Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Rev_DelFuego Mar 2 2004, 07:44 PM

I opened this topic in regards to and article I have read in http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-03-02-wal-mart_x.htm. It pretty much states that WalMart goes into towns with super competitive prices and puts local competitors out of business.
Do you think this is healthy for a community?

Posted by: Eeyore Mar 2 2004, 07:52 PM

I love local flavor, but I haven't lived places with functioning family groceries for years. In my suburban world life has been corporate for a long time. What I have noticed is that some stores, including Walmart, can be run well and have a small town feel to them. Friendly and efficient service with responsive and concerned management gives that small town feel better than a lot of small businesses that I have patronized.

These stores still have to hire local workers and they still have the option to emphasize good service. Our local Ace Hardware is very good at this. Lowe's here is much better at service than Home Depot, and our Texaco down the street has people that always greet me with a smile and they keep the same people employed so it has that homey feel.

The prices can be great at Walmart, but I won't go to a store where I feel cramped or ignored while I shop.

So, in long, I think Walmart is not the problem. It is more accurately a fact of life. If they do their job poorly, we will stop shopping there and their stores will start closing. (i.e. K-Mart)

Posted by: Skyler1534 Mar 2 2004, 11:44 PM

I don't think Walmart's expansion is really a problem. Their prices and services are often better than any competitor, which is why they do so well. We have had Walmarts around here for years and we still have plenty of other businesses that are thriving by offering specialization for certain products rather than everything in one store. From my point of view, as long as anti-trust regulators stay on top of the issue (which I feel they are), I think we should be fine.

The fact that Walmart is a nationally recognized economic indicator is a sign they may have a bit too much power, but I think the businesses that are injured by Walmart's competition are the small, family owned businesses. While I know that some people are concerned with the takeover by Corporate America, if they can't compete, then economically they are a drag on society.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it: Which is better; local business or economic efficiency?

Posted by: rebelkate Mar 3 2004, 12:06 AM

Walmart certainly gets mixed reviews. As young as I am, I remember living in a small town in Kansas where going to Walmart was a treat - it took about an hour to get there, so my parents always made lists for a couple months and bought everything all at once. My parents remember the beginning of Walmart - esp since they were both living in Arkansas at the time. Sam Walton was a very good man who was very down to Earth. He wanted to help his workers and have the best store as far as serving its customers (didn't set out to be the biggest store). It made a lot of sense in the beginning - opening stores in small towns. People were doing their shopping by catalog or just waited for the couple times a year they went to a nearby city (or just a bigger town). Considering so much of the South was not even accessible by any major roads (and some parts still aren't), it made sense to want to put stores in these markets where they were so needed. I think Sam's original thought was he was opening small town stores in small towns that were too small to even have a small town store.

But the world has changed, and Walmart the company has become an entity unto itself. McDonald's, Disney and Walmart are three companies that IMO show how companies can easily become "monsters" that are no longer controlled by the founder's original philosophy, but instead by the bottom line. Walmart now has an aggressive strategy - opening something like 1 megastore every 2 days (thats world wide I think). In 1992, one of the first super walmarts (at least that I heard of) opened about 30 miles from where we lived. Today I can count 12 Walmarts within a thirty minute drive of my parents house.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/story.html the people of Ashland Virginia fought against Walmart. Unlike Sam Walton's original stores, today's megastores have no small town feeling - every store is practically identical if its in Virginia or Brazil. These stores take up a massive footprint - especially by the time adequate parking is added. And also unlike the beginning, small, local stores pretty much have no chance of competing. When walmart built a new store about seven years ago just two miles from my parents, the town was a little worried and put up a small fight. Within two years of its arrival, 6 town stores went out of business... the only store remaining in the heart of the town is a pet shop that specializes in birds and exotic fish. My dad runs his own sideline business building near-museum quality model ships - but for a year or two he was forced to travel to Pennsylvania to find the supplies he needed after Walmart put the craft store out of business - even though Walmart does not carry nearly as many of the same supplies and they refuse to do any special orders. I think the only thing that saved my dad's business was the internet.

And what I think those in Ashland and other places across America fear is Walmart is the harbinger of more stores to come. Its like a symbol of the beginning of suburbanization and sprawl. Obviously there are more forces at work, and walmart is not the cause of these things - but people who do not want this to happen will fight hard to keep Walmart away, as if to say, without Walmart, how can anyone else want to come here. Soon after Walmart arrived near my parents, Lowe's, home depot, food lion, Winn Dixie, Kmart, dollar world, office max and staples showed up - along with a slew of fast food joints (we used to just have one). Of course, now thanks to further expansion and some company bankruptcies, there are numerous ugly and large empty buildings sitting in the middle of what used to be a "typical" small virginia town. While it was the poor planning of the local government (this whole Richmond metro area is notoriously bad at planning - allowing commercial growth rates three times that of the population growth), Walmart is seen by many now as the root cause. I've heard quite a few people say "If only we'd fought harder against Walmart".

So my final answer to the debate question? Well, I think it is bad for a community. Much of this comes from my own personal experience as I have illustrated, and some comes from my personal distaste for the modern "suburbia" where everything is standardized and mega sized and its like the individuality of the small towns are stripped away. I think for some, the battle against Walmart is the last community battle - because after that the community gets dissolved into the cookie cutter corporate world. I used to joke with friends that Walmart and McDonalds would take over the world one day - now there is a McDonald's inside the Walmart and all the hometown shops and restaraunts are sad empty buildings. I'm glad I live in a city where there are several corner grocers to choose from along with many family owned restaraunts/cafes and other shops. But already "suburbia" is encroaching on this urban oddity - they're building a super walmart just ten blocks from me...

Posted by: deerjerkydave Mar 3 2004, 12:30 AM

Yes, why not? When Walmart comes to town, why does it hurt the local competition? Because people would rather shop at Walmart! Heck, even http://www.postindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040229/VALLEYNEWS/40228012&rs=1 Walmart has a long way to go before becoming some kind of monopoly. Especially since there is still plenty of competition including but not limited to: Target, Kmart, ShopKo, Fred Meyer, Costco, Sears, etc.

Posted by: BecomingHuman Mar 3 2004, 01:30 AM

I personally am against going to Wal Mart. I don't care if anyone else go there, but if asked I would encourage them not to.

My philosophy is based on another chain store coming to town: Blockbuster. I use to pay really cheap prices to rent videos from the Ma and Pa stores, around three dollars. When blockbuster came in, they had competitive prices and long renting periods. This was all backed by a generous return policy. So, everyone flocks to Block Buster.

Soon, the Ma and Pa stores died, and what does BlockBuster do? Now, I pay $4 to rent videos. This coupled with the fact that you have to pay the entire rental fee again if your a day late makes me unhappy that I have to go to BlockBuster.

Well, Wal Marts pulling the same thing except that they're getting into everything. For instance, when the new Dungeons and Dragons books came out (3.5), Wal Mart lowered the price by 40%! Of course, the little gaming stores I go to sold no books.

But, I'm not for banning Wal Mart. I just won't go there myself. Ultimately, I think that the results of these huge chain companies (like higher prices) entering into local communities is bad only if they manage to choke out the competition. If not, competitive prices for all!

Posted by: popeye47 Mar 3 2004, 04:26 AM

I agree.

Walmart is not healthy for a community. My reason is the amount of money the community has to spend to help the Walmart employees who are paid a low wage and do not have any benefits.

An example

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0204/27walmart.html



So people in the community may get a lower price at Walmart but they are subsidizing the Walmart employees who are using state funds for medical help.

Posted by: christopher Mar 3 2004, 06:42 AM

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript247_full.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_walmart.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_walmart.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12962

Wal Mart is both good and bad. What Wally World can do for affordable prices is invaluable to people on a tight budget like myself. However they do destroy many other smaller competitors and get to the point where they almost dictate the availible choices on products in areas. Although here in Phoenix we have several of these monster sized stores and their seems to be plenty of competition. Another downside is that their pay is so low that many of their employees end up on civil programs to support their families and in the end cost so much more in terms of tax money spent.

Posted by: Argonaut Mar 3 2004, 08:47 AM

As long as I have freedom of "choice", I will always choose not to pay $1.49 for a single BIC lighter at the "local Mom and Pop" shop, and will instead continue to purchase BIC lighters (and many other products) from WAL-MART at the much lower price of 5 for $3.88 (which is almost 50% less costly to me and my family). The savings on many if not most of WAL-MART'S products really add up and can then be used for important things like my (and/or my families) health care, education, and "general welfare", which is my first responsibility after all.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Mar 3 2004, 11:05 AM

True. The potential problem is, Walmart can afford to take tremendous losses on certain products, unlike smaller stores. For example (a real one), if baby formula is five dollars and diapers are 11 at Walmart, but much more expensive anywhere else (around 7 and 13 for the next cheapest), everyone goes to Walmart to buy those items. Consequently, while they are shopping, they will buy most everything else at the competative but reasonable rates. This drives the others out of business, and then Walmart can ask a much larger price after the competition has been eliminated. I can't rent a video anywhere but Blockbuster's now, because all other businesses have been driven away. Same principle.

Target, Cosco, and other wholesale discount stores have been brought up here. Isn't it interesting that those chains do not inspire the vitriol that Walmart does? Perhaps it is because their tactics are not as cut-throat and monopolistic? I have mixed feelings about Walmart. Our community won't even allow that chain because Walmart tends to trash up a neighborhood.

Posted by: Julian Mar 3 2004, 02:06 PM

I find it interesting that, when it comes to markets, some people take this view that of course hte big boys should decide, because they provide people with what they want and that, as an expression of the will of the market, must be allowed to continue unchecked.

Yet when the same thing is said of governments - welfare is bad because it allows people to do what they want, which may well be sit around all day eating corn chips and watching TV - they must be stopped.

What underlies both views, and the very structure of the American constitution which prevents the democratic tyranny of the majority, is that the people are not always right, and what the people want is not always what is best for them

Concentration of retail power is not a good thing - the UK's biggest retailers built their dominance trhough aggressive discounting, but now the big four grocers have over 90% of the food market and increasing shares of non-food markets, the first thing they do is subtly increase their margins. Consumers then have little or no power to shop elsewhere, as there is nowhere else to shop. It is no surprise that Wal-Mart bought the British supermarket chain Asda - they make more than double the net margins on food alone than the whole chain makes in the USA (around 3% compared to 1.5% net).

Posted by: Rev_DelFuego Mar 3 2004, 02:49 PM

As for me, I think that the low prices do help people who need to watch their expenses, but as far as the community goes it forces out other competitors. WalMart opened up a grocery store not even a block away from my house. Anyone who's been to Houston knows the grocery store battle is a fierce one. (Hey we like to eat. #1 fattest city in the US) We had Kroger, Albertsons, Sac 'n Save, Apple tree, Auchans, Fiesta, H&B Pantry, and Randalls when Walmart started selling groceries. The field has already been narrowed down to Krogers, Randalls and Walmart, while Fiesta and H&B Pantry only survived by being cheaper by reduced quality. The only way Krogers and Randalls stayed in the game is by abandoning their old stores and either buying the newer abandoned Albertsons or building completely new "signature stores." All of the older stores now sit vacant, even some of the old WalMarts and Kmarts. Now, I'm usually all for competition, but I took this one personally because of one of the grocers, Auchans. Auchans wasn't a super market, but a hypermarktet. It had everything you would ever need, pretty much like Super Duper WalMart but more ethnic foods and higher prices. After Super Wally World came in the only thing anyone bought from there where the specialty items, so after it closed we lost most of those items unless you find a niche importer.

Auchan's was the first with this idea, along with TCBY, Subway, Taco bell, and a few chinese take out places, as well as a dentist office, a lawer office, a pager place, hair salon, and a separate jewelry store. Just to give you an idea of how big this store was, it had 100 (thats right a one and two zeros ) checkout lanes, and one in electronics too, and one in home and gardening. All of this since at least 1990 years before WalMart got their stuff together.
Editted to add:
Here's a http://www.auchan.com/pages/auchan2_000.html to the Auchans webpage, we unfortunately had the only store in the US.
And too add they had the best rotesiore (sp) chicken on the market. I'd eat them two at a time.

Posted by: smorpheus Mar 3 2004, 04:51 PM

The only thing most American consumers care about is the lowest price. Walmart can provide the lowest prices so they get the most customers, and can easily wipe out the local competition. This is a great example of how unwatched capitalism can cause serious problems...

Yes, Walmart can take a hit on prices, but they can also have a determining factor in driving manufacturing jobs out of the country. I can't find any of my links at the moment, so allow me to post this hypotehtically (from a logical perspective).

So Walmart controls a huge market share on an incredible number of products... Let's say they control 70% of hammer sales in America (this is not an unrealistic figure). Now you own Joe Hammer's Hammers which operates a factory in the United States. Walmart says they will agree to buy and sell your hammers (hammers which will not be sold, without placement in Walmart stores), however, they will only do so if you halve the price of your hammers (which your competitor Jim Hammers will readily do), the only way for you to halve the price of your hammers (And give that wonderful falling prices feel to Walmart) is to move your factory to Mexico (labor costs are too high). Falling prices are great, but Walmart has absolutely no qualms about demanding lower prices from it's suppliers.

Secondly, I would also like to point out the other reason I will never again give a cent to Walmart. I work at a video game company. Walmart will not sell a game with explicit sexual content (any amount of violence however is no problem). Now this is fine and is there right... HOWEVER, they have such a huge market share of the video game industry, that not only did we have to make a special version of one of our games last Chirstmas, but due to cost considerations, that became our ONLY version of the game. Yes, you heard it here first folks, a perfect example of market dominance resulting in censorship of a game. This also has occurred many times in the past with the comic book industry... (Books often won't be published or will be cancelled, pretty much entirely on the basis of the fact that Walmart won't put anything on the stands they deem racy).

Now I'm all for Walmart having the ability to determine what they sell, the problem is that they are quickly dominating more rural areas and becoming the only outlet. What we need is for more chains to step up to compete with Walmart (hopefully it's not too far gone). Diversity and competition is not only good for consumers, but also good for capitalism, having ONE chain dominate nationwide sales is never good.

Luckily in LA there are no Walmarts, well there are, but no one shops there (seriously, imagine!). There are many choices, and actual better choices in many of the local shops.

Also, I honestly don't believe Walmart is the cheapest choice for everything, if you shop around and go to nationwide chains which specialize in specific products, you can usually get better prices... Large nationwide chains which I find consistantly beat Walmart on prices are Target(miscellania), Electronic's Boutique (Video and PC Games), Best Buy (Electronics), Home Depot (also evil I concede, but at least it's not Walmart)(Hardware), Amazon.com(Books, DVD's, and a lot more), Staples (Office Supplies), and Trader Joe's(food/alcohol).

Also, if your going to buy home appliances or furniture, I can almost guarantee you will find a better deal somewhere online than you ever will at Walmart. So honestly, it comes down to laziness. People would rather just go to Walmart and get all those things I listed above, rather than going to eight different stores to get all they need (or wait a few days for the product to arrive in the mail). I'm starting to believe the "low prices" excuse is a cop out. People just don't want to think about the consequences of convenience.

Posted by: amf Mar 3 2004, 05:46 PM

Is this healthy for a community?

You'll probably have to define "healthy" to get any kind of consensus here.

The reason Wal-Mart is so reviled is because they go into a town where there isn't a Target, isn't a Costco, isn't a Kohl's and build a store with 100,000+ square feet of retail space -- which is usually more retail space than you'll find in most small town squares -- and set up shop with lower prices and more inventory. Buyers flock there because they can get everything they want in one visit and with lower prices. The stores in town can't compete, because they don't have the buying power or the ability to maximize their existing retail space, so they go out of business, killing the town square for a while.

But... then a funny thing will happen (in many places)... the town square will get revitalized with new stores that don't compete with Wal-Mart and the square becomes the destination for summer festivals and the like. People start coming back, because there's more there than just a bunch of shops. In other words, the shopkeepers adjust to their new reality and the economics of owning a shop in the town square start to work again.

Yes, it's healthy for a community. Wal-Mart provides more benefits than those small stores, more jobs than those small stores (because many Wal-Marts are open 24x7), and lower prices than the town was used to paying (so more money is left in the townspeople's wallets). All this is good. And healthy for the local economy.

Posted by: Rev_DelFuego Mar 3 2004, 06:21 PM

Well this true of many small towns across America, but Houston ain't one of them. Like I said before, Auchans had more space then any of the Super WalMarts, and had double the inventory if you counted out all the produce and ethnic foods, last time I was there 120+ aisles each about 100 yards long. The reason why Auchans didn't drive business away was because they only had one store, and they kept their prices higher then most of the other groceries because you were paying for convenience. Walmart on the other hand came in with an intent to drive others out, there was essentially no way to have that many grocery stores in a area, then to drive out others to post a profit in the area. Now they are specifically targeting grocery stores by opening grocery only stores around the neighborhoods. That was the straw that broke Albertsons back and I expect Randalls to pull out soon, and these are not Ma and PA operations either. Don't worry though Houston was a test market for these grocery store only outlets, and soon you too will be able to watch you selection of foods be driven away.

Posted by: deerjerkydave Mar 4 2004, 12:07 AM

If American consumers were just a bunch of drooling mindless zombies that don't know what's best for themselves, then perhaps you would be right. I like to believe that American consumers are slightly more intelligent than you give them credit for.

I can understand people disagreeing with the practices of certain businesses. There are a number of companies out there that I disagree with in their policies. Sometimes other people are just fine with those policies. And I can understand that too. Nobody is the same. But using the government to club communities over the head by dictating who they can and cannot do business with is tyrannical in nature. If the people want it, and no rights or laws are being violated, they should be free to have it. Freedom is what makes America great.

Posted by: jenreiautter Mar 4 2004, 12:21 AM

There are some communities where this is just the opposite. Not too far from where I live there was a fight about allowing a "big box' into a community. In this particular instance it was Home Depot.

