.

How are they predatory? They're low, not predatory. They make about 3% an item, nothing unreasonable.


wow, that is so over-simplified.

Is it?


it's not about that....
it's about walmart treating those 1.7 million people better....and it's about walmart giving a shit about the the other thousands upon thousands of americans they adversly effect or WILL effect with thier predatory practices.

Those 1.7 million people are obviously fine with how Wal Mart treats them, they work there.

And it's not Wal Marts job to take car of those other thousands people, but that's irrelevent anyway because I think the phenamena benefits them as well, in the long run.

How much of what they own was produced cheaply by foreign makers? How much have these imports raised our standard of living?


dude, no family of 4 can function at $21k a year, before taxes.

come the fuck on.

just wait till you graduate, get a job, and get a family.

you are all about numbers and stats...and not reality.

No, I speak in numbers in stats not distorted emotions and feelings.


and if that company decided to outsource to china?

They're there. It isn't always about 'outsourcing'. Sometimes a hugely profitable Chinese venture saves jobs over here by reducing overall costs and icnreasing profits. It's possibly what's happening now.

It's a huge, global company.


i'm all about self-reliance...
but that's criminal.
that is intentionally misleading the consumer public.

If it is, sue them. I don't think it is. 'Everyday low prices' is not a gurantee, it's a slogan.

People need to realize this, cut through the spin, though it should be noted, they ARE cheaper than anyone else.


perhaps....it seems fishy to me.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Markets don't just break down, they function. It's their nature.

[Schmeltz]

I speak in numbers in stats not distorted emotions and feelings.


Which is exactly why so much of what you say has so little relevance to anything. Again and again it comes down to the fact that you speak purely on the basis of hypotheticals, dwelling on ideologically ideal what-ifs instead of looking at how things actually work. I mean, do you think anybody goes to bed at night thinking "Thank God I make two thousand dollars above an arbitrarily fixed poverty level"?

You need to come down out of the clouds and get a job.

[TimDoolan]

Wal-Mart is awesome. All you player haters need to recognize that nothing beats a 3 a.m. stroll in the electronics isle. (y)

[Qdrop]

http://www.corporations-suck.com/reports/Welf2Walmt.shtml

Welfare to Wal-Mart
And Wal-Mart to China: Uncle Sam's Club's New Twist on Communism
by Michael I. Niman

(orginally posted by GEA.....just wanted to keep this thread up to date.)

[sjp]

Wal-Mart is awesome. All you player haters need to recognize that nothing beats a 3 a.m. stroll in the electronics isle. (y)


only because five finger discounts are so eay to get, and their employees are slow.

[TimDoolan]

Yeah, their last line of defense is the 80 year old greeter at the door. Just slap them and they're down for the count. Bam!

[Qdrop]

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=108486

Grocers defend their turf

By RACHEL PETERSON

[Ali]

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=108486

Grocers defend their turf

By RACHEL PETERSONMaybe Susan Alonzo can go and work at Wal-Mart?

I don't see the problem. A less efficient business model (mom&pop) is usurped by a more efficient one (giant monopoly), bringing employment and low prices for all. Capitalism is working well, as far as I can see. Survival of the fittest, and all that. :cool:

[BGirl]

There's a show called The Age of Wal-Mart on CNBC now, ends at 11pm EST (less than half an hour). Interesting stuff.