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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Dukes v. Wal-Mart and more info at the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll.
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.

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.

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.

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 this post. 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.

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.

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. ( source)



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/0,1413,20...2075772,00.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
http://www.joehilldispatch.org/walmartbeat...iness_model.php
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16282

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.

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: US Census Bureau 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:

Reclaim Democracy
Kansas Workbeat
Walmartyrs
Salon Magazine

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

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/rel...s/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...DAD0894DC404482



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.

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.

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. (source)



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 article.



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 (source)



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"?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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?