The community was up in arms about it, wanting to keep the area they lived in safe and nice. There was a concern that it would bring in too much traffic from other communities as well as ruin the cozy feel of that community. The council of that community, however had closed door meetings and decided to allow the development, mainly for tax revenue purposes. Now, you can say don't vote for those council members again, but by then it will be too late -- shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped kind of thing.

I personally avoid Wal-Mart. I'd rather give my business to places that encourage diversity and pay decent wages to employees.

Posted by: Skyler1534 Mar 4 2004, 12:31 AM

I don't particularly think Wal-Mart's tactics are cut-throat or monopolistic, and incidentally, neither does the Department of Justice, since they have not filed greivances under anti-trust law. Your reference to the other wholesale stores not being attacked is akin to why the rest of the world hates the U.S.

The United States is the only superpower left, we have the largest economy, and more freedom than a large majority. Consequently, peoples of countries around the world resent us.

Wal-Mart is the 6th largest company by market capitalization at $257 billion as of today's close. Of the two competitors you mentioned, Target is the second largest in its industry with $39 billion, and Costco trails as third-largest with $18 billion. TJX Companies (parent company to TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and several other large chains) is forth with a market capitalization of $11 billion. The capitalization of the leading competitors to Wal-Mart combined only comes to around 3 and 3/4 that of Wal-Mart.

The previous statistics may account for why Walmart is often attacked or controversial while others in its industry are not as much so. Coincidentally, where I live there is at least one of those stores within the same 15 mile radius and none have gone under or look to be in trouble through the years they have been competing.

Walmart grew to be so large because Americans embraced it. The mention about damage to the workers without benefits is outweighed (or neutralized) in most cases by the money saved by the community as consumers. [This is anecdotal evidence. I do not have scientific, so please don't ask or criticize too harshly.]

Monopolization is the growing so large that you corner the market and can sell at whatever price you want. Of the four companies mentioned, a 10-year average annual income growth comparison shows Walmart to be the lowest with 15.4%, Target second with 20.1%, Costco with 22.4% and TJX with 26.4% growth. They all look to be very healthy companies with mostly positive fundamentals (all positive earnings). Walmart is not the place to channel your anger if you want to be mad over the demise of Mom and Pop Stores; the blame lies in the entire discount store industry.

I, for one, and not complaining about lower prices.

Posted by: Julian Mar 5 2004, 01:28 PM

Just wait for 20 years, at which point there will be no "mom & pop" stores left selling anything, except those few whose quality of service or specialisation of offer allows them to survive and thrive.

The Wal-Mart's of the world will then have no further room for expansion (and therefore profit growth, and therefore stockholder dividends and share price growth - the only measures that matter in Anglo-Saxon economies), so the only way to continue their revenue growth will be through subtle upwards shifts in pricing.

This has already happened in the UK. The big four supermarkets here do not offer particularly low grocery prices on international comparisons - the logistics costs in the UK are cited as explanation, but for the most part the supermarkets control their entire supply chain so this is somewhat misdirective.

They can't obviously gouge their customers as yet, so have expanded their offer to include non-food items such as the clothing, domestic electrical equipment, and so on that have been staples of US super-sheds for some time. This does the same to smaller competing businesses in these areas as it has to gocers, butchers, greengrocers, and so on.

The supermarkets can offer keen prices to consumers, for sure, since they just take lower margins for themselves until they have the market power to pressurise their suppliers into funding the value proposition (as they have done in food already). Part of this means the "exporting of jobs" that so many in the West get exercised about - it allows the production of goods at much lower cost, protecting retail margins and giving consumers lower prices.

Sooner or later the supply chain will operate as efficiently as possible. All supplies will be produced at the lowest possible cost in the lowest cost economies. All domestic competition will have been forced into niches where they can do the mega-corporations no harm. All available penetrable foreign markets will have been fully exploited.

This may take another 20 or 50 years, but by the time there is no room for more than incremental profit growth for the four or five transnational retail organisations that survive, and they realise that the easiest and quickest way to continue their double digit profit growth is to begin price increases in earnest, the power of consumers to remove their custom, and governments to have any control over inflation, will have long gone.

Posted by: amf Mar 5 2004, 01:52 PM

This is true of ANY industry, though. For example, Dell is one of the most efficient computer builders in the world. But they don't have -- nor will they ever have -- 100% of the market share. But they HAVE put some less-efficient makers out of business and they HAVE forced some of the other computer makers to catch up.

They've also helped force down the price of the components that make computers, which benefits everyone.

But some customers won't buy from them because they don't offer exactly what the customer needs. It works that way in any market.

Don't blame Wal-Mart for doing well in retail. They haven't forced Target or Kohl's out of business. They haven't put BMG Music Club out of business with their low prices on CDs. They also won't put specialty shops out of business, because those shops offer stuff that Wal-Mart can't efficiently sell anyway. And Wal-Mart's insistence that its supply chain be efficient lowers costs for other retailers as well.

Personally, I think any town that gets a Wal-Mart should assume that the town has gotten big enough to support a Wal-Mart, which is an accomplishment when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

Posted by: popeye47 Mar 5 2004, 02:43 PM

If you are comparing Walmart and Dell, that is a loss cause.

Yes, Dell is one of the best in its industry because of efficiency.

Yes,Walmart is one of the best in its industry because of paying low wages to its workers,no benefits, and being the 900 lb gorilla.

Dell and Walmart are at the top in their respective industries,but for different reasons.

One uses a intelligent and efficient system.

One uses a system that takes advantage of workers,uses fear to control the workers and uses illegal immigrants.

Posted by: heart Mar 10 2004, 02:07 AM

The Walmart plan: This is why I think WalMart is bad for a community and bad for America.

Yes. WalMart purposely goes into local community stores (particularily hardware stores), and looks at what's on the shelves in large quantities, and the prices. Then they proceed to take a loss on these items in their new stores until the town store goes out of business. This is documented by marketing people who have left WalMart and spilled the beans. WalMart has to spend millions in advertising to improve their image for a very good reason. If you read any of the WalMart employee forum boards you will find some very disturbing information.

WalMart is so big now that they tell everyone what they will and will not do. Last year they told all of their suppliers that they would only carry their goods if they lower the prices each year, no one gets a raise, they must take less every year. Since it seems unlikely that the owners/ceos will take the pay cut, the employees will, and/or quality will suffer.

They are also insisting that over the next 5 years all of their suppliers must use FIVR(sorry if I have this name wrong) tags on all of their merchandise. These tags allow you to keep track of all merchandise throughout the supply chain. It tells you where the item has been and how long it has been there. This seems innocuous to some, but here is the real plan: WalMart wants to pay their suppliers for what sells, not purchase quantity items. So, WalMart doesn't have to take the chance that a product will not sell.

After WalMart has cornered the market in many communities, and put all of the locals out of business, the innovator or wholesaler will eventually have to take the risk and the customer will never know. We have a short memory, and we forget that Sam Walton wanted goods "made in America" in WalMart, but he would roll in his grave now.

I may not be able to do anything about this, but I can vote with my money and I do. I shop at my local stores. I don't even support the corporate fast food chains, coffee chains or any of it. I pay a little more and I buy from local business people who keep the profits in the community. I don't always do it, because I don't want to be a radical idealist either, but I make choices everyday based on principle.

If 15 people make a decision every day to eat at a local restaurant rather than a fast food chain, that alone keeps one local in business, so it's easy to make a difference. If I choose my local hardware store, gift store or whatever, I only need a small population to join me to keep those people in business. WalMart needs 1000's, but my locals only need dozens.

Posted by: NiteGuy Mar 11 2004, 04:01 AM

Actually, while their actions may not be deemed monopolistic at the present they are rather cut-throat. Here's an article in Fast Company that points it out rather plainly: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
The article is rather long, but well worth the read.

Shopping at Wal-Mart, it appears, could be accelerating the amount of "off-shoring" jobs that's currently going on, to the detriment of our job growth:

Seems they are cut-throat in other ways as well....

Apparently, saying anything that could be construed by Wal-Mart as negative, gets you instantly moved to lesser-quality shelf space in the store, or removed outright.


I seriously doubt this. Let's say you were working for a local business, when Wal-Mart came to town. You were making decent money, working full time, and had health insurance and other benefits. But Wal-Mart was able to undercut your company on identical items, time and again, because they could afford the loss, until your company went out of business.

Now, you have to go to work for Wal-Mart. Part time, no health insurance, and no other benefits. Do you really think the money you are saving by buying from Wal-Mart, is going to make up the difference?

Or, lets say you are one of the suppliers to Wal-Mart, like in the article. Your company can no longer afford to sell to Wal-Mart by utilizing American labor, and terminates your job to ship it overseas. Can you afford even Wal-Mart's prices, if you have no income?

Steve Dobbins (quoted above) is right. We are so obsessed with "cheap" prices in this country that we are literally shopping ourselves out of a job in many cases.

Posted by: Jaken Mar 11 2004, 06:00 AM

With walmarts recent problem with illegal immigrants i dont think people are looking at it in the same light. YES, i do think that walmart is one of many big busineses that try to move into small towns and try to get most of the busines. Lets look at the past few years in my VERYSMALL TOWN. When the first walmart opened up in town it was pretty good, for a while. Then after about 2 months local "mom and pop" businesses started shuting down. You could barely count on your two hands how many stores started to shut down. I admit, i got a little steamed but it wasnt a big deal. Then after about three years the walmart closed, SHOCKING, but thats not the problem. THEY OPENED A SUPER WALMART ACCROSS THE STREET, oh yeah INSANE. I recall a moment when i was standing in the parking lot of the new BETTER walmart and looking over at the vacant, logo-less building i laughed. These people had to spend at least a million dollars to get the first walmart up and runnig smoothly, then they shut it down and spent another million dollars to open up another, the difference between the two, hmmm THE NEW ONE HAS MILK AND BREAD, oh and dont forget, FROZEN PIZZAS. Absolutly insane. Well i was fine with this. Well, the crazy part about this is about a half of a year after this whole ordeal, a Fred Meyers opened across the street from the only Grocery store chain that is Alaska owned. Well that store soon shutdown. This *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off (beside that fact that Fred Meyer opend up on our lake ). Well after our little town got used to these two new stores CRAP HAPPENED. Remeber the old walmart building, yeah a SEARS OPENED UP IN ITS PLACE. Well all the people that think GIANT label stores are the best thing since walmart bread, well those people went insane. GOD traffic shot up like crazy. People from Anchorage (the biggest city in Alaska, its about 40 miles from my town) came in to use the facility of Fred Meyers, walmart, and wrap their day up with a stop at sears. So i guess all i have to say is that big business is ok, persay but too much in a small town is bad. Oh yeah dont get me started on the fact that our towns SECOND blockbuster opened up in the parking lot of fred meyers, no 3 miles from the original. Yeah IN THE PARKING LOT, right next door the the Charles Junior, IN THE SAME PARKING LOT. OH MY GOD. This is the most insane thing ever. I HATE THIS. We have one more blockbuster and 1 too many Charles Junior.

Posted by: overlandsailor Mar 15 2004, 02:35 AM

I have a few problems with Walmart.

1> They use questionable tactics when resisting unionization. Resisting unions is fine, but disciplinary actions suddenly totaling up to get suspected organizers fired is another.

2> They were using Illegal Aliens in their stores. This problem is probably corrected now since the big publicity shake up on it, but Walmart was willing to break the law to save money.

3> They come into areas with low prices and drive other smaller companies out. However, once those companies are out, usually is smaller rural areas, their prices climb and climb. Apparently the price cutting smile guy only works in more urbanized areas.

4> Their customer service is Horrible. The aisles are too small, the carts are ridiculously small considering the variety of goods they carry, the employees are generally rude and impossible to find if you need assistance (though at their wages who can blame them) and Management is even worse (though admittedly this varies from store to store).

That being said. I am forced to shop at Walmart. Not because of lack of choices, St. Louis has plenty of variety. But because I need to stretch my families dollars as far as I can. Walmart, on most consumables, is by far the cheapest in my town.

So I Hate Walmart, but I shop there regularly. Funny thing is, most of my friends and neighbors say the same thing. We frequently go as a group so we can commiserate together . With attitudes like ours it's no wonder Walmart's customer service is terrible. Why fix it? The people will come anyway.

Posted by: christopher Mar 15 2004, 03:35 AM

I have read articles that state the almost perfect perfection of the Wal Mart business approach as an example of capitalism. They drive down the prices and can offer the best deals to its customers. The can force companies to offer great deals to the American public at a low cost. Simply put if you lose your spot at Wal MArt your gonna lose a fortune.
They keep costs down and profit UP. To a capitalist they are almost perfect.
The down side is they treat their employees like garbage. Low wages, no healthcare, and those who do get it pay very high costs and it is alleged they target those people for removal when costs need to come down.
They take out the competition and reduce the available tax base for the locations they are at. There are being sued for up and moving out at the last moment to avoid having to pay out owed monies to towns and cities and are so arrogant they will open another center JUST over the city's border thereby continuing the destruction of the tax base.
They deliberately train manager to steer employees to public and civil services to cover their healthcare needs thereby driving UP the need for bloated Federal and State taxes.
Whether you want them in your town or not they WILL do as they please. One way or another.
But like OverLand says. We all shop there. We really need the deals. Even as those deals erode the quality of life around us. Also making us dependant on them even more. It's a sick cycle.
To my way of thinking its a strange thing. Capitalism is the best way to assure freedom, but at the same time it also makes you a slave.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Mar 15 2004, 03:12 PM

As a former Wal-Mart employee, I know that health insurance benefits are offered to full-time employees. I also know many employees who cannot afford to pay the premiums or the co-pays, so they forgo joining the insurance plans.

There are advancement opportunities at Wal-Mart, but I do not feel that they are as gender-neutral as they might be in selecting their management trainees. In addition, I have seen managers chewed out or fired for surprisingly insignificant reasons. Management positions are in fact quite tenuous from what I've observed.

Wal-Mart is a company reputed to have family values. I know of one assistant manager who was fired for having a relationship with a subordinate employee. I also know a gay man who was not allowed to take a day off to attend his partner's funeral--it was against the rules, and they were not in the mood to cut him any slack.

Some time after it hit the fan that Wal-Marts were using outside contractors who employed undocumented workers for maintenance work, the local store decided to pull the remnant of the former maintenance crew from stocking and reinstate them to clean and wax the floors. The buildup on the floors was terrible, and the old, reinstated crew has been working hard to restore them to the condition they were in before Wal-Mart decided to save a few bucks by outsourcing the job.

Since Sam Walton died, the focus of the corporation changed. When he was alive to supervise and visit every store, the employees were treated better and the stores sold far more American-made products.

Posted by: Robin_Scotland Mar 15 2004, 04:00 PM

In my country, Wal-Mart bought over ASDA which was one of the biggest supermarket chains. Local ASDAs have gone under renovations since then, and in my opinion they aren't as good as they were

I tend to do my shopping at the Co-operative supermarket, a smaller chain with smaller stores, which also has one of the largest supplies of Fair Trade in the UK which is what I like. It isn't to ease my conscience, its just that i like to see big chains taking action, and they lead the way in that respect. But my main gripe with ASDA/Wal-Mart is that it is just too darn big. I can't find my way around, and its generally less well kept that smaller stores. I also find the decor cold. Even the employes wear fleece tops here, maybe ASDA want to save money by not having heating systems!

Well enough of my ASDA/Wal-Mart gripes. I don't think they will obliterate all competition in my area. They certainly have a large share of the market (although I believe Tesco are the biggest chain in the UK) but there are so many supermarkets, and ASDA are rarely the cheapest. I was reading the top 100 richest people in the world: the richest supermarket owner was the founder of Aldi, the third richest man in the world! And Aldi along with fellow German chain Lidl have the cheapest prices in my part of the country.

On the matter of local shops, well I'd say they are all but dead. Very few people shop at local stores, obviously because of the unbeatable superstore competition. Local bakeries and butchers still hang on in there, but grocers are few and far between. The remaining stores are either small corner shops or semi-supermarkets. I don't think it is neccesarily a bad thing, its a free market and this is capitalism afterall. So long as the big chains are subject to higher taxes proportionate to their profits, and so long as they treat employees well and contribute to local communities, (and also so long as supermarket chain competition remains healthy and one doesnt run away with a monopoly), then fine by me.

Posted by: NiteGuy Mar 15 2004, 05:37 PM

Christopher, for some vendors that's true. For others, not so much.

As the story link in my previous post points out, Wal-Mart doesn't just ask for cost or profit concessions, it demands them, year after year. A lot of companies have had to close US factories, and move to cheap overseas labor, just to stay in business. Others have gone bankrupt. Having a spot on Wal-Mart's shelves may look impressive on paper as far as your supposed "market share" goes. But, if you can no longer afford to pay the bills, all the market share in the world won't help you.


Actually, it's quite a bit worse than even what you list, Christopher. Or, at least, it used to be. Ever hear of "dead peasant" insurance? Here's how it works.

Wal-Mart used to offer either $5,000 or $10,000 life insurance to it's employees, at a nominal monthly fee. The amount depended on whether you were an hourly worker, or in management. The payroll deduction was was only $10 to $20 a month and Wal-Mart had signed up nearly 90% of it's 350,000 employees. What's the big deal right?

Well, when Wal-Mart obtained the insurance for the employee, it also obtained a second policy, purchased without the employees knowledge, in amounts from $50,000 to $500,000 with Wal-Mart named as the beneficiary. So, when one of their employees died, the insurance company paid out twice. Once to the employee's estate, for barely enough to cover the funeral, and once to Wal-Mart, for a lot more. In some cases, 50 times more than what the employee's estate was paid.

It gets better. Reportedly, the insurance payouts that Wal-Mart received, went into the executive's and director's retirement fund. Nice huh? Pay for your rather lavish retirement on the backs of your deceased employees.

Now let's add insult to injury. The insurance purchased by the company was paid for through a complicated series of business loans, which were fully tax deductible. So, they were charging their employees for insurance that it wasn't costing them anything to begin with, and then profiting off of said employee's death.

