The Ultimate Wal Mart Thread; Is Wal Mart good for America

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The solution is not to bash cancer, it's to think more deeply about this issue and figure out how to use disease to our benefit.

You're right! Immitation really is the greatest form of flattery. *blush*

But your example only works if Wal-Mart is to globalization what cancer is to disease. I'm afraid it doesn't work, homie.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I guess if your vision for America is accumulating as much cheap crap as possible, then Wal-Mart is a godsend. If you care about good jobs, greater opportunity, health care, fair competition, and similar silly extravagances, Wal-Mart's effect isn't quite so sunny.

So you're in support of fair competition as long as it's not Walmart? You think that there are no management positions at Walmart? You think that having no job is better than having a job at Walmart?

You think you can actually address any of the issues raised instead of throwing out red herrings?

I addressed the issue that all you're doing is throwing out red herrings. Realize that Walmart is suffering these days because their prices aren't low enough. How will we be able to reduce prices enough? The only retail that's doing well is upscale shops like Nordstrom's and Tiffany's, and to some extent electronics shops like Best Buy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh,, Walmart isn't hurting at all, considering they open a new supercenter every two days and that they made a $7B profit last year. Cry me a river, OK?

Walmart hurting- what a giggle...

I noticed that you referred to Walmart as "we", rjain- any significance to that?

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The unionized grocery workers in california are making several dollars more an hour than walmart workers. Unionized checkers are making like $15/hour, which is crazy for unskilled labor.

Yea, $15/hr is huge for unskilled labor. But they aren't getting health care or any benefits.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's another article re. Wal-Mart. It was printed in today's paper, but I had to track down an on-line copy:

Wal-Mart: Enduring Bargain Or Sunset Of Our Middle Class?
Neal Peirce

While bargain-hunting Americans flock into Wal-Mart's thousands of retail stores this free-spending holiday season, an incipient movement is taking shape that is bent on curbing America's retail leviathan, now the single largest corporation on the face of the globe.

Admittedly, the opponents are relatively few, their resources minuscule against a corporation that last year sold a quarter-trillion dollars worth of goods. But a collection of civic activists and very alarmed unions, along with a handful of politicos and wounded manufacturers, has begun the tough process.

It surely won't be easy. Wal-Mart is at once smart, crafty, frugal and fearsomely efficient. It frequently browbeats suppliers, demanding ever-lower prices, but it pays its bills promptly. It compensates "associates" so little that most can't support a family on what they earn, but it's made retailing history in its demands for precise on-time performance and constant trimming of costs. It reacts instantly, contests labor law to stop union organizing of its 1.2 million workers. Yet its low prices have helped restrain U.S. inflation, and its squeezing of costs is credited with 4 percent of the total U.S. productivity increase from 1995 to 1999.

Founder Sam Walton's brilliant original insight -- offering dramatically lower prices that draw herds of shoppers away from competitors -- continues to work like a charm. Wal-Mart's niche is rooted in the Achilles' heel of American thrift: our notion that a good bargain is a pleasure of which we ought never deprive ourselves.

Yet at what price? Inexorably, notes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, consumers' addiction to low prices is speeding the United States toward a two-tiered economy, with a shrinking middle class and larger share of low-wage workers. "We have split brains," Reich recently told the Los Angeles Times. "The half of our brain that wants the best deal prevails."

Sam Walton's "Buy American" promise of the '80s is now a cruel joke as 50 percent to 60 percent of Wal-Mart's goods are made in factories of such nations as China, Bangladesh and Honduras, often by workers earning just pennies an hour.

As Los Angeles Times writers Nancy Cleeland and Abigail Goldman note in a new investigative series: "By squeezing suppliers to cut wholesale costs, Wal-Mart has hastened the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. By scouring the globe for the cheapest goods, it has driven factory jobs from one poor nation to another."

The current big battle is a Southern California strike of 70,000 workers, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), to stop four major grocery chains there -- Vons and Pavillions, Ralphs and Albertsons -- from cutting store clerks' medical benefits by 50 percent. Why the cost-cutting effort? Forty Wal-Mart grocery-selling Supercenters are set to enter Southern California, imperiling the existing chains' profits. Eight thousand Teamster drivers recently joined the strike, now two months old.

