I opened this topic in regards to and article I have read in USAToday. 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?

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)

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?

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.

A little up the road from my parents, 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...

Yes, why not? When Walmart comes to town, why does it hurt the local competition? Because people would rather shop at Walmart! Heck, even Michael Jackson is shopping at Walmart. 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.

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!

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/busine.../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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 link 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: The WalMart You Don't Know
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-04070...-home-headlines

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.