Wal-Mart didn't stop obtaining the additional "dead peasant" insurance until 2000, when some deceased employee estates found out about it, and started suing to get the payouts that Wal-Mart had received. Additionally, many states began closing loopholes in their insurance laws that allowed for this kind of policy, or at least disallowed the tax break, so it became unprofitable. By the way, other companies have used this insurance as well, including Enron, Dow Chemical, Olin Mills and Shell Oil.

As one columnist in Texas, R.H. Meyer wrote in January 2003:


Apparently quite a bit lower.

In a class action suit filed in 2002, thousands of employees and former employees alledge that Wal-Mart doctors employees payroll records deliberately to keep payroll costs down.

In some testimony I read, payroll personnel stated they were told by store managers to go into the payroll system and "erase" overtime hours of some employees, or to show break times for employees, even if they took no break, to keep their payroll budget in line.

In other cases, managers told employees to clock out, and then called them back to their department to do additional work. Or, asked them to come in early, and then would not permit them to clock in for a couple of hours.

Behavior like this is not just illegal, it's morally bankrupt. R.H. Meyer again, from a different column:


Hey, truth in advertising. I don't normally go to Wal-Mart if I can help it, but I'd certainly make an exception to see executives with those sandwich boards.

Posted by: lee Mar 15 2004, 06:13 PM

I am not sure about the speific legal ramifications or how to develop such a policy, but I would be interested in some form of legislation requiring stores like WalMart and Blockbuster to maintain their prices (so they cannot use their huge national profits to unfairly monopolize small towns). Business classes told me that it is just an evolutionary part of modern business, but I feel that destroying shops that have had the same ownership for generations is wrong. It is one thing when everything is cheaper, but when this is no longer the case, it is unfortunate. Ma and Pa stores could get together and consolidate or restart their businesses to compete, but making some law that keeps everything at its lowest price would be ideal.

I don't like suggesting the implementation of new laws, seeing as there are far too many already. I also don't like to encourage the strict regulation of business (nor do I know how to go about it in this case). It is merely an idea to combat the situation, and I would be interested to hear any responses.

Posted by: christopher Mar 15 2004, 07:35 PM

NiteGuy I am not arguing the fact of Wal Mart's tactics. I disapprove of them.
I merely pointed out that from a pure capitalistic standpoint they are almost perfect. They are a purely profit driven entity. There are no concerns for people outside the realm of profitability. Forcing the companies to seek cheaper production costs elsewhere in a purely economic standpoint is good. From a societal standpoint its brutal.
Businesses exist to make a profit. They don't exist to care for the needs of employees or the public at large. If they do they will in most cases fail.
While WalMart IMO lowers the quality of life in its surroundings the sickest part is I could not continue on without their deals. Since I make JUST enough money to get by these days the Super Center near me is a life saver. A Stephen King style Catch-22.
Wal Mart has no emotional blocks when it comes to pursuing the best possible profit margin.
As to the overall fairness of their tactics some are indeed cruel and beyond the pale IMO, but at the same time some of the businesses they take down are sometimes poorly run and would have buckled under the strains of any competition or just beyond their prime in this modern economic reality (K Mart was horribly run and a lousy store).
I have had my job outsourced in a sense. I was replaced by two fresh out of college kids for the price it took to pay me. I am far better than they are BUT they together can equal my overall production. They will also begin to reach my numbers and still for quite some time be cheaper than I was. I hate it, it hurt like hell because I had invested so much of my time in that company. But I can't blame them. I might have thought the same way were it my company. The owner has a dream and must pursue it. I could have prepared better and continued my studies and learned new skills to be retained and even promoted. Chances had been available but I didn't pursue them. I didn't want to do any extra, So I got replaced.
As for the customers of that company because of actions like that they can now get the final product cheaper. Which they can then use to further their careers and marketability.
That is how it goes and how it should go. I am back in school and educating myself in fields that are up and coming. No sure bets on any of them but it should be enough to get in somewhere and build on it. This time when the opportunities to advance are available I will take advantage of them.
Whats my point?
My ex-company could have kept me around. I did do fantastic work
but the economy got tight and the best thing for that company was to tighten its belt and only keep those who went above and beyond. They targeted weak areas were they could get by with less and I was smack dead center.
When Wal Mart says we want your product cheaper the reality is that these days there are cheaper alternatives to anything out there. Weak business models will fail. It sucks to be employed by one of those but thats life.
As for Wal Mart unsavory practices in regards to health care, illegals, and the dead peasants insurance.
Sooner or later it all comes around. The grumbling has already begun. It takes time for it to snowball. There are many people doing investigations now. Both official and private. Wal Mart will get nailed for what it does wrong. People will begin to look for alternatives to wal Mart as the effects of Wal Marts business model become apparent.
Many people complain about Microsoft. They are unfair its always said. They stifle competition they say.
Nope they just had a better business model. They played hardball and did whatever necessary to destroy competition. They could beat everyone and did simply because they offered the most value to their customers. Only the tech geeks really complained and criticized. Well now Linux is barking at their heels.
Whole governments are dropping windows for Linux. Businesses are opening their proprietary code to the Open Source community. Microsofts time is coming to an end. A newer and better business model is being developed by the Open Source community and profit methods are being created that benefit from an almost communistic approach to product development. They are offering a better alternative price wise and flexibilty-wise and there is nothing in the end Microsoft can do to stop it.
It'll happen to Wal Mart as well some day.

Posted by: Julian Mar 16 2004, 01:58 PM

Fair comment, Christopher - eventually, markets do correct themselves. The question is, do we have the time to wait the decades or longer that it takes for that to happen?

You said

and you're quite right. That is what governments are for, and it is why there must be regulation of markets. This regulation is not there to spite "wealth creators", but to protect consumers from the often very long downturns in the business cycle - as you described, while one particular business model abuses workers and customers.

We must always remember that markets are there to serve people, and not to serve businesses. The businesses that best serve consumer needs will grow, and those that do not will fail, but markets are not perfect (for example, not everyone has access to every retailer. If Wal-Mart is the only store in town, they have a local monopoly) and market dominance gives dominant corporations many years' grace before their shadier practices reign in or undermine that dominance.

For example, for how many years have Microsoft been dominant? Only now are open source suppliers beginning to force competition on them again, and only then in certain markets to a certain extent - Microsoft are still globally dominant. Even if the trend towards the open source model your describe continues at the most optimistic predicted rates, it will be another decade or more before Microsoft have to compete for every customer (the only situation in which the customer can truly exercise free choice, and therefore the only situation in which the market approaches much vaunted "perfection").

In the absence of perfection, regulation is the only thing that protects consumers and workers from the cold wind of capitalism.

Posted by: Regent Mar 16 2004, 03:52 PM

Having been offered a job at the Wal-Mart headquarters several years back, I find many of the comments here kind of interesting. I grew up in a smaller town and I have heard this debate many times over the years. Does Wal-Mart actually hurt the town or community? The real answer is both yes and no. In terms of employment opportunities for youth and others this can be a great place to gain some work experience. In terms of the mom and pop shops, Wal-Mart forces them to diversify their product lines to stay in business. One of the largest complaints is that Wal-Mart kills the diversification of products in an area. They are a discount entity at the basic level. They are great for those who do not have much to spend, but need great deals.

Their tactics have been described as less then above board by a few in here, but I find these arguments to be nothing more than conjecture with no real substance. The reality of the situation is that few of us here really know what their objectives are and the complete picture as to how they pursue their goals. One example is the fact that they do an impact analysis before building any store. This is something they do to determine not only profit margins, but the potential for backlash if they place a store in a certain area. Contrary to some opinions the management of Wal-Mart does care about their image. When I went through my series of interviews for the corporate job there were many questions and discussions on these issues.

In many suburban areas they thrive due to competition from other entities such as Kroger, Costco, Target, and other grocery chains. However, they always take the most heat as has been mentioned. The reason for this is simple. They are the most successful. Not due to tactics on store placement or other such things, but due to their ability to keep their own costs down. Their information systems are world class and among the best in the world class category. When studying this company you can see that their ability to distribute products in a just-in-time mentality is unmatched. This is achieved through their network of computers and distribution centers strategically positioned. Their transporting section of the company is very efficient and there are always efforts to reduce cost. Wal-Mart is not unionized which further allows them to offer goods and services at lower costs than many of their competitors such as Albertson’s. The strikes in California by certain grocery unions were a direct result of why Wal-Mart is more successful. The unionized chains can’t compete on cost with Wal-Mart because their unions are making unreasonable demands.

Wal-Mart creates jobs that really have no other purpose except employing the elderly. How many stores do you know that have an elderly person saying hello to you? We all know that they are not needed, but here is this company that apparently is only focused on profit paying not just one, but quite a number of people that they certainly do not need. One could argue they are doing this to try and improve their reputation, but no matter how it is spun the reality is that the job positions are unnecessary and cut into profit margins.

Wal-Mart is a good company to invest in as they are a well managed company. Many people invest their money there because they recognize a good company. They certainly are not a monopoly, but they are a tough competitor. Target and Costco survive due to the difference in their target markets. It is similar to how Lowe’s and Home Depot operate---different target niches.

The biggest of the giants always take the shots from those who are against large corporations or entities. But many who work in the corporate world look for such a company due to its stability and ability to offer excellent benefits and career opportunities. When impact assessment on any community is discussed we all need to look at both sides of the fence before passing judgement.

Posted by: jenreiautter Mar 16 2004, 05:38 PM

I have read more than one post on this thread where someone says "I'm forced to go to Wal-Mart because that's all I can afford".

Now, I may get trounced on by a few people for saying this, but I think it's important to make some priorities.

The way things are in my household now: my fiance is supporting me, our infant daughter and my 9 year daughter from a previous relationship earning under 30,000 a year, we NEVER shop at Wall-Mart and we are living quite comfortably. I believe our secret is that we are fairly un-materialistic, aren't afraid to buy or accept things second hand, and think carefully about what we really want and need before making a purchase.

We are a very politcial family, so avoiding corporations that are exploitive is a high priorty for us. There are ways to avoid Wall-Mart and places like it if you just get creative enough.

The scary thing is -- once all of the competition is gone, and we are all working for Wall-Mart, their prices won't seem very cheap to us then . . .

Posted by: pheeler Mar 16 2004, 06:23 PM

I'm with you there. I don't think legislation will solve this problem, legislation has already missed its window of opportunity to do so. It's left to us as consumers to use the vote that really counts, our money, to let Walmart know we don't support liars, cheats and thieves. I haven't spent a penny there for years, and I'm working on getting my parents to stop going. Boycott Walmart, get some news coverage and spread the word about their inethical strategies/

Posted by: christopher Mar 16 2004, 07:58 PM

Agreed. However without Microsoft none of the current world of tech would exist. While Apple did make home computers viable it was Microsoft that put them in everyones home. Apple has always been so very "trendy" and never would "Lower" itself to the common consumer. Microsoft itself was the alternative movement of its time in that is was a much better alternative than those that held the market at the time.
There are far too many out there with poor business models that are founded in sand. Look at the dotcom. While WalMart and Microsoft can be brutal they exist because they offer the best deal. Same as japanese compact cars handed Detroit their own backsides in the 70s and 80s. Better product that met the very real need of its customers. Everyone here screamed buy American but American products sucked. they wouldn't meet the reality of the time which was avery real need for fuel efficiency.
We haven't exactly suffered because of microsoft. New businesses and jobs exist that never would have without them and the IT market in ANY feild is much healthier and wide spread because of them. However they got cocky and greedy and will fall. Remember a sudden shift in technology ( disruptive technologies) would cause major damage economic wise not just here but globally as well.
In thenext 10 years the tech landscape will be martian lanscape in comparison to today. A veritable whole new world.
In the areas of retail and sales whole new worldveiws are necessary.
example recording industry. They still think they are in the market of selling CDs. They have forgotten about the customer. Look at Apple's music model. they are already halfway to their goal. They are proving the digital model can be wildly successful. Offer a fair deal and much of the current piracy will fall.
stores and groceries and all such type of businesses need to face the new economic reality and adapt to the new model because it will not go away.
Americans areselves need to realize that the world will now be much much harsher to those that are not ready to meet the needs of tthis new world. Those that fail will lives very nasty short unhappy lives. America needs to desperatly rethink its education policies and priorities or we will rapidly become a third world nation.
I gotta go to work now. I may branch this off into a new thread later today since I am getting away from walmart

Posted by: popeye47 Mar 17 2004, 12:04 AM

I have boycotted Walmart for the past year,also

I also go a few more miles to the Kmart or Target.

I don't believe in Walmarts treatment of employees,low paid, no benefits, telling suppliers they want a certain price or else.

I gladly paid a few more cents to get a item somewhere else. For me to not approve of their business practices and still shop there would make me a HYPOCRITE.

I have been a bargain shopper all my life. And if you buy your necessities in advance of when you need them, I can beat Walmarts regular prices. Various stores have the majority of the items I need on sale ever week.

So if an individual will spent a few extra minutes per week, They can ignore Walmart completely.

I have and still paid a lower price than advertised at Walmart.

Posted by: overlandsailor Mar 17 2004, 12:47 PM

I guess I am a hypocrite then because on some Items I can not find a cheaper deal in my area then Walmart. However, are you aware of the fact that Walmart owns Target as well? I know they own Lowes, but I believe they also own Target.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Mar 17 2004, 01:50 PM

No, Walmart doesn't own Target. They trade under different tickers on the New York stock exchange (TGT and WMT). Target owns Marshall Field's, Dayton's, and Hudson's.

Edited to add: Are you sure they own Lowes? That is traded under another ticker, too. I've never heard this.

Posted by: NiteGuy Mar 17 2004, 04:06 PM

Sorry, overlandsailor, but you are not correct.

Walmart's subsidiaries include Sam's Club, and a group of stand-alone grocery stores called Neighborhood Market.

Target, Inc., is the parent company of Marshall Fields and Mervyn department stores. There is no connection between any of these and Wal-Mart.

Same with Lowes. They are a completely separate and non-affilliated, publicly traded corporation, as far as I can see on any financials page. No connection to Wal-Mart at all.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Mar 17 2004, 04:25 PM

It seems to me that Target is owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation, which also owns Mervyn's and Marshall Fields and which, in fact, is considering cutting back on those two chains because of losses.

Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are owned by the same people. There are probably other companies, distributers anyway, that are owned by Wal-Mart, but I do not know their names.

Posted by: Rev_DelFuego Mar 17 2004, 04:56 PM

The only thing you left out was the Neighborhood Hood Markets. They are grocery only Wal Marts. According to Wal Mart Watch there are 32 of them in the US, 16 of them in Texas, 6 of them in Houston. Houston was the test market 2-3 years ago, They have already spready to Oklahoma (9) , Arkansas (6), and now they are in Colorado (1). Like I said in a previous post, this is what pushed Albertsons out of town, even though they were not unionized in Texas like someone else mentioned.

Posted by: overlandsailor Mar 17 2004, 11:02 PM

My mistake, I thought Wal-Mart and Target was connected. However, I was sure Wal-Mart and Lowes was connected. I heard it awhle back and just assumed it was true, same with Target. OH well, sorry about that.

Posted by: Desert Resident Apr 7 2004, 10:00 PM

Agree with you both on many points in your posts...WalMart is a grand case study for imitating success by large and small businesses. As a consumer...most love WalMart....as a competitor....most hate them.

Below is a link to a WalMart article...must register to L. A. Times to read full report:

Another WalMart squeezed out by the voters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-040704walmart_lat,1,3195217.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by: UGA Boy Apr 7 2004, 11:35 PM

Healthy? I love Wal-Mart! It is the only place I iknow where you can get an oil change for 12 DOLLARS!!!

But seriously, Wal-Mart has been increasing jobs and giving back to the community. How many mom and pop shops do you know give thousands of dollars back to their community each month?

It seems to me that if there were more Wal-Mart's the world could wuite possibly be a better place.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Apr 8 2004, 12:25 AM

Increasing and decreasing jobs in communities. Forcing small businesses to close, businesses that have been there for decades. While they "give back" to the community, many of their own employees have to send their kids to the public health departments because on their low wages they cannot afford health insurance.



Mom and pop shops, by virtue of the fact that the owners live in and have long-term acquaintances and commitments to the community, are already an integral part of the community. The owners pay their tithes in church, buy Girl Scout cookies, have collection jars on their counters for community members who have to undergo cancer surgery/chemotherapy and cannot afford it, donate their time and money to local events and charities.

Wal-Mart did not invent the practice of "increasing jobs and giving back to the community." They just do it on a grander scale and don't consider that keeping their employees at or near poverty level has a deleterious effect on a community.

Posted by: pbottle Apr 9 2004, 12:30 PM

I find wal-mart to be the quintessential expression of our materialism.

The country is now so wealthy from exploitation of fossil fuels and other regions of the world that our rulers can afford to let the american peasant have untrammeled access to junk. Hence, wal-mart and its ilk.

The ruthless ugliness of big-box architecture, the amount of land despoiled by these outlets, and the banality of the low-quality trash sold within mirrors the current american spirit: turn your back on the past, ignore the hard work and self-control of former generations; heedlessly destroy valuable ground once nurtured by some american for a lifetime; willfuly ignore the fine architecture and cultural icons that still exist or else surround them with freeway off-ramp sprawl. Rural opportunities vanish as quickly as the asian produced trinkets proliferate. Hope to climb the socio-economic scale keeps everyone willing to sell anything and everything.

The brave knights of the corporate round-table have a greater and bolder vision than this even. All independant life and activity will eventually be eliminated, or so they imagine. If the fuel bonanza lasts long enough, and they intend to make sure it does. Fortunately, not all - in fact the most powerful forces are not under their control. The filth will crush itself by sheer wieght - perhaps mimicing the geologic formation of the black gold. Humanity is beginning to re-assert itself, opposition blooms here and there and everywhere. Eventually the tide will turn, beauty and insularity and de-centralization will triumph and dis-mantling the ugliness will be the holy work for a generation.