The UFCW has been trying hard to organize Wal-Mart directly, only to encounter hardball -- and so-far successful -- anti-union campaigns directed from the retailer's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters.

In California cities such as Oakland, Bakersfield and Los Angeles, local ordinances have been drafted to stop Wal-Mart superstores. Wal-Mart is retaliating by getting local politicos to lobby its projects through planning bureaucracies. In some cases it's plied groups like the Urban League with major contributions. And it's threatened to mount popular local initiatives to overturn hostile ordinances.

For years individual communities have fought to stop Wal-Marts -- with isolated successes. New Orleans attorney William Borah had been leading a prolonged fight to stop a 200,000-square-foot Wal-Mart, with parking for 825 vehicles, proposed for the historic, pedestrian-scale Lower Garden District.

Local officials, failing to recognize the difference between a job-producing factory and Wal-Marts (which studies indicate are likely to cost three jobs for every two they create), have generally backed new stores -- up to now, anyway.

But Rep. Earl Blumenauer, head of the U.S. House Livable Communities Task Force, counsels them to take a new tack. Wal-Marts, he warns, pay rock-bottom wages, "weaken the sense of community and of place, actually lower the value of other commercial and residential properties, and force expenditures for expensive infrastructure."

Wal-Marts, observes Seattle planner Mark Hinshaw, "ravage communities economically and socially," and with their "warehouse-type buildings, spiritually as well."

Two Los Angeles newspaper readers (Larry Wiener and Carl Martz) summarize the current economic case perhaps best -- that Wal-Mart, in its globalized race to push wages to the bottom, is a corporation "gone amok," the opposite of how Ford and General Motors brought people into America's middle class.

Their solution? "Civil society needs to balance capitalism if it is to work for the entire population." If not, "tooth-and-claw competition will lead to the sunset of the middle class in America."

I'll point out one line, that "studies indicate [ that Wal-Marts ] are likely to cost three jobs for every two they create." Sadly, he doesn't cite those studies, so we don't have more specific information. The last few paragraphs are especially good too.

It's a good read for those who don't worship at the alter of unmitigated greed (a.k.a. unfettered capitalism).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Ah, Bowfinger, it's so cute the way you avoid the points I've made to you. I guess it just illustrates who the child here really is. I'm also noticing a pattern with your responses to the last several posts: your replies add up to nothing more than personal attacks to whomever you seem to be addressing. I don't know if you've ever taken a class in public speaking, but that falls under the category of "Red Herring."

Oh well, at least you're good for a chuckle, heh

Jason

Whatever helps you sleep at night. As I said several times, once you actually read the thread and see that your nonsense has already been addressed, then and only then will I be happy to respond to any specific issues or objections you have to points I've raised. Until then, you're a waste of time and bandwidth.

BTW, no, a personal attack is not the same as a "Red Herring". Look up "ad hominem" after you've read the thread. Must be another class you missed along with Econ. (That was an ad hominem, not a red herring. Just trying to help.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The solution is not to bash cancer, it's to think more deeply about this issue and figure out how to use disease to our benefit.

You're right! Immitation really is the greatest form of flattery. *blush*

But your example only works if Wal-Mart is to globalization what cancer is to disease. I'm afraid it doesn't work, homie.

I know, but I had to make an example that was the parallel to yours. Since you couldn't see how ridiculous yours was I had to make that clear in mine. And please, there's a difference between imitation and mirroring.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I guess if your vision for America is accumulating as much cheap crap as possible, then Wal-Mart is a godsend. If you care about good jobs, greater opportunity, health care, fair competition, and similar silly extravagances, Wal-Mart's effect isn't quite so sunny.

So you're in support of fair competition as long as it's not Walmart? You think that there are no management positions at Walmart? You think that having no job is better than having a job at Walmart?

You think you can actually address any of the issues raised instead of throwing out red herrings?

I addressed the issue that all you're doing is throwing out red herrings. Realize that Walmart is suffering these days because their prices aren't low enough. How will we be able to reduce prices enough? The only retail that's doing well is upscale shops like Nordstrom's and Tiffany's, and to some extent electronics shops like Best Buy.

We should all suffer like that. Boo hoo hoo.