Posted by: Regent Apr 20 2004, 10:30 PM

First, Wal-Mart does not force other jobs in the community to close. These businesses close due to their inability to compete. Bashing Wal-Mart because it is more successful and is larger is a popular tactic, but unfair. Basing your argument on an appeal of emotion is touching and moving, but the facts remain that they are successful and people do not want them because of that fact. Competition is not always healthy, but the consumer almost always benefits. Competitors do not benefit and will do almost anything to protect their market.

Second, those who work at Wal-Mart, and are salary employees, have a health plan. There are even those who are not 'exempt' who also have such benefits. There are also a number of employees from many other smaller companies that also must send their kids to public health departments for small businesses simply can’t provide much insurance. What is your point here? It appears as if you are trying to paint Wal-Mart as this bad company based on this and other reasons, yet you completely ignore the fact that the same is true of the mom and pop stores.




Simply being a part of the community does not mean they give back in terms of hard dollars. Hard dollars are what the community needs in order to fund the needs and wants of the community. Girl Scout cookies and collection jars are peanuts to large private donations. But even if Wal-Mart did these things would you change your view of the company?



Can you provide any credible evidence demonstrating that Wal-Mart keeps it employees at or near the poverty level?

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 20 2004, 11:22 PM

maybe you didn't read the followng from an earlier thread.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 20 2004, 11:37 PM

Of course the whole previous post assumes that without Wal-Mart the Wal-Mart employees would be earning more money and/ or have better benefits. A pretty absurd premise. Of course eliminate government paid for healthcare and the burden to the community is eliminated. Amazing how government intervention always neccesitates more government intervention. Wal-Mart lowers prices, giving the large majority of the community an effective raise. It benefits the poor, who spend a higher proportion of their income than the wealthy, a greater benefit.

I worked for a "mom and pop" right out of high school. That dime over minimum wage and no benefits was a great deal. Got me started.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 21 2004, 02:13 AM

Actually being part of the community by its very definition means you would be giving back to the community. I'd like to augment Paladin Elspeth's original post to clarify this statement.

These very same mom and pop stores patronize their community for all types of goods and services. If they need an accountant they are much more likely to use someone in the community than to go to some ambiguous large accounting firm like Ernst & Young like Walmart likely uses for its accounting. The money stays in the community.

Additionally, the profits that the owners of smaller stores reap goes directly back into the community in the form of consumer goods, services, increased employment and charitable donations. The Walton family may be raking in big cash, but I guarantee they aren't spending it in your neighborhood. The small businesses they displace go out and buy nice dinners at the italian restaurant down the street, buy a new car when business is good, donate to the local charity. When the walton's have a good year they buy another yacht and invest more in the stock market - hardly beneficial to your community.

Posted by: DaffyGrl Apr 21 2004, 03:05 AM

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

Absolutely NOT. Walmart is an evil empire - why? There are many reasons.

1. Slave Wages: Walmart pays much lower wages than other, comparable stores, and has been cited for many labor law violations. Only 30% of their workers have healthcare (workers are mostly part time). The resulting burden Walmart employees put on the county health care systems is substantial. In Georgia, 10,261 of the 166,000 children enrolled in taxpayer-funded county programs are children of Walmart employees (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2/27/04). Similar situations exist in many communities.
2. Non-union: If this matters to you, Walmart is virulently anti-union. Employees can be fired for even talking about organizing.
3. Censorship: Walmart's explicit censorship policy bans all music carrying a warning label along with, for example, all Beavis and Butthead merchandise. John Mellencamp, who had to airbrush Jesus and the devil from the cover of his new album in order to get Walmart's approval, joins a long list of artists ranging from Beck to Outkast who have had to hack up their art to reach their audience. Walmart makes sure that, in hundreds of cities, they are the only place for fans to shop by selling music at or below cost and driving independent stores out of business. (theroc.org) And let's not forget they took the Dixie Chicks off the shelf after the whole Bush/Texas deal.
4. Supports sweatshop labor: Walmart buys offshore, without apology and for the cheapest possible prices, from companies paying the lowest-possible wages. As jobs in America are lost to foreign sweatshops to feed the Walmart engine, American workers are forced to accept jobs at lower pay, with bad working conditions. They are funneled to Walmart's promise of cheap goods, in effect patronizing the very companies that caused their economic misery. (Seattle Times, 2/18/04)
5. Political Influence: Walmart has hired lobbyists to monitor legislation dealing with consumer protections, ergonomics, port security and prescription drug reform, according to lobbying records. With $1.26 million in contributions, Walmart is the second-largest overall donor in the 2003-2004 election cycle. One guess as to which party they support. (Arkansas News Bureau, 1/18/04)
6. Discriminatory practices: Walmart pays women less than men in the same positions, does not promote as many women as men to management positions, and practices active sexism (women should “doll up” to get promoted, men get paid more than women because men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money” or men "need to be paid more than women because they have families to support.")
7. Job destruction: The pennies-thin margins of WalMart combined with their coercive supplier-pricing practices all WalMart to sell goods at retail prices that are lower than what a smaller retailer pays wholesale. This drives most small retailers in the vicinity out of business, thus destroying jobs. As small retailers go out of business, it creates a ripple effect on the economy. The laid-off workers and newly bankrupt former business owners no longer contribute to the regional economy. This puts downward pressure on the regional economy, forcing more businesses to close or contract. This creates yet more unemployed, etc.
8. Environmentally unfriendly: Walmart regularly bypasses environmental reviews, traffic studies, public hearings and municipal officials. This is what the voters in Inglewood succeeded in doing; not preventing the building of the supermegahumongous store, but that they had to follow the laws and do the studies first.
9. They lock their overnight employees in the store, to minimize “shrinkage” (aka theft).
10. Crime: Stabbings, shootings, rape; you name it, it has happened at Walmart. The store in Lakewood was only open 3 weeks when an armed robber held up the store and shot someone in the wee hours.

And so much more, it would take pages and pages. Cheaper prices have consequences.

Posted by: heart Apr 21 2004, 06:41 AM

This is a new thought that I have about WalMart. I know that I don't have the whole thing thought through yet. I know that it is philosophical in nature, but bear with me for a minute.

In the town that I live in, there is a downtown square. People from both sides of the railroad tracks that run through the town all went to the same stores a few years back. There is a pharmacy (in business since 1895), a grocery store, a hardware store, two doctors, an eye doctor, an insurance company, an accountant, two banks, a music supply store, a clothing store, a few gift shops, a jewelry store and a dozen or so types of car repair/gas station businesses.

Before WalMart, people shopped downtown. They knew the owners of the businesses there. They were our neighbors and some were related to one of our friends or there was some connection between us. The owners were visible to us and they knew their customers. They were honorable and trustworthy or else they didn't survive in business.

At one time or another many of the towns residents worked at one of these small businesses. Most started out as clerks or office assistants and many either worked their way up and are still with these businesses in a management capacity, or they used that experience to get another job. Some even became partners in the businesses. In all cases the main point is that the residents knew the owners, workers, and the other customers.

With WalMart, they have groceries, a drug store, gifts, optometrists, a bank, jewelry, clothing, gasoline, and car repair in some places. That accounts for about half of the services offered in my town. WalMart sells all of this stuff for a lot less. Gradually, the businesses downtown are losing ground. Many stores have closed, or lowered their inventories. This makes the monetary costs for customers better, but what does it do to the town...to the relationships built from generation to generation?

It isn't just this town...the WalMart is not actually in my town, it is centrally located between four towns that are very close together. I would imagine that whatever WalMart's effect is on my town, it is having the same effect on all four towns. With every business that fails in each town the local tax base declines. WalMart takes up a lot of space, but it doesn't pay as much as the businesses in the four surrounding towns that go under due to WalMart.

This has all been said before...but my point is more about knowing who your townspeople are. When a person knows the druggist, the grocer and the banker, personal relationships develop, and it doesn't matter what the business is because if you can walk into a store and talk to the owner you feel like a human talking to another human. You want that human member of your community to prosper, and that person must treat customers and their employees well, or they lose the trust of the community. Community businesses support their local schools and charities because they KNOW these people, and they can't help but to care. People tend to work together in mutual self interest.

When people shop at WalMart you never see the owner. The person you interact with is a stranger, and even if you get to know some of the clerks, one day they disappear and you have no one to ask what happened to them. No trust is ever developed. You spend a lot of money, but you never feel as if you have spent it for any other reason than because it is cheap. Everything becomes purely monetary, and the network that would normally develop in a town...a network that one uses to find employment or seek aid from a charity or learn a trade/business from the bottom up is lost. The consequence of this disconnect is that WalMart becomes the big "THEY", and they have no face, no trust, no sense of community that isn't motivated by public relations.

This can't be a good thing for many towns (there are some where it has been a good thing), most towns and small cities rely on the bond of the community to get things done...but with WalMart there is no bond. A neighbor kid can't get a start in a trade or a business because of WalMart's flattened management structure. You can put that you worked for "Lacey Drug" on your resume and leave with a letter of recommendation. WalMart will only provide a verification of employment. You can work for a local bank, learn on the job, and move up because they have managers, whereas WalMart simply has tellers.

I think what I am trying to point out is that this disconnect causes communities as we have known them to disintegrate. It is not healthy to consolidate all of the functions of community bonds into one large store. We want to have thriving towns, but we don't want WalMart to 'take over', which is what is happening. The only outcome is a distrust of the large corporation as epitomized by WalMart. Lawsuits are brought against them because there is no trust, no connection. One never feels that WalMart will do the right thing, and look out for the people. This creates a serious class warfare situation and further separates the capital "investor class" from the minor class differences that existed in our town before WalMart. Maybe this is a microcosm of why the classes feel so antagonistic toward one another.

These are just thoughts and observations that may help or not. I can only offer a perspective that maybe someone else might have missed by focusing on the economics alone.

Posted by: Regent Apr 21 2004, 10:12 PM

Popeye....Yes I read the article and the previous post. Perhaps you missed the part where I said credible evidence. Since we are going to draw unsubstantiated conclusions from such an article I can assume that those workers currently working for Wal-Mart were not skilled enough to get jobs in other areas. Perhaps I should conclude that Wal-Mart is a great place for it hires those who have minimal skills and tries to help them by training them for future employment opportunities. Jumping to the conclusion that was made using this article as credible evidence is as absurd as the conclusions I just made. While ones personal opinion is respected, it can hardly be presented as fact.

Cube Jockey

I think you have made some good points with respect to money staying in the community due to businesses spending their money for supporting services with in the area. I have never claimed that Wal-Mart has no impact, but I have made the argument that Wal-Mart does not force others out of business. Many communities must adjust their down town areas to compete. Some do. Some do not. Those who do not suffer and those who do adjust thrive. Your comments about the Walton’s however, are very inaccurate. While a good many may like to think that they are just living the good life you should really try studying the people and the way they operate. K-Mart and Targets going into a community have a similar impact, but yet there is not the same level of criticism aimed at them. Shopko and Malls also had the same impact on smaller communities. When ever a national chain store enters an area it causes similar effects. But we all love our malls.

DaffyGrl, Most of your post was nothing more than slander. Much of it is unfounded and unproven. Normally I would address such, but I think the first line discussing ‘Slave Wages’ is about as far as I need to go. I hardly call a 50,000 dollar job offer for someone out of college a ‘Slave Wage’. In addition perhaps you can point me to all these good mom and pop stores who offer part time workers a health plan with full coverage and so forth.

I end with my observation that far too many here are eager to throw rotten tomatoes at the corporate giant, yet these same posters refuse to investigate other companies to see if they are also doing the same thing. There is no real analysis of what the mom and pop stores have to offer there employees and many of the accusations being handed out are nothing more than biased opinions.

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 21 2004, 11:18 PM

Regent

Oh where oh where to start.

No you can't assume "that those workers currently working for Wal-Mart were not skilled enough to get jobs in other areas". I personally know of people with college degrees working for Wal-Mart and other entry jobs. Why? Because of the economy.

I don't believe this is jumping to conclusions.

Especially since the article was FACT and 25% of Wal-Mart children need assistance for their medical conditions. This was not a personal opinion, unless you believe I wrote the article under my pseudonym.



Evidently you haven't been listening to the news lately, regarding throwing rotten tomatoes at the corporate giant. There are quite a few american citizens throwing rotten tomatoes lately.



In Gwinnet County,Georgia the zoning committee refused to rezone land for a new Wal-Mart supercenter. In various other parts of the United States government and individuals have voted against Wal-Mart.

There sure are a lot of BIASED individuals and governments throwing a low of rotten tomatoes.

But as you said that is only an opinion.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Apr 22 2004, 01:01 AM

I had many fellow associates who worked for Wal-Mart and could not afford the co-payments for health insurance. Their teeth were rotting. I know, that's not Wal-Mart's fault. One cashier was a diabetic with foot ulcers. The management gave her a hard time about asking for a stool to sit on while she checked out customers, even with a doctor's note. When she produced a note saying she needed another position that did not require her to be on her feet, even though a position could have been provided they said "Sorry--either you work as a cashier or there is no position for you." Finally, she contacted an attorney. Miraculously, Wal-Mart produced a stool for her to sit on while she did her cashier work.

I have known of employees injured on the job, not the type who think that since Wal-Mart has deep pockets they're going to try to take advantage of them, who would apply for Worker's Compensation and Wal-Mart would try to weasel out of it. In at least one case I know a woman had to take them to court to get the money she was supposed to have received.

Now you can find a stingy bunch of SOBs in any business, large or small. These practices, though, take place in a business that employs more people than the Postal Service in this country. And the profits go to Arkansas; they don't stay in the communities.

Further, when Sam Walton ran the company, they advertised goods made in America, boasting that it kept Americans employed. Guess that idea went down the crapper when the old man died.

You say why savage Wal-Mart. Well, obviously there are some practices, including recently using maintenance contractors who use undocumented workers, displacing the maintenance crews in their employ. Loyalty to their employees? I think not. Only when practices such as these meet the light of day does Wal-Mart and a lot of corporations clean up their act, then undertake a massive PR campaign to get back into the good graces of the American customer.

With great power comes greater responsibility. I see a company that, after it eliminates much of its competition, will hike up the prices and which will lose its competitive edge. Much of the low prices are made low because the store across town has low prices and they want to beat them. These loss leaders will go away when the store across town goes out of business.

These are not good business practices in the long run. These produce short-term gains but ultimately do not serve the communities well.

Posted by: DaffyGrl Apr 22 2004, 02:24 AM

That's your characterization. I would not characterize it in that manner.

I cited sources, and could have cited more. Findlaw found approximately 730 cases pending against Wal-Mart, many of them discrimination suits. A class action suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart has been filed in California on behalf of 1.5 million women across the country, making it the largest discrimination suit ever brought.

The court papers can be found at http://www.coalitiontlc.org/dukeswalmart61901.pdf and more info at the law firm http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/civil/walmart.html
This is only one case, and I'm sure you can dispute its veracity, but the issues I cited in my original post do exist, and dismissing my post as less valid than your claims is insulting and specious.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 22 2004, 05:21 AM

You should probably read the rest of the post because she does make some very good and valid points. Specifically items 3, 6, 8 and 10.

I don't know where you got that 50,000 number from, but I can guarantee you (without even doing any research) that your average cashier, stocker, or butcher IS NOT making 50K. I would also highly doubt that any but the higher level managers make that kind of money. I worked as a low level manager for a large national chain grocery store for two years while I was in high school and I can guarantee that no one below store managers makes that much, and sometimes not even them. Incidently store manager is not an entry level job. My wage for that job $9.00/hr -- that's livin' the high life let me tell ya.

I think that many here feel the same way about other large corporations as well (maybe not all of them, but certainaly some). However, the topic here is specifically Walmart.

Posted by: Regent Apr 22 2004, 08:29 PM

Daffygrl
[quote]1. Slave Wages: Walmart pays much lower wages than other, comparable stores, and has been cited for many labor law violations. Only 30% of their workers have healthcare (workers are mostly part time). The resulting burden Walmart employees put on the county health care systems is substantial. In Georgia, 10,261 of the 166,000 children enrolled in taxpayer-funded county programs are children of Walmart employees (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2/27/04). Similar situations exist in many communities.[/quote]

The main point being references is lower wages. The context of the article points to things such as labor law violations and a reported 30 percent healthcare enrollment. The article sites that 1 in 4 employees have their children in taxpayer funded county programs. The assertion is that because Wal-Mart pays lower wages it is a burden to the county healthcare systems. This is a classic case of the logical fallacy Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

[quote]2. Non-union: If this matters to you, Walmart is virulently anti-union. Employees can be fired for even talking about organizing.[/quote]

Dicto simpliciter It is true they are not unionized, but it is not a fair statement that all employees in Wal-Mart are anti-union. It is also a hasty generalization to state that employees are not even allowed to discuss the formation of one under threat of being fired in every case.

[quote]3. Censorship: Walmart's explicit censorship policy bans all music carrying a warning label along with, for example, all Beavis and Butthead merchandise. John Mellencamp, who had to airbrush Jesus and the devil from the cover of his new album in order to get Wal-Mart’s approval, joins a long list of artists ranging from Beck to Outkast who have had to hack up their art to reach their audience. Wal-Mart makes sure that, in hundreds of cities, they are the only place for fans to shop by selling music at or below cost and driving independent stores out of business. (theroc.org) And let's not forget they took the Dixie Chicks off the shelf after the whole Bush/Texas deal.[/quote]

This is not censorship. If you want your products to be carried by Wal-Mart then you need to be sensitive to their policies and views. Wal-Mart does not censor the products those wishing for the store to sell and promote their products censor themselves to comply with Wal-Mart’s policies. That is the right of all businesses. Again this is a red herring argument used to beat the company.

[quote]4. Supports sweatshop labor: Walmart buys offshore, without apology and for the cheapest possible prices, from companies paying the lowest-possible wages. As jobs in America are lost to foreign sweatshops to feed the Walmart engine, American workers are forced to accept jobs at lower pay, with bad working conditions. They are funneled to Walmart's promise of cheap goods, in effect patronizing the very companies that caused their economic misery. (Seattle Times, 2/18/04)[/quote]

The argument is being made that because Wal-Mart buys offshore to compete in their target market of being a low cost provider they are the cause or a significant part of Americans being forced to accept jobs at lower pay. This type of logic falls into the fallacies of Argumentum ad misericordiam and Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. First, we do not know if these sweatshops in other countries are not viewed as wonderful jobs by those who work in them. Second, we simply can’t assume that because of this Americans are forced to get lower paying jobs.

[quote]5. Political Influence: Walmart has hired lobbyists to monitor legislation dealing with consumer protections, ergonomics, port security and prescription drug reform, according to lobbying records. With $1.26 million in contributions, Walmart is the second-largest overall donor in the 2003-2004 election cycle. One guess as to which party they support. (Arkansas News Bureau, 1/18/04)[/quote]

This is a Red herring argument yet again. The context is pointing to political contributions given and then presenting it as a negative due to the recipient party they donated to. First, who are any of us to claim that one party is better than another? While opinions are great, to beat a company due to its political leanings can not be used in any logical manner to determine the good or bad of the company. This entire line of context is simply irrelevant when trying to address the question of whether Wal-Mart is healthy for a community.

[quote]6. Discriminatory practices: Walmart pays women less than men in the same positions, does not promote as many women as men to management positions, and practices active sexism (women should “doll up” to get promoted, men get paid more than women because men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money” or men "need to be paid more than women because they have families to support.")[/quote]

Dicto simpliciter. Once again there is no evidence to support this accusation. The hasty generalization is being made that all women are discriminated against by the company. Can you provide any credible information that such discrimination takes place with the majority of those who work for the company? If you can not then you are placing Wal-Mart back into the category of other corporations in that there are always a certain percentage that are not satisfied with certain aspects of the company.

The second part of the context is based on the wording of promoting as many women as men. If there are more men in the company then more men would most like me promoted simply based on the numbers. The post does not provide the raw data, but simply jumps to the conclusion based on data that is not known. I submit that the article is pointed and may or may not be presenting the information in a fair manner.

[quote]7. Job destruction: The pennies-thin margins of WalMart combined with their coercive supplier-pricing practices all WalMart to sell goods at retail prices that are lower than what a smaller retailer pays wholesale. This drives most small retailers in the vicinity out of business, thus destroying jobs. As small retailers go out of business, it creates a ripple effect on the economy. The laid-off workers and newly bankrupt former business owners no longer contribute to the regional economy. This puts downward pressure on the regional economy, forcing more businesses to close or contract. This creates yet more unemployed, etc.[/quote]

Once again we address the logical fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It is most likely that their ability to compete will force some businesses to re-align, and force some closures. This is a sound and logical argument, however, the context assumes that Wal-Mart is a problem because it creates some unemployment. What we really do not know or what has yet to be presented with any level of thoroughness is the balance of employment to unemployment created. To automatically assume that Wal-Mart has a net negative affect on total employment is not a conclusion that can be easily made. In addition, it is not a conclusion that can be made with complete certainty in every case.

[quote]8. Environmentally unfriendly: Walmart regularly bypasses environmental reviews, traffic studies, public hearings and municipal officials. This is what the voters in Inglewood succeeded in doing; not preventing the building of the supermegahumongous store, but that they had to follow the laws and do the studies first.[/quote]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Yet again the attempts to bypass government red tape do not brand a company as environmentally unfriendly. You could argue that they are not as forth coming, but that has nothing to do with the environment. To be fair we would also need to perform analysis on how often such bypasses are performed by other companies to determine if Wal-Mart is out of proportion.

[quote]9. They lock their overnight employees in the store, to minimize “shrinkage” (aka theft).[/quote]

So what. Is this illegal? If they left their doors unlocked would this then be considered a gross error in terms of providing safety to their employees? This is a Red Herring.

[quote]10. Crime: Stabbings, shootings, rape; you name it, it has happened at Walmart. The store in Lakewood was only open 3 weeks when an armed robber held up the store and shot someone in the wee hours.[/quote]

Simply because these have happened does not mean that these things would not have happened to another store. Is there any hard data that shows crime in an area increases more for a Wal-Mart than with another company of similar size? Can we conclude that crime occurs here because the low prices attract characters more prone to commit crime? Simply stating that crime has occurred at a Wal-Mart store does not mean that crime will automatically increase in every location.


Whenever I see so many logical fallacies presented as fact I tend to dismiss the post as being logical and worth the time to refute. It is not that I can’t do it, but rather there is usually little point to present the logical fallacies as I have found most posters simply do not care. They have their opinions and search for information that supports them. I have taken the time here and apologize for assuming you would not care to have them refuted. While most arguments contain flaws we all should strive to have a more logical argument when leveling controversial accusations.

Popeye,

Yes where do you begin. The article presents some statistical information about healthcare and the number of children having a parent that works at Wal-Mart. The article offers no evidence that Wal-Mart keeps its employees at the poverty level. The article further offers no logical conclusion that Wal-Mart does not offer good enough benefits etc. This program is based on family income. We do not know the statistics of those enrolled who have dual family income, and we do not know how may of those who are in the healthcare system actually work full time.

If I am not allowed to assume my previous conclusions then neither are you able to assume yours. The article simply does not address the poverty question where I asked for credible evidence.

Paladin Elspeth,

There are quite a number of people in many other corporations that can’t afford or struggle to afford the co-payments. Simply because Wal-Mart is not exempt from this is not a valid reason to beat them as you have admitted. There is also no question that Wal-Mart is not perfect.

Your reference to the illegal labor however is not the complete picture. I will add some more, but I do recommend that all look into it a bit more. Many large corporations contract various duties to more specialized companies. Custodial and security are two of the top. Wal-Mart had contracted out this work and then decided to move it in-house. When companies do this they tend to absorb the contractors and pull them into the company. I have seen this countless times. You can site them for not being more diligent in doing their homework, but the outsourced company was not exactly truthful and Wal-Mart had no real reason to suspect them of dealing with illegals.

You have a valid point about Wal-Mart hitting a monopoly type scenario; however it is a bit of an unfair conclusion to draw that it is only a matter of time before that will occur.


Cube Jockey

[quote]I don't know where you got that 50,000 number from, but I can guarantee you (without even doing any research) that your average cashier, stocker, or butcher IS NOT making 50K. I would also highly doubt that any but the higher level managers make that kind of money. I worked as a low level manager for a large national chain grocery store for two years while I was in high school and I can guarantee that no one below store managers makes that much, and sometimes not even them. Incidently store manager is not an entry level job. My wage for that job $9.00/hr -- that's livin' the high life let me tell ya.[/quote]

I got that number from the official job offer they presented to me. I can also confirm that others in my graduating class received similar offers from local stores while mine was for the main office. You are right that your local cashier is not making that kind of money, but I think we would all agree that most people are not trying to make a career or support their entire family on such wages. I can point to other companies who pay their workers similar to some of the Wal-Mart employees with similar skill levels. My point is that not all of what has been said with respect to low wages is in fact true. Also the others in my class receiving similar offers were women and they were in fact higher than mine. Again this dispels the generalization made of discrimination and active sexism.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 22 2004, 08:39 PM

Sorry, but that is the very definition of censorship.

From Meriam-Webster.com


It may be their business practice but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Name one other major outlet that has a similar national policy. I think you'll find Walmart to be the only one.



I think she did present that evidence. Please reference http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5559&st=45&#. Sounds like a pretty significant portion of the women in the company to me.



I don't think we can actually. What do you think the people that work those jobs are doing? Biding their time till the big money rolls in? Are they saving up their checks to go get a degree? Nope, they only make enough to barely support their families.

If you do in fact work for Walmart (i.e you accepted the offer) then why don't you go ask some of those cashiers if they are doing this to support their family or just to pass the day.

Posted by: Regent Apr 22 2004, 09:12 PM

I stand corrected in that they fulfill this portion of the definition in that they may have some inspectors. However the music which seems to be the center of controversy is inspected by the music industry and others. This is where the censorship takes place.



You stand corrected in that they do not fulfill this section of the definition.



It matters not that they may or may not be the only company to have such a policy. It is their right to have such and they are not forcing those artists to change or dictating to them what they can create. They simply do not want to be associated with it. It is no different than Nike dropping an athlete due to objectionable behavior.



No she presented that there are some. She referenced a case that is still pending. You can’t crucify a company for a pending case. Perhaps Dukes simply wasn’t that great a worker. Heaven forbid that to be the case. I am sure NOW has no influence on discrimination suits being filed. Most of them are dismissed as baseless. But then this is not being reported.



This is an assumption you are making. If we are going to do nothing more than make assumptions then I think we are at an impasse.



Well last time I checked my local Wal-Mart 90 percent of the cashiers were under the age of 25. While I am sure some have families I am also certain that we could review the turn over rate of cashiers to attempt to prove or refute your assertion that they may be planning to make this there career. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that during your experience there you found that an equal portion of works were striving to make being a cashier their career. In any case I will be sure to ask the 16 year old behind the counter how their career is going next time I pass through her line.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 22 2004, 09:57 PM

Let me clarify that then, why don't you ask full time cashiers? Oh, and make sure you actually go to a neighborhood where people might conceivably be earning a living from a job at WalMart -- that eliminates the rich suburbia WalMart stores -- any small town or less well to-do neighborhood will do.



You are trying to pass the buck here. In order to prove that the music industry itself is engaging in censorship you would have to find instances where the music industry is censoring artists in the way that DaffyGrl stated. Did the music industry drop the Dixie Chicks when they protested Bush? No, WalMart did. Did the music industry force artists to change their cover art to distribute their music? No, WalMart did.




Actually, I don't. In the literal sense of the definition, maybe. However in the spirit of the definition, I am 100% correct. If WalMart forces an artist to release one of their works with altered cover art because the original art doesn't suit their taste, that fits this definition. It is exactly the same as deleting material.



I can do much more than assume. Here is a statistic I came across with a brief google search. I wouldn't think this would be necessary to present, because it is fairly common sense -- just look at the world around us. ( http://www.cppp.org/products/reports/wbpexecsum.html)



The limited geographic scope of this study is irrelevant, this is applicable to any state with slightly different percentages. WalMart is a service industry business, therefore a large number of working poor families count on employment there for income. All 43%? No, of course not, but your assertion that people do not make careers out of service industry jobs is false.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 22 2004, 10:12 PM

Are you saying that a business should not be able to determine the types of products it sells? What is the alternative? Force Walmart to sell products it has a company policy against? Good grief.
If an artist decides that it is in his/her interest to have his product available at Walmart, he will have to adhere to that standard. Otherwise, they are free to sell their product at another location.

Posted by: FargoUT Apr 22 2004, 10:24 PM

I must say, after a recent shopping excursion when I visited a local Wal-Mart, I've decided Wal-Mart is a fantastic business. I don't want to come across as arrogant or snobby, as I just have different tastes than other people, but I now have a much greater appreciation for shopping at Target or any other store with which Wal-Mart competes with.

Why? Because Wal-Mart is filled with such chaos and negative feelings. When I entered Wal-Mart, this incredible sense of panic set in. It was as if I could feel the place tearing into my mind with screams of children and their mothers trying to calm them. Shoppers were barely able to get down an aisle without being bombarded by other shoppers--a maze of shopping carts and squeaky wheels. The aisles growing narrower and narrower as more merchandise is packed within the walls, the shelves growing higher and higher, nearly requiring a stepladder to get something from the top.

I nearly ran from the store and drove to the nearby Target. It was almost spiritual in the calmness. As a result, I hope more Wal-Marts spring up, and I hope more people go to shop there. I recently attended a corporate overview for the World Financial Group where they applauded Wal-Mart and criticized Sears, claiming that if you walk into Wal-Mart, there are people everywhere, if you walk into Sears, you could barely find another customer. From a business perspective, I understand this is a bad thing. From a consumer perspective, it is pure heaven. For the cost, I'll take my money to anywhere but WalMart.

So yes, in our land of consumerism and a capitalist driven economy, competition will always flourish. There will always be those who shop for the lowest price. And there will always be those who find a pleasant atmosphere worth the extra cost.

Posted by: Looms Apr 22 2004, 10:45 PM

Yup. And I bet those people that stand on the street handing out flyers don't make 50 grand either. Or the people that wash cars. Or......hmmmm.......how about ANY unskilled labor.

Let me me get this straight, Walmart is evil because their cashiers and stockers make crappy pay? Well, what the hell do you expect? A drunk, retarded, paraplegic monkey can do those jobs. Are you next going to complain that a burger flipper at McDonald's makes less than a gourmet chef?

Why does Walmart have an obligation to share it's wealth with anyone? Everyone, even "evil corporations" deserve to keep every penny they earn. They pay their employees as much as they see fit. If you can find a better offer, their doors are quite conspicuous and easy to locate. There is a reason it's called unskilled labor.

Posted by: FargoUT Apr 22 2004, 10:51 PM

I'm not going to get into a huge argument over their pay wages, since I suffice with a very minimal living wage myself for an opposing company. However, this is merely a result of how our culture has been raised. It is okay for basketball stars to make $50 million for three years of "work" or Jim Carrey to make $25 million for starring in one feature film. You can call this "skilled labor" but it would probably lean towards the very narrow end of "skill". Even myself, as a wannabe filmmaker, realizes that actors, sports stars, and various others are not a result of skill, but of luck or circumstance. If pay were skill-oriented, genetic physicists should probably make the most money.

For another debate, maybe I'll start it... why should actors make so much and educators make so little? The pay scale of our culture is entirely screwed up. But sadly, there's no way to fix it.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 22 2004, 11:14 PM

That wasn't my point. Regent had stated that WalMart was not guilty of censorship, which in fact it is.

Sure businesses can determine the kinds of products they sell. It isn't like anyone is asking Walmart to carry sex toys or something. These are products they would have otherwise carried but decided not to carry because of political and religious agendas. The Dixie Chicks were sold in stores until they made a comment about president Bush and then they were pulled. John Mellencamp had to airbrush Jesus and the devil from the cover of his new album in order to get Walmart's approval. That is censorship. Call it a business practice if you want, it is still censorship.

The original question for debate was: Do you think this is healthy for a community? Now I'll agree we have gone down some alternate paths to get there, but in the spirit of that question, censorship is not healthy for the country. In fact it is a violation of the first ammendment.

Edited to add response to Looms:



You quoted me in your post out of context there Looms. A point was made that Walmart is unhealthy for the community (i.e the original debate question here) because it pays slave wages. Regent responded with that 50K number asserting that if a few college grads make 50K at Walmart, everyone must be paid well. Clearly you grasp the concept that they in fact are not paid well.



Exactly the point of this debate. There are no better offers because Walmart is driving all if its smaller competitors out of business. They do this by finding people that will work for these tiny wages. However, again this is not healthy for the community as a whole. Were those smaller businesses and competitors able to stay in business the employees would likely be better off. Many times they are driven out of business purely for cost reasons. One of the ways Walmart lowers costs is by paying people less both in benefits and salary.

Less benefits and salary are bad for the community.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 22 2004, 11:38 PM

The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It certainly doesn't require the same of private establishments. There is no free speech in my house.

I personally don't like Walmart. I agree with FargoUT about the chaos. In fact, whenever I get the 'baby bug' and think about having a third child, I go to Walmart as a very effective birth control measure. Walmarts tend to trash up an area, which is the reason our neighborhood won't allow one here.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 22 2004, 11:47 PM

Touche! Ok Congress can't make any law but don't cross mom!



Another good point. And one reason why I'll never have to worry about a Walmart ever being anywhere in the city limits of San Francisco. I'd be proud if I could one day say we are the only city without a walmart.

Posted by: Catte Apr 23 2004, 12:31 AM

I think the concern these days is not just the effect on small businesses in small towns. Walmart is so huge that they can now significantly impact large chains in big cities. I'm told Sam Walton used to be big on "buy American", but the way Walmart keeps those prices low today is to contract and buy from countries with very cheap labor (and often questionable work and human rights practices). This is forcing other companies to go the same route to remain in any way competitice (jobless recovery, anyone?)

A related concern is their practice of paying store workers a barely livable wage (if full time), and then scheduling them part time to avoid paying benefits. This leaves many of their workers turning to welfare, food stamps and other federal, state, local and church charities to survive. Deliberately increasing the numbers needing these services can't be "healthy" for any community. And again, it puts extraordinary competitive pressure on other businesses. This is what the California grocery workers strikes were all about - and those weren't mom and pop businesses! (Safeway, Kroger, Albertsons). California today - which state tomorrow?

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20950~2075772,00.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
http://www.joehilldispatch.org/walmartbeat/archives/cat_the_business_model.php
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16282

Posted by: Regent Apr 23 2004, 01:03 AM

I will do so as soon as I find one. Oh wait that 16 year old was a full time employee…sorry about that. In addition, I have asked in a small town. They were saving money for college. Once again you are making assumptions about my knowledge and experience with this company. I have heard this debate rage on for quite a few years now. Many of these issues are not new. They have been discussed in greater public for sometime.



Nope I am not, I am simply identifying the real censor in one of the larger accusations of censorship by Wal-Mart. I do not need to look hard to find such censorship in this industry. You on the other hand fail to grasp the basic concept that censorship does not mean a company can refuse to do business in a certain manner.



Actually you do. The definition is the definition and simply because you refuse to accept the literal meaning of the term does not mean that your interpretation is correct. Wal-Mart can never force any supplier to do anything. Censorship denotes the actual forcing of a change. The supplier always has the choice of refusing to do business. This is a far cry from the being forced to alter their art or not be able to produce it at all. If the artist wants their business then they have to play by their rules. That is life not censorship. The artist is not forced to do business with Wal-Mart any more than you are forced to shop there.


As for the rest, your source was interesting. First it identifies the Service industry as the main culprit with 42 percent of the so called problem. Retail was next with 24 percent. Last I checked Walmart fell into the retail category so the rest of your comment was totally incorrect.. Service based industries would be more like you servers at a restaurant. Since we are discussing retail we fall into the 25 percent mark. You are making the assumption that these people have no way of bettering their lives. You are making the assumption that they are just barely able to support their families if they are a cashier working at Walmart. This is ridiculous. Your source provided nothing to refute your assumption. Perhaps another one will help you.



Since we are talking about taking comments out of context and inserting our own interpretation of another’s posts perhaps you would like to go re-read my post. My point was not as you claim, but rather that there are also those who are getting paid or have had good offers to work for this company. It is not all slave wages at this company. I have demonstrated that the sweeping generalization simply is not valid.

Posted by: DaffyGrl Apr 23 2004, 01:37 AM

PART I OF III

Regent

I did not go to Catholic school, nor did I attend law school, so I am not sure what the Latin phrases you sprinkled throughout your post mean. The strict rules of this forum do not allow me to give you my opinion of what I think of that.

Since you believe none of my arguments have merit, please feel free to post proof that the conditions/situations I note do not exist.

I should have separated the two thoughts (though they are related). Mea culpa, a mere lapsus calami. I do assert that low-wage workers do put an undue burden on taxpayer-funded services. This is not something I made up. The US Census Bureau determines poverty thresholds here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html#1 According to their example (Family A), that level would be $10.57/hr. This is more than Wal-Mart’s average wage of $8.70/hr.

Ergo, low-wage workers (i.e. the majority of Wal-Mart employees) place an undue burden on county healthcare systems, as I stated.

I’m sure I could find many more examples, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to do so.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I did not say “employees are anti-union”. What I did say is that employees are actively discouraged from organizing, and face consequences if they do. Here are several links to peruse:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_article/union_walmart_showdown_in_vegas.html
http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Issues/Walmart_s_Opinon_of_Union_Memb/walmart_s_opinon_of_union_memb.html
http://www.walmartyrs.com/martyrs/
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/01/04/kmart_union_mole/print.html

In re censorship, I will defer to the many other posters, including Cube Jockey, who made my point for me. Thanks, Cube.

In futuro, Part II

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 23 2004, 02:17 AM

regent

You know, you may be right. I am sure the higher level management people are making a good wage. But lets look at the average wage.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21604.html





An average of $8.23 per hour. That sure isn't a slave wage. I wish I could get a job paying that much. Think of all the things I could buy: a new vehicle,a new home,a new pc, and money left over. I think I will go tomorrow to WalMart and apply for one of those jobs.

And the New York Times had a editorial on shaving time off employees time sheet at WalMart.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E1FFE3A5D0C778CDDAD0894DC404482



the original article was archived,but there were documented incidents where WalMart supervisor had deleted employees hours to keep payroll down.

I assume that you will continue to casually label these incidents as my opinion.

P.S. Assumption must be your favorite word. If I have not learned anything else, it is how to spell ASSUMPTION.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 23 2004, 03:46 AM

While you may not be applying it seems to me Wal-Mart is managing to find enough applicants. Which usually means those applicants find Wal-Mart a preferable alternative to their current situation. I seldom go to Wal-Mart, The 99 cent stores are cheaper. I guess once Wal-Mart is brought down we will have to go after them next.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 23 2004, 07:26 AM

Emphasis mine.

Ok fine, I'll grant you that not all of the wages are slave wages. However, it is hardly fair to compare management to your average cashier, bagger, or stocker. In fact what management makes is irrelevant because we are talking about lower income workers. While the fact that management makes good wages is interesting, it is also completely irrelevant.

So with that in mind lets get back to some hard facts on how the salary and benefits are subpar compared to competitors.

The following comes from an article in the Contra Costa Times - a Bay Area News paper. (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/7051008.htm)



Seems pretty clear to me that non-management Walmart employees make far less than the same employees at an Albertsons, Safeway, or Costco here in the bay area. I can guarantee you that if you are making $8 an hour here in the bay area, you are far below the poverty line. In fact, you can qualify for low income housing in San Francisco if you make as much as 58K a year. Care to refute those numbers?



Hmm, seems like Walmart makes their already underpaid employees pay far more for health insurance.



And here is the problem. By driving businesses out, Walmart is unhealthy for the community because it forces other well paying companies like Safeway, Albertsons, and Costco to lower their wages in order to compete. The employees lose, the community loses.



Sure I can, here you go. Take a read of this http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/pay_gap.html.



Care to refute that study? Or have you just swallowed the company pill?



Actually you are wrong, by the very virtue of Walmart's market position they have incredible power over suppliers. They can and do force suppliers to change.

A supplier does not have a choice in removing their art or altering their words, unless they want to miss out on a huge market.

Check out the following article posted on PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html)



Clearly you do not have an understanding of what censorship is regent. regardless of whether the artist or record label agreed to produce an "altered" version, it is still censorship because they were coerced to do so. While Walmart is not physically editing their works, removing them from 10% of the US market is a fairly serious thing. An "offer you can't refuse" if you will.

I have yet to see you cite a single source saying this isn't censorship, however I have provided a source and several examples. If you disconnected every one of these examples from walmart and asked people if the act should be considered censorship, then you have the very definition of it. So far all you have presented is your view of things, which is clearly defined by your experience with the company.

And yet another example, you can't even find "Uncovered: The whole truth about the Iraq War" at walmart -- they say it is unpatriotic.

What's next, organized book burnings of trashy romance novels because they are "scandalous"?

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 23 2004, 01:46 PM

I would not say that "those applicants find WalMart a preferable alternative to their current situtation."

We currently have 8 million + people out of work(some studies say 11 million, counting people that have given up looking for work and are not counted)and I would think that getting a job at WalMart may be their ONLY CHOICE.

I don't know about "the 99 cent stores" and their management and haven't seen any news on them,yet.

You are still safe shopping at the 99 cent stores.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 23 2004, 02:48 PM

I'm curious, what would the taxpayer burden be if WalMart were not there, and these people were unemployed?



Which does nothing more than show the benefit of scale in negotiating rates, which is already well known and documented in the insurance industry.



Then get another job! If you can't, that's not WalMart's fault, its yours. As Hugo states, obviously WalMart is not having any problems finding applicants.



I'm missing the part about the community complaining about all the goods they get to buy cheaper....

Posted by: DaffyGrl Apr 23 2004, 04:50 PM

It's not always that easy-not everyone has a college degree; heck, some don't have high school diplomas. Not everyone is the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but that doesn't mean they don't work hard at the jobs they are able to get. Older workers probably don't mind the lower wages; it keeps them under the threshold where they don't lose Social Security benefits, and gives them a little extra cash and something to do. Student workers are used to working for lower wages. There is a steady stream of people willing (or not having any other choice) to work for low wages.

Here's a (partial) list of complaining communities: Contra Costa, Yuba City, Oakland, San Francisco, Chico, Paso Robles, Inglewood, San Diego, Eureka, Simi Valley in California, Dallas, TX, New Orleans, LA, Boulder CO.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 23 2004, 06:46 PM

And who is to blame for that?

Let me kinduv explain of how the free market sets wages. An employer decides he needs a certainly quality of worker. He then sets a wage to attract that worker. Once he has hired the worker he may find it profitable to give the employee raises as the employee's skills improve in order to retain that worker and avoid the costs associated with employee turnover. The employer's only duty is to maximize shareholder wealth.



Good thing Wal-Mart is there so people, where WalMart is there ONLY CHOICE, have a job.

Who benefits the most from low consumer prices? Clue: The poor consume a greater proportion of their income on consumption.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Apr 23 2004, 10:48 PM

Wal-Mart is having quite the impact in our area. In a previous posting, I mentioned that the Meijer store (it was a super store before Wal-Marts became supercenters) had canned all of its department managers as an austerity measure due to dropping sales.

Today, we got the news that our Kmart will be closing its doors. I suppose that in the grand scheme of things, it means little that there will be another huge empty building in our city and that many employees will be out looking for jobs. But it is huge news for our community. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart and shopped at Kmart in an effort to help bolster sales. It didn't help,

The Meijer store and the Kmart are within one block of each other. Both were doing fine until the Wal-Mart moved into the area and became a supercenter. The Wal-Mart is in a city adjacent to ours. The Wal-Mart has taken the business these two retail stores were depending on.

That represents the loss of a tax base for our city. It also raises the unemployment rate.

The problem with our current system is that social responsibility is always discarded in favor of a fatter bottom line. Corporations are amoral. Executives do not give a rat's behind about the well-being of the communities their businesses are in, except to the extent that they still have people with whom they can do business. It is the employers who live in the area and return the profits to that area who do the community the greatest good. In so many cases, Wal-Mart has eliminated that.

The system sucks, and Wal-Mart is a primary example of both its success and its worst faults.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Apr 23 2004, 10:55 PM

This does not add up though Hugo. Obviously I do not have all the data at my finger tips, but it is common sense.

If a community is able to buy toilet paper for $1.50 a 6pk instead of $1.75 a 6pk then that really doesn't make up for the low wages, bad health care and general drain these workers put on the system.

I'm going to be very generous here and say that the average consumer saves 20% on a monthly basis for food -- although I feel that is far to high. Lets say the food budget for the month is $400, so they save a total of $80 a month -- spending $320 for $400 worth of food.

Now lets say that a cashier makes $8.00 an hour, but could be making $10 an hour if he/she worked at a unionized store like Costco or some of the others I mentioned. Assuming that they work 40 hours a week, they are taking an $80/week pay cut and $320 a month! Of course those are gross numbers. I haven't even figured in the dollar losses for health care yet either.

Clearly the amount the workers are losing in income and benefits is far greater than the amount consumers in the community save. So where is the balance of that going? Probably in the Walton's pockets and out of the community at the expense of the workers.



So, by that logic the places that have ONLY a Walmart had absolutely nothing before? Man these communities must have been really backwoods, they couldn't by toilet paper or groceries or TV's or cheap particle board furniture?

Oh wait, there were other stores they could buy this stuff at, albeit not one stop shopping, that Walmart forced out of business or marginalized.

If Walmart wasn't around, other businesses -- presumably with better wages and benefits based on the data I presented earlier -- would be there.

Posted by: Regent Apr 23 2004, 11:45 PM

Belittling commentary removed.

I am quite well aware of the cost of living figures in the bay area, Boston, DC area, among other places. Houston is actually one of the better areas for lower cost of living, but then this was a few years ago. The only comment that needs to be pointed out here is this

Nearly 80 percent of Wal-Mart workers in California have coverage through an HMO. On average, they pay $106 per month for the insurance premium.

If that is all they pay for medical insurance then they are lucky indeed. The rest of your numbers demonstrate that unionized employers pay a whopping 14 cents an hour for entry level positions. Yes I am seeing the discrepancies. It is to bad that monthly dues for union fees are deducted from their pay checks. Again you are using incomplete data to draw your conclusions. That is all the refutation I need to provide. Incomplete data never supports any argument.

Your article while intriguing is still lacking. First the study was done by someone assisting the plaintiffs. Obviously you are going to report such discrimination. Second it did not compare Wal-Mart’s salary structure with their competitors to see if the salary structures are similar in the market area etc. In addition, this case has not been decided, hence to present such evidence as undeniable fact is atrocious. Last I checked American law assumes that the party is innocent until proven guilty.



That study will prove to be interesting, but like with everything they are usually biased. However, to continue in good form with the personal attack, are you just going to swallow a study that seems to fit with your personal agenda?



You must be joking. You simply destroyed your first sentence with your second, yet you still have the gall to attempt to spin this. I simply point you to the unless portion of your argument. When ever it is used as it was above it denotes a choice is present. If a choice is present then a person can't be forced to comply. If they miss the market that is the price they pay for their art. Clearly you do not have an understanding of what censorship is or how it is applied. I do not need any site saying it is not censorship for your claim is simply bogus.

We can continue to go the rounds, but you have yet to refute the logic of the argument. Posting sources that are incomplete and flawed do not bolster your position although they will cause others who have similar feelings to cheer a bit. The problem here is that you seem to think an emotional argument trumps due process.

Belittling commentary removed

Posted by: CobraNightViper Apr 24 2004, 04:20 AM

I apologize beforehand for not taking the time to read all of this. I have to say that I am most in line with BecomingHuman. I don't like to shop at Wal-Mart at all.

Wal-Mart is extremely predatory and this can be seen times over through how it manipulates it's market power in terms of companies who wish to sell their products at stores and where they geographically put these stores in order to annihilate competition. Case and point: the Super Wal-Mart in Savannah, located in close proximity to Keller's Flea Market. The reason for building that WM there was not because they felt the people out that way needed to have greater access to goods. There was already a WM across from the mall, but they closed that one to open the one a few miles out. The point: to put strain on the flea market. They know the demographic that shops at WM, and it's a similar one that shops at the flea market.

Simple understanding of economic principles will prove that right now the prices might be cheaper at WM (albeit not by much on many things), but when they put everyone else out of business, don't expect to be paying those cheap prices.

If Wal-Mart is lowering prices everyday, then why isn't anything free?

Posted by: DaffyGrl Apr 24 2004, 05:03 PM

I think I'm throwing in the towel on the whole Wal-Mart controversy. My opinion of Wal-Mart remains the same - they're a blight on the American landscape - (maybe even worse after all the documentation I found). I'm sure my refusal to patronize Wal-Mart won't hurt the corporate godzilla or those that support it.
And I love CobraNightViper's take on it:

Seems a fitting way to end!

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 24 2004, 05:33 PM

I agree with you on that ,DaffyGrl.

A fact on rollback on prices at WalMart. The rollback only last for a brief period and is raised back up without telling anyone.

It seems like several of us have quoted facts from different sources and have been rebutted by someone elses opinion(nothing quoted). Everytime we quoted a study or fact(example is wages) we were told we were wrong, but nothing to refute it.

Oh well, I agree it is time to lay it to rest. *edited to remove belittling commentary*

P.S. Don't under estimate your refusal to patronize WalMart. More communities and individuals are recognizing WalMart for what kind of company it is.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 25 2004, 02:45 AM

I will be generous also and assume that 10% of those beneffitting from lower prices are WalMart workers. Therefore assuming, for the sake of debate, that the rest of your absurd assumptions are true, 1/10th of Walmart shoppers lose $240 a month, 9/10ths gain $80 a month. This equals to a net gain, per WalMart shopper, of .1(-240)+.9(80) of $48 bucks a month. Clearly consumers save more than the WalMart workers lose.

Of course many of these WalMart workers might have been working for a "mom and pop" that paid similar, or lower wages, with no benefits. My first real job was with a "mom and pop". It sucked.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 25 2004, 04:22 AM

Hmmm, doesn't that point out that it's the people that are amoral? Without consumer and stockholder support, corporations would change their ways.



You're kidding, right? What do you think the typical monthly revenue of a WalMart store is? Assuming they're selling goods 10% cheaper, that would be the benefit to the community. Let's say that's about $100,000. Per month. The loss in wages to the employees is certainly far less than that--that's exactly why WalMart is so successful. They're able to demonstrate benefit to the consumers. Otherwise, why would they shop there?

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Apr 25 2004, 04:38 AM

As I said, Wal-Mart represents the best and worst of this economic system.

Of course it is the people, from the consumers to the heads of the corporation. As long as "What's in it for me" trumps "What's best for all of us in the community," people will not change their buying habits. Who has the greater responsibility? The folks at the bottom who have to be more careful in their spending habits, or whoever sets up the business plan to capitalize on selling foreign goods as cheaply as possible and eliminate competition?

As far as major shareholders and company officers, there are only a very few who would choose not to get fat bonuses/raises in hard economic times. I remember Lee Iacocca when he was chairman of Chrysler Corporation (shortly after the wheel was invented! ) sacrificing his year's salary in an effort to turn the company around, and there are a few other CEOs who might show this kind of dedication, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Waltons or anyone else associated with that corporation to suddenly develop some kind of altruistic awareness of the consequences of their business practices and how they might share some responsibility in it.

Posted by: CobraNightViper Apr 25 2004, 05:21 AM

Pardon my nescience on not reading Walton's book, but I was told by a reputable business owner friend of mine who told me in no uncertain terms that some of the principles stated forth in Sam's book had to do with undercutting competition, predatory pricing, as well as locating stores in a way to further stifle competition. I guess if Sam lived forever he could make everything go out of business, and perhaps be a noble monopoly (highly doubtful to this econ major)? If his vision sees the light of day, then woe be unto us, as it will be difficult to bring a leviathan of that nature down. But I guarantee if Wal-Mart is the only deal in town, don't expect always low prices.

I see WM's marketing as being some of the greatest work ever accomplished. To make people think they are truly getting a bargain, it's really something that I as a future business owner envy. If you really do some comparison shopping, I would guarantee that what you spend at WM will be not too much less than if you shopped at another store or a number of different stores. And to me, the higher price I might pay in transaction costs and higher costs in general will be worth not giving money to the evil empire. Try it one time, though. See how much time and money it takes you to shop for a basket of goods at WM then get those same goods at Target and Kroger. The knowledge could possibly shock you. If you are borderline or indifferent about it, seeing the results could possibly open your eyes to the fact that if you save money by shopping at Wallyworld, it's not a significant amount.

Oh, and thanks DaffyGrl, I'm always happy to enliven with a bit of wit.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 25 2004, 05:16 PM

If that is true than why are so many liberals on this board complaining that Wal-Mart is driving out competition? It ain't all marketing.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 25 2004, 05:28 PM

There is a big difference in price. I expect you probably don't have children if you don't think so. Walmart's business strategy is geared towards families as the target market. Buy for one person, you might not notice much of a difference. Start buying diapers and formula, strollers and cribs, and there is a dramatic savings. People don't stand in those long lines with toddlers and babies because Walmart has more persuasive advertisment.

Posted by: CobraNightViper Apr 25 2004, 10:08 PM

That I do not know, as I'm not every liberal.

It's not all marketing, true. It has also to do with placement of stores (where and how many, etc.), and at the core: the ethics of the business itself. I think evidence is abound from some people posting about personal run-ins with Wal-Mart and how it adversely effected them and local businesses.

Didn't see this until now. To Mrs. Pigpen:
No, unfortunately I do not have children right now. But that's only a side point.
It's not about advertisement, it's about marketing. There is a HUGE difference in the two. Don't dispair, though, you're not the only one to confuse the two. I had a time of it at first trying to differentiate between advertising and marketing.
But this is marketing in that they don't even need to advertise all that much and people will still have this engrained innate thought about WM. It's the same thing that makes people buy basically identical goods, but choose one over the other. Case and point: Hanes v. Froot of the Loom. By all practical means a t-shirt is a t-shirt, but someone had to do some good marketing (and consequently advertising) to make me ultimately choose Hanes. Not that I have any reason to choose Hanes over the other, but for whatever reason I do. But as a result of WM's marketing, it facilitates people believing that WM has the best prices for families and all in between. Also, what you describe is just a segment of the total market itself (with the baby items, etc) and while WM may be the best place for people with rugrats, it doesn't necessarily equate to WM being the best place once those lil ones get bigger.
Back to what I mean, though. I don't think the price difference will be all that different if one wants to put in the effort to find the absolute best prices (not cheapest, best. quality for price). I will admit that if you don't have the luxury to investigate and do some research, I don't blame you to shop at WM. I just maintain that if in 20 years all there are are only WMs don't blame me for the high prices as a result. Enjoy competition while you can, before it goes the way to WM.

Posted by: heart Apr 26 2004, 06:26 AM

I think WalMart's marketing team must also be working for one of the presidential candidates:). I see their marketing and PR, but it somehow fails the smell test to me. It's as if they have something to hide, and their marketing makes you feel that they have a PR problem. Now, that's just recently, and they did a great job when they were marketing "Made in the USA". I guess the appeal to patriotism works for me

I'm sorry, I lost who said that. I worked for pizza hut and they had a similar program. You paid around $40 a month and after you paid your $500 deductable you could get up to $1500 worth of treatment per year. I did the math...it was hysterical

To add to the list of cities protesting a new WalMart, you can add two in Georgia, one in Gwinnett County and one in Cobb County.

I go to a very "free market" centered school, and over 1/2 of my graduate class in Marketing and my my other class in Technology & Innovation now refuses to shop at WalMart, each with their own reasons. Maybe the free market will toll the bell for WalMart.

If you do take a job at WalMart, because you have to in order to pay the bills, then it will look very bad on your resume if you only stay for a month right? You take a job and you are kinda stuck there for a while because a future employer will frown on your short stay at WalMart. That may not be the case, but it is the opinion of most people.

Also, WalMart is censoring in the same way that the media censors. You can always change the channel to another news channel, you have a choice, but less of a choice than it appears because most news follows the same two news wires and cover the same stories. I KNOW that there are more important things to talk about besides Michael Jackson's new attorney, yet every news channel treats this as a major story. Who controls what they put on? I guess since they have to keep paying the people that cover "law" type cases, they have to keep people interested, in order to justify that person's salary.

So, it is censorship in a systems sort of way. You determine what people will see, what they will pick up, and what they will have access to knowing about, for no other reason than a corporate prejudice. Everyone has to conform or be cast out. Point of Purchase, is probably the most important marketing effort you can do these days. If you are not where the customer is, then you don't have a chance to compete in the market. If you want to say it doesn't meet some high falutin definition of censorship...be my guest, but it sure fulfills the spirit of the definition.

I have also noticed that since WalMart started covering Magazines and tabloids with white panels, the grocery stores have adopted this practice too. So, it's catchy and that's really bad! I don't think I was ever harmed by seeing the cover of the National Enquirer...and they rely on their cover to sell newspapers! What will be next, only books by conservatives?

Posted by: Hugo Apr 27 2004, 04:34 PM

Once again, all individuals and corporations use censorship. The mere choice of a product line requires censorship. Toys R' Us does not sell sex toys. There is a solid economic reason for it.WalMart has the right to censor.

I don't see great wages and benefits at K-Mart and Target either. WalMart appears to be paying wages quite comparable to KMart's. KMart is struggling for reasons that have nothing to do with any imaginary wage differentials.

Heart,when I buy underwear, I buy the ones priced the lowest. Of course I majored in economics, not marketing. I guess marketing majors have never heard of rational choice theory. They seem to believe that marketing overrides a consumers ability to recognize price and quality differences. I guess the Edsel just didn't sell due to poor marketing.

Also, heart, what is your evidence that WalMart's HMO plan for workers in California is similar to your Pizza Hut plan? Most corporations have HMO's and most require some employee contribution.



I am sure the smiley after that statement indicated even you believe that the statement is absurd.

Posted by: UGA Boy Apr 28 2004, 04:39 AM

I don't think there is too much that Hugo and I usually agree on, but I definitely agree with you on this one. I have still tried to understand the opposing argument about WalMart and it is hard for me to fathom.

The amount of community service they give back has to be almost unprecedented. Their missing bulletin boards have recovered its 107th Child. Their environmental program has collected over 100 million pounds of recyclable goods from the community in this past year alone. And 12.2 million dollars has been contributed in the name of education just last year. WalMart nets nearly 8 billion dollars per year in its 3400 stores. Out of this money they could easily have kept, WalMart contributes more than 210 million dollars each year to the community or local charitable organizations. How are they evil?

But aside from just generosity and back to what Hugo said, WalMart pays - atleast in my community - the same as Target and more than Kmart. I think the problem here is not that people see what Walmart does and says I hate large corporations, but rather begins with I hate large corporations, and work back from there.

Posted by: CobraNightViper Apr 28 2004, 11:12 PM

Hugo, that first quote isn't Heart's, but rather mine. I myself ashamedly admit that I too am an economics major (well, I'm finished with my classes on it, just not graduated yet). If FotL is running a special, then yeah, I'd prolly buy them, but if they are relatively equal in price, I'm going with Hanes. I think we both know and agree that consumers can eventually tell a price and quality difference. Products that are sub-par quality in a wealthy nation don't stay around long. Yugos being another car example coupled with the Edsel.

And while I am no marketing major, and in fact only had one class in it, but it's rather simple business sense on a basic level. Treat the customer like he pays your bills and you like him, then of course, you should be the first person he thinks about when he needs another widget that you make/sell.

And UGA Boy, I would agree that Wal-Mart does do some charitable things. No one is truly black or white, everything is a shade of grey. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but give them the rights to be your reseller for everything, and there might be some good, but for us consumers, I can't see any good coming from WM being the only gig in town. Basically, the dislike of WM extends from the fact that I dislike anyone having undue power over me. If WM wasn't run by a cell-phone-talking, SUV-driving, soccer-mom-catering bunch of obvious morality cops, I wouldn't care. But when you don't carry but the edited versions of cds, that annoys me. And just some of the other choices they have when it comes to goods. They discontinued selling Maxim because it was "immoral" or something ignorant. Granted, I think it's a waste of money to get a Maxim when you can get a Playboy which has better pictures and better articles and a better philosophy, but whatever. I just don't like anyone playing morality filter for me, when I can do it my-d*mn-self.

Posted by: heart Apr 29 2004, 01:34 AM

I think it is a false analogy to compare sex toy censorship with censorship of the National Enquirer, Maxim, and a CD with a picture with religious elements they don't like. The sex toy places require you to be 21 to enter the store.



Did they always pay so poorly? Did Walmart drive the wages down? I don't know...I'm just asking? Kmart never sent out a bunch of marketing people to the town stores to put them out of business.



I do believe that marketing has surpassed the consumers ability to even contemplate quality. In fact, I am hard pressed to find anything of quality anymore. The last time I saw something of quality I was looking in the Cartier catalog! With the "fast and loose" warranties, the scientific advancements in built in obsolesence (about a year), and the shrinking of everything to reduce costs I couldn't make a choice based on quality if I wanted to:). I think with modern marketing, even the edsel could be sold to the public. We would all think it was the best thing since sliced bread.



I have an inside source:). It's also inconsistent with the WalMart employee forum boards, and a case study that I had to do last semester for a marketing class.

I know that people tend to hate the 900 lb gorilla, but there might be good reasons for that other than envy. It might be that in order to be the 900 lb gorilla you have to behave in ways that are increasingly corrupt over time.

WalMart does give a lot to charity. They have to, they are under fire for so many errors, and have such a bad reputation that they are trying to recover. But, let's just say they are giving back to the community out of kindness. What determines the charities they support. Will those charities come to rely on WalMart for their yearly budget? What if WalMart doesn't like something that they do or say? Will WalMart censor them like they do the products in their store? If WalMart calls upon them to distort the truth, will they have to do that to preserve their only source of funding. They aren't engendering a lot of trust from most of the people I talk to. It seems like even the people that shop there dislike them, and don't trust them.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 29 2004, 02:18 PM

Here's where business ethics gets tricky. Who's to say that providing goods to the consumer at as cheap a price as possible isn't demonstrating civic responsibility? This frees up more money/time for consumers to use in whatever activity they wish--isn't that a good thing? Obviously, to do this can place sacrifices on the workers. Which ties in with the 'outsourcing' thread--the cure for this is make sure you're so valuable to the corporation that you can justify your job/pay/raise, etc. Corporations don't have any innate responsibility to pay people more money--supply and demand sets that. It's the responsibility of the worker to place themselves in a situation where the demand for their skills is higher, leading to higher wages/job security.

Posted by: UGA Boy Apr 29 2004, 03:35 PM

It sounds like the opposite side is saying
1) WalMart is good on the outside but evil on the inside
2) They are evil because they are doing good for evil reasons
3) They are evil because they try to determine what is good, which in and of itself is evil.

I think I got that right. Let me ask you a question. If WalMart didn't censor anything, which in turn brought in more revenues - in fact so much revenue that every employee received double what he or she receives now, would WalMart then be good?
What if they raised all their pricesjust for the heck of it? Just to allow their competitors to stay alive with high prices, would you like WalMart then?
What if, to keep it from seeming like coercion, WalMart just quit giving to charities, had never saved the live of 107 children, had never collected hundreds of millions of pounds per year in recycling from the community, refused to allow Car Washes or the Salvation Army on their premises, would you like them then?

I hope you see where I am getting at. With every "satisfactory" layer you throw away to try to reveal the "true monster", you make WalMart look like every other uncaring, apathetic, business-as-usual corporation out there.

I am not saying WalMart is Santa Claus. But I bet Santa Claus shops at WalMart.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 30 2004, 03:55 AM

I never have agreed with this stereotype, for WalMart or anyone else. Yes, corporations are out there to make money. What's wrong with that. They make money by satisfying a consumer need. That's surely a good thing. If they're good at it, then they make more money for their shareholders. That's surely a good thing. The more successful they are, the more people they employ. That's surely a good thing. The more people they employ, and the more money they make, the more they contibute to the tax base, providing all sorts of beneficial activities. That's surely a good thing. I'm not seeing where any of this is inherently 'evil'.

Posted by: Hugo Apr 30 2004, 04:18 AM

Well since you did a case study, you should be able to provide us with convincing details on how WalMart's HMO plan is similar to your Pizza Hut plan. I don't expect these details anytime soon, because there is no comparison. Please give us some details of your "case study", or admit you are simply lying.

Posted by: popeye47 Apr 30 2004, 03:53 PM

Let me ask a question of all the pro Walmart people.

If WalMart is such a great godsend to the poor class, how come WalMart was voted down in California when trying to build a supercenter. And this was in a poor neighborhood which supposely(according to your arguments)should have benefited greatly by the low prices.

Also, what about the many areas that have voted down or banned WalMart from building in their communities. Maybe it has something to do with being the 900 lb. gorilla. Their attitude is the hell with you, we know what is best for you.

Maybe I didn't see it, but I haven't noticed K-Mart or Target using this tactic.

In my state Walmart has been denied zoning quite a few times. Why? In my community there is a enclosed mall and strip malls on one side of the interstate. There are several blocks of vacant land(one is 30 acres)in this area. On the other side of the interstate there is a gas station and a convient store and the rest is residential. Guess where WalMart wanted to build? Right!!!! The zoning board changed the zoning from residential to commerical without giving advance notice on the zoning meeting. I wonder what exchanged hands under the table.

Now there is a traffic jam on a narrow 2 Lane road that can never carry the traffic. Who cares. Walmart got their way. But they are so positive for the neighborhood. BAH!!!!! Tell that to someone who believes that garbage.

Posted by: UGA Boy Apr 30 2004, 04:44 PM

It just sounds like you had a bad experience. I am not saying WalMart is a godsend, but ask yourself what corporation - including KMart and Target would not want to switch places with WalMart right now?

It would be bad business sense to think otherwise. No one said WalMart does not hurt neighboring businesses. WalMart has been in my town for years, but when Super WalMart moved in with its grocery stores, many of our 24 groceries had to cut back on hours. There is no doubt that competition eats away at your "hold" of the community, but that is why there IS competition, free-enterprise, a market economy.

I just do not understand why people single WalMart out for being so evil. I wonder if it is the same people who hate Microsoft and cannot stand to drink Coca Cola. Don't get me wrong. I love being for a cause as much as the next guy.

But this isn't a cause. It's an effect.

Posted by: nebraska29 Apr 30 2004, 10:29 PM

Government isn't so much clubbing communities over the head and forcing them who to patronize. Rather, government is (should) merely act as the referee between two pugilists. We don't have featherweights fighting heavyweights, and there is a reason for that. Likewise, it's unrealistic to expect that mom and pop grocery stores have a slight hope of surviving against a mass retail chain store in a small community that can depress the cost of their goods because the other stores across the country will help them out by supoorting the local chain store until competition is wiped out. Wal-Mart's practices are monopolistic and reek of 19th century corruption.

Posted by: heart May 1 2004, 12:45 AM

Hey!!! look you don't have any reason to say that. I *did* do a case study on WalMart's *marketing* program for a marketing class. I had a problem with it because I had to sift through dozens of "bad" stuff about WalMart before I could find info about their marketing tactics.

My "case study" wasn't on their health plan, but in looking for info about the company I found several anonymous employee boards for people who work for WalMart but who are afraid to say anything about them publicly. The detail was sufficient enough (concerning operations and employee review etc...) that it was pretty clear the boards were real.

I know someone who works for WalMart in CA and she laughed when I told her about my pizza hut story and she said the WalMart plan was quite similar.

I can go searching for these things and if you like I will. But there isn't any reason to accuse me of lying about them Hugo.

Please remember that what the initial question was had to do with whether or not WalMart was Bad For Communities. This is a completely different question than whether or not WalMart should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Posted by: heart May 4 2004, 06:20 AM

Another thought on WalMart: Some people seem to be saying that WalMart has the right to refrain from selling whatever they want. They are a corporation and they can choose what to sell. But to be logically consistent one would also have to say that a corporation can also sell what they want to sell too.

If you think about the nearest property to your home...possibly the street corner that leads to your subdivision for instance, would this same standard apply. What if that corner was purchased by a corporation that wanted to sell sex toys? Do they have that right? If you were to be logically consistent you would have to say that it is their property, their company and they can sell whatever they want.

But let's not even go that far. In a town in South Carolina (Laurens), a small corporation/company opened up a "Confederate and War Memorabilia store". The store is draped outside with six Confederate Battle Flags. Inside they sell a bunch of white supremacist "memorabilia", things that are pretty outrageous and offensive. They put a lot of segregationist posters in the window too. They also sell Nazi war stuff . The town is mostly embarrassed by this, but there wasn't anything they could do to stop them from setting up shop and now Laurens has become a tourist attraction stop for racists.

Now suppose this kind of a store opened up on that corner that leads to the entrance to your residential community. Who would want that?

What about a salvage yard, or a used car lot with plenty of hubcaps for sale? A strip club, a pawn shop?

I can think of plenty of things that companies could sell in your community that almost anyone would object to if it was in their neighborhood. That is why most businesses don't put their stores in locations that the community will find offensive. They have the right to do so, but they don't want to fight long legal battles.

WalMart can fight the legal battles. The citizens are protesting the opening of a WalMart on many of the same grounds...traffic, eyesore, destruction of the town's image or well being etc.. WalMart doesn't care about whether or not the citizens want them there.

So WalMart may have the right to do whatever it does, and carry or not carry whatever merchandise they want, in a strict sense. But WalMart is violating the covenant between the public and the company by refusing to carry goods they deem immoral or wrong in the same way that another company would CARRY goods that the community would deem to be immoral or wrong.

They force themselves on communities that do not want them there, in the same way that a porn shop would be forcing themselves on a community that did not want them there.

In order to be logically consistent you must allow that a company's rights may not be subservient to community wishes when it comes to the products they carry or don't carry, and the company's rights to locate where it chooses should not be infringed by the community either.

Posted by: Lethalletha May 4 2004, 03:13 PM

Gosh, it just amazes me how many people complain about wal-mart.

Just in the last 9 months moved back to the big city, before lived out west on the Navajo Reservation. The nearest town was 30 miles away, where non-native americans must see doctors, receive medicine etc. And I loved the Wal-Mart super center. It was a one stop shop. Could change your oil, buy groceries and do other shopping all at once. Sometimes even got a hair cut. After driving the 30 miles it was nice not to have and stop at every stoplight, burn gas, and time sitting there.

I used to work for K-mart, but those who run Wal-mart had more vision than did K-Mart. As evident by K-Mart bankrupcty.

Living here in the big city(St. Louis) I miss my super Wal-mart. Haven't found a grocery store here yet that I like. Never thought I would see the day that I missed something from Gallup, New Mexico, but I do!!

Posted by: erratic_energy May 12 2004, 05:20 AM

After reading through this thread my opinion of walmart has been lowered...further.

Mrs. Pigpen noted that Walmarts tend to trash up an area...and I'm not sure if the Walmart is responsible but right around the time that it came to my parents area low income housing started springing up all around the area. It came along with the rest of a brand new shopping center...

The shopping center where the Walmart is located also has a Kohls, Target, Blockbuster, Giant, Subway, Starbucks, Best Buy, Borders (where did all the small bookstores go?), Home Depot, and PetsMart. (across the street a McDonalds and an Exxon) Notice anything? All big name big business chain stores. This shopping center virtually put out of business a smaller older shopping center up the street which consisted of ... well gosh I can hardly remember what it used to have. Now its a unpopular Giant (older and not as glamourous as the new), a popular Fitness First that replaced what stores I can barely remember, and an Asian Sushi Restaurant. It didn't help that a community road leading to the shopping center was shut down and a big new highway built that made the new shopping center all the more convenient. I'm positive there used to be a Rocky Video (a smaller video store) there among other things. Blockbuster also drove out of business a cheap and wonderful video store a few miles away...probably now the sight of a Curves (up and coming to put a bandaid on the fast food problem) While I must say I do shop at these big corporate stores listed above, unavoidable often and cheap (well sometimes), I can't say I'm pleased. The constant housing construction, new bigger roads taking the place of older winding (and actually fun to drive on roads), chain stores, and deforestation are all depressing. A raging deer problem has developed.

Conclusion: Walmarts aren't healthy...they may be cheap but in the longrun they are regrettable additions to the community along with the other chain stores.

Posted by: nebraska29 May 13 2004, 11:51 AM

Wal-Mart has a long history of sticking it to the commons and the people who work for them. Most recently, Wal-Mart got nailed for http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040512/us_nm/environment_walmart_dc_6&printer=1 In terms of their workers, Wal-Mart http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2407468 A study in early 2004, found conclusive evidence that http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/17/BAGLL5224G1.DTL Yes, I enjoy Wal-Mart and the low prices. At the same time, I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that low-prices are leading to a karmic low-lifestyle for thousands of people who are on the other side of the check-out line.

Posted by: popeye47 May 17 2004, 10:59 PM

It appears that WalMart is on the right track, especially with the Vice-President.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18704

Posted by: carlitoswhey May 17 2004, 11:20 PM

This guy is full of anti-globalization crap. Ordinary people are not protesting WalMart in Chicago. The local alderman voted FOR the WalMart, and the committee chair in the city gov't vetoed it without a hearing, because she is beholden to the UNION LOBBY. Now, I don't like WalMart's labor policies either, and sure wouldn't if I was in a union, but the fact remails, this was not local people or a grassroots anti WalMart effort. This was poor, under-served city residents that deserve a nice store with affordable goods, whether WalMart or someone else. I wouldn't be surprised if the local food chains lobbied against it in the back room as well.

And just where would these people be working? They would be lined up 10 deep to apply for $8 / hr. at WalMart because there is no business in the inner city. The Food and Liquors stores are all mom & pops paying $5.15 or exclusively employing family members. I don't hear anyone compaining that "Joe's Grocery pays minimum wage and doesn't have health insurance" even though it's mostly true.

Is WalMart bad for communities? Sometimes.
Can it be good for communities? In the case of inner cities, I'd say always.

Posted by: GoAmerica May 17 2004, 11:27 PM

I think it is healthy for a community. A Wal-Mart supercenter can employ many people whereas a "mom & pop" type store can only employ only maybe a few people. Also, communities are going to have to change with the economic and corporate changes that are occuring in the US or they will become ghost towns. Some small towns don't have anything big in the way of businesses, so a big store like Wal Mart, which could employ many people, can help pick it up

Posted by: popeye47 May 18 2004, 03:14 AM

GA

I disagree with your assessment of WalMart. Especially in your comparsion with the "Mom and Pop" stores. Usually when WalMart comes to a town they definitely replace more than 1 or 2 or 3 stores. I have read somewhere that WalMart never hires as many people as the jobs they destroyed in the town. I only found 1 reference to that fact which is as follows:

http://www.gojefferson.com/banner/opinion/walmart/index_200211.html



This study showed that for every job that WalMart creates , 1.5 jobs are lost elsewhere

Money made in the "Mom and Pop" stores remains in the community where most of WalMarts profits are sent back to headquarters

Full time jobs at WalMart are no more than 28 hours.

I have seen facts similar to these in other sources. I will post them as soon as I find them.

Posted by: Hugo May 21 2004, 08:07 PM

The abstract of a study of the impact of a WalMart to rural communites in West Virginia.
The Locational Impact of Wal-Mart Entrance:
A Panel Study of the Retail Trade Sector in West Virginia
Michael J. Hicks, Ph.D.
Director of Applied Research
&
Kristy Wilburn
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for Business and Economic Research
Lewis College of Business
Marshall University
400 Hal Greer Blvd
Huntington, West Virginia 25755
(304) 696-6251
hicksm@marshall.edu
Key Words: Economic Growth, Market Structure, Retail Trade
Abstract: This paper examines the retail trade sector in 14 West Virginia counties from 1989 through 1996. A series of random effects models are tested on these panel data to measure the effect of the entrance of Wal-Mart stores in the county and in adjacent counties, and business cycle effects. This paper differs from earlier
research in that it controls for endogeneity in the entrance decision of Wal-Mart in faster growing counties.This research finds a dramatic net increase in employment and wages in the Retail Trade sector (SIC 52) and a mild increase in the number of firms. The study finds a per capita wage increase in this industry, which is
surprising but small. The paper concludes with further research recommendations.
(end of abstract)

People should check out this study. Yes, Wal-Mart increases jobs and raises wages in rural communities. It also actually increases the number of firms, all this while lowering prices, thus increasing the real wage of Wal-Mart consumers.

Posted by: heart May 21 2004, 11:15 PM

It is quite possible to say that where there was nothing and you put SOMETHING, things are better.

"This research finds a dramatic net increase in employment and wages in the Retail Trade sector (SIC 52) and a mild increase in the number of firms"

This too would seem self-evident.

Along with the WalMart comes the other corporate chains which is also self-evident.

I have no problem understanding that WalMart's at an Oasis in the desert would be a good idea.

Posted by: Hugo May 22 2004, 02:15 AM

Well, I guess if I can get Popeye to agree with your stance I got this debate won. Somehow I think he will disagree. Of course your assertion that Wal-Marts, in this study, are an "oasis in the desert" is as undocumented by evidence as your healthcare comparisons with your great Pizza Hut plan.

[QUOTE]Along with the WalMart comes the other corporate chains which is also self-evident.

Really? So you are arguing that Wal-Mart increases jobs and increases competition? Seems like win/win here for workers and consumers. God bless Wal-Mart.

Posted by: DaffyGrl May 26 2004, 10:08 PM

I know I said I was bowing out of the whole Wal-Mart brouhaha, but this was just too rich not to share!

A whole FREAKIN' state is "endangered" because of Wal-Mart! Oh, it is just too funny!

Posted by: popeye47 May 28 2004, 06:14 PM

On a serious note the following was in several news sources:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18816

So WalMart is receiving welfare and quite a few of their employees are receiving free health care from the state. I guess that makes sense.

On a less serious note, I had a kitchen light fixture that had 3 circle florescent lights in which 2 were shot. I decided to replace all three and went to Lowes. On the way back home I was going by WalMart and was curious and decided to check on the price of the florescent lights. On each of the 3 lights WalMart was approximately $1.75 higher. I was surprised at the difference. I know this was only 3 items but maybe WalMarts aren't the lowest price that everyone thinks they are.

Posted by: FlutePlayer May 28 2004, 07:37 PM

I believe it is sort of healthy for a community. Wal-Mart has low prices. I purchased a titanium razor for less money at Wal-Mart than what would have cost at Mar-Beck. Aside from Wal-Mart's auto service, the only thing I don't like about Wal-Mart is its salespeoples' ability to understand their own products. That's why I usually shop at a "mom & pop" store because they usually understand their own products and can explain them to me.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Jun 22 2004, 11:18 PM

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/06/22/national1038EDT0520.DTL.

I believe this was alluded to earlier, but this newest ruling certainly gives some creedence to the claim, a judge felt there was enough evidence to proceed with the class action suit.

Posted by: nebraska29 Jun 23 2004, 12:31 PM

I read the article this morning at The New York Times website too Cube Jockey. The article did give more than one study that showed quite a difference in the number of female managers to male managers as compared to other retailers. Wal-Mart claimed the statistics were wrong, but UC-Berkley researchers aren't exactly the dumbest people on the planet. If that research finding was flawed, it would've been pointed out by some over-zealous, tenure-seeking,reputation-desiring troll in a peer-reviewed edited publication. Anyone with even a trace of how college publication works would know that Wal-Mart's claim is truly lacking given the college peer-review process. Wal-Mart should have discredited the claim through research of their own, evidently they resorted to an "is not!.." kind of childs argument since no statistics were put forward to rebut the researcher's claims. Their response as listed in the Times would not have passed muster here at A.D., since we demand actual sources and backing-up one's claim.

Posted by: Hero Jul 26 2004, 09:14 AM

Im gonna just spit out some easy rhetoric for this one....

The American Dream is more or less to do what you want to, and to be guarunteed to reap the benefits of your efforts, and the consequences. That said I think on a fundamental level corporations like Wal-Mart destroy this 'dream.' Larg e Business crushing small business is no new thing, but it has become so grossly exaggerated, and Big business so powerful that some towns could run entirely on Wal-Mart and never have need for, or want for local small businesses. Large chains are simply more convenient, and gurantee a certain product selection that most people are confortable with. That aspect is all right... just the fact that thanks to Wal-Mart anyone who is interested in becoming a grocer (fulfillment of their dream) had better wake up and smell the Starbucks, the big boys don't make room for competition, it's bad business.

Do you think this is healthy for a community?
It depends on the community but on average no, since it will ultimately displace small business. That and for all the reasons cited previously, Wal-Mart is evil. I will point again to Barbara Ehrenrich's Nickled and Dimed, where barbara herself was emplyed by Wal-Mart and met some of the most troublingly defeated people, whom barely flounder in the lower class living in abject poverty. Wal-Mart could afford to pay its 'associates' more, and provide more benefits, but it doesn't. That fact alone is bad for a community who is employed through such a company.

Posted by: ibelsd Aug 2 2004, 04:18 PM

Walmart is great. If offers me cheap prices on good I wish to purchase. What more could I ask? It hires a ton of people too. Let's face it, its not like the clerk at the mom and pop store was making great money. He could do no worse at Walmart in most cases. And like most companies, Walmart will look for ways to increase their profit. They will do this by raising prices when the competition has been wiped out. Blockbuster sort of did this someone noted. That is the wonderful thing about competition and a free market. As Blockbuster has become increasingly expensive, other companies have ways to compete. For $20 a month one can subscribe to Netflix and get all the movies your want, with no late fee charges. There are now Pay per view services through cable and satellite to compete as well. In response, blockbuster has become more liberal in their return policies. Movies not on the new release list can be held a week without additional fee. Remember when it is 2 or three days? I can't predict who will come in to compete with Walmart or what technology will be used. All I know is that someone will try and the consumer will benefit. In the meantime, I will keep saving money by shopping at Walmart.

Posted by: nebraska29 Aug 6 2004, 08:35 PM

I wouldn't say that Wal-Mart is a paragon of virtues, undoubtedly consumers do get low prices, but consumers end up paying more after all.



and...



-http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0803Wal-Mart-Assistance-ON.html

I agree that the government should provide a safety net for those at the bottom without means of their own, but to create such a system is just incredible. There are good things about Wal-Mart, don't get me wrong, but the sales clerk who works a ton of hours should not have to use government aid in any way to compensate for a lack of pay and benefits so that someone can buy a Shrek doll for $10.00 less.

Posted by: deerjerkydave Aug 6 2004, 10:28 PM

The people at UC Berkeley who made this study obviously have an axe to grind. They also buy into the socialist principle of a "living wage". This is a classic situation of "is the glass half empty or full?" Does Walmart hurt Californians or benefit Californians? The study says the cup is half empty, that Walmart hurts Californians because some of its employees supplement their income through government assistance.

The glass-half-empty crowd is wrong on this one. Metaphorically speaking, it is better to have some water in the glass than none at all! If Walmart suddenly packed its bags and moved out of California, 100% of its 44,000 employees would cost taxpayers a whole lot more since they would then require complete government assistance. So in that light, Walmart is actually saving taxpayers money! Thank goodness Walmart exists in California.

Posted by: Cube Jockey Aug 6 2004, 10:56 PM

I'm curious why you think that is a socialist principle, or that paying a "living wage" is a bad thing?

Put another way, you live in San Jose -- you know how expensive it is to live there and you also know how expensive it still is if you move way out to the middle of nowhere. People commute from Stockton, Tracy, suburbs of Sacramento to work in the Bay Area every day (thats about 4 hours a day of commute) and the houses they live in still cost 400K.

Now given the fact that people work at places like WalMart fulltime as their career are you just going to tell them ok well you spent your entire day with us but that isn't good enough, you can either pay rent this month or eat, you decide.

The concept of a living wage isn't that you are rich, it is that you can afford the most basic accomodations if you choose to work somewhere fulltime. I can't possibly see how you would consider that wrong.

I can see how you might possibly be on WalMart's side as far as paying their employees low wages as "good capitalism". But, they chose to do business in California, they know how expensive it is here and they have a certain responsibility to their workers to help them live. If they don't like it they can pack their ugly stores up and head somewhere the cost of living is cheap.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Aug 6 2004, 11:20 PM

How does having under-employed people who can't pay the bills improve our way of life? While it may bring down the unemployment statistics, it raises the statistics of those who have to avail themselves of public assistance, particularly housing projects and health departments. Wal-Mart, while it provides brand-name goods on the cheap, is actually perpetuating more economic problems than it is solving.

The Bible says, "The laborer is worthy of his hire," and "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it treadeth the corn." Is the Bible a socialist document?

Posted by: Bill55AZ Aug 7 2004, 12:04 AM

Can anyone refute the following?
everything bad said about WalMart so far in this debate can also be said about other major businesses, even if to a lesser extent.
Same for small businesses as well.
I watched many of my friends children over the last 20 years graduate from High School and go looking for jobs. Mom/Pop and very small businesses rarely offer health insurance, and the minute they don't need you, you are out the door.
Bigger businesses, especially the ones that require some skills of their employees, are more likely to treat them better.
I suppose if we have minimal skills, then we are going to continue to be victims of this kind of situation.
And as long as so many of us think we can get by on minimal skills, these businesses have an easy time "abusing" us.
I submit that most of our problems are self inflicted, and we should not be surprised if there are others out there willing to take advantage of our situations.

Posted by: popeye47 Aug 7 2004, 12:20 AM

deerjerkydave

Aren't you forgetting something in your equation. If there was no Walmart then thousands of individuals would not have lost their jobs in the first place. So those 44,000 employees you mentioned were probably working at another retail store or grocery that was run out of business or lost business and had to cut the number of employees.

So in that light, is Walmart saving taxpayers money? I think not.

Posted by: deerjerkydave Aug 7 2004, 04:03 AM

The excessively high cost of living in California is artificially caused by socialism. The solution isn't more socialism. It is not just coincidence that the liberal areas of our nation also have the highest cost of living. Why is that? A fundamental principle of socialism is the elimination of private property. The state of California spends tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars every year to buy up private land (as does our federal government). At the same time, housing developers are slapped with oppressive restrictions on development. Because the supply of property is artificially low and the demand to live in California is high, the price of property goes up up up. The solution is to loose the market from the chains of socialism so that the housing development can meet the demand of the public, where cost of living can become affordable to all, even to those with low skills.

I used to believe in the idea of a minimum/living wage. I now realize that it ends up hurting the very people it is designed to help, as well as the consumer. The reality is that zero dollars an hour is the true minimum wage. If someone's skill set is worth less than the government imposed minimum wage, they will be unable to find work and they default to the true minimum wage of zero. There is no in between. I grew up here in San Jose. I never saw people loitering in front of the hardware store for lack of work until a few years ago when the minimum wage in California rose to 6.75/hour.

A realtor friend of mine just told me that this year there are half the homes on the market in the bay area than there were last year, and demand has remained the same..

Socialist Party USA supports living wages:
http://sp-usa.org/about/platform/economics.html

Socialist Party USA calls for government ownership of all "natural resources" (which is land):
http://sp-usa.org/about/platform/environment.html

California spends hundreds of millions on land acquisition:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2002/resources/res_9_3790_anl02.htm
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6904340.htm?1c

Posted by: nebraska29 Aug 7 2004, 03:49 PM

Just because other companies engage in sexual discrimination(see my earlier posting for documentation) doesn't excuse Wal-Mart from engaging in it. The "everybody's doing it" line of reasoning shouldn't be an exercise in washing away the sins of Wal-Mart.

Posted by: Bill55AZ Aug 7 2004, 04:08 PM

agree, but why is WalMart the bad guy so often?
I can agree that the Mom and Pop businesses getting overwhelmed is a bad thing, but in my experience the smaller business in small to mid sized towns will take advantage of their having few or no competitors and ill treat the customer and employee just as quickly. I have even seen employees get treated badly in family owned and run businesses, by their own kin! Greed exists everywhere.
Perhaps WalMart is close to perfecting it.

Posted by: SWM28WDC Aug 8 2004, 02:15 AM

Here's an interesting http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/ regarding wal-mart stores recieving over $1B in local subsidies. The report also states that walmart returns $30 to the community for every $1 in subsidies.

Competition for work drives the price of labor lower. As long as there are unemployed people who are willing to work, the price of labor will be a minimum, this is particularly evident in non-skilled work. Ideally, the laborer's wages should approach his productivity. This will never happen as long as there's significant unemployment.

Minimum wages keep people out of work, there's probably not an economist on earth who would disagree with this. The real problem is that employers can pay people less than they're worth.

As an example, let's look at a generic publicly-traded superstore in an excellent retail location, making lots of money. We'll compare this one to a similar store in a less desireable location.

Out of the gross profit store has to pay wages to the laborers, interest to the lenders, and taxes to the government.
Competition between laborers means that the wages will be as low as possible: despite the fact that, at this particular location, labor is fairly productive; the store could simply hire retail workers from the less productive store down the road. Relative wages tend to be set at the least productive location in use by any industry.
For the sake of argument, we'll say taxes are similar for each location.
Once the wages, interest, and taxes are paid, the profit goes to the owners.

Why do the owners of the one store make more than the owners of the other, despite the same amount of work put forth by all concerned?