But I suppose as they drive more jobs overseas and keep screwing their employees, they'll get to the point where there's nobody left who both wants their crap and who can also afford to buy their crap. Someday Wal-Mart will be driven out of business by an even cheaper retailer that sells clothing made of used newspapers and furniture made of cardboard boxes.

 

[LunarRay]

Does anyone remember the time when made in anywhere Asia was thought to be crap. When the obsolesence built into the 'Asian' products rendered them useless upon first use. Cars, toys, clothes... just about everything.. After the war our finest universities trained the Asian Businessmen and their Engineers and their Marketing folks.. and they learned. They learned how to not only do what we did better but how to defeat a capitalist at his own game.
Our greed led us to open up the Asian market to our products so we could become richer. We blew it in that endevor. But in the long run - maybe 40 or so years from now we'll all live happily on this planet together.. all sharing the same basic standard of living.. well except the leaders who'll be filthy rich and us the worker class..
Enjoy!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
DragonMasterAlex,
The only issue is the elevation of other nations at the expense of America. While we have a 500b a year trade deficit you cannot but notice that we are consuming their production and elevating them. We are getting stuff somewhat cheaper than we otherwise could and this is the motivation to continue. Our accumulated trade deficit is nearing 3 trillion $. We have many folks out of work and many underemployed here in The US. Sort out this issue and then we'll all rah rah the World Market prospects. Show the means to redevelop the industry here in the US with the same standard of living that has been garnered over time... the cashier who makes enough to raise a family or the factory worker who can afford middle class status.. We shouldn't have to rely on India to provide our technical support or China our shoes while our shoe maker works at McDonald's.. Think America first and let the others build their economy as we did and then we'll compete on an even footing.. but, to build them up will only deprive Americans because we are or were the richest.. Equilibrium brings us down and them up.. maybe in 30 or 40 years we'll all be on an even footing but, not now...

No, no, no, this is complete nonsense. A Trade Deficit is NOT a bad thing. What does the term Trade Deficit mean? It means that we buy more stuff from other countries than we sell to them. Think about it. The basic gist is that we are so rich we can afford to pay the people of other countries to do our work for us!

Here's a good example of a trade deficit scenario: You and the grocery store. I *guarantee* that you have a trade deficit with the grocery store, and you *always* will. So will I, and so will everyone else. Does that mean I should take action to remedy that situation? NO! There isn't anything *wrong* with the situation! Your notion of "think America first" is rhetorical nonsense. The way you should buy products is by searching for the best quality at the best price, amke your judgment about the tradeoffs either way, and buy the product that suits you best. The notion of abandoning globalization is foolish at best. It won't help *anyone* at this point, it will only hurt all of us.

And for the person above who stated that the grocery workers at $15 an hour don't get any medical or benefits, that is a bald-faced lie and you damn well know it. What the hell do you think they are striking about right now? They are striking because Safeway is asking the employees to pay $20 a month as a share of their own healthcare costs (more like $60-80 if you have a couple of dependents) and these idiots are bitching. THe problem isn't that they don't have healthcare, it's that they want FREE healthcare.

Now WHO is it who's irrational greed is out of control?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Bowfinger, can you make a single intelligent statement *ever*? Even your article is rife with nonsense. THe union strike isn't based on an attempt to cut medical benefits *at all*, it's about the eployees being asked to actually *pay* for part of their medical expenses. God, what a horrible tragedy, that someone would be asked to be responsible for their own healthcare costs! GASP!

I might also point out that we damn well SHOULD try out a full Laissez-Faire Capitalist system. It's never been tried in the history of mankind, but every nation that's instituted a free market economy has seen an increase in standard of living *ACROSS THE BOARD* for all its citizens.

But let's face it, what you and your kind are after isn't *fairness* or *equality*, what you're after is lowering *everyone* who's managed to achieve something in life to the misery and cynical intellectual depravity of yourself and the others like you.

Pathetic.

Jason

 

[DealMonkey]

Good for America? Hardly. Good for the third world? Maybe.

It wasn't long ago that Wal-Mart was fighting to keep manufacturing jobs on U.S. soil.

In 1985, founder Sam Walton launched his "Bring It Home to the USA" program. "Wal-Mart believes American workers can make a difference," he told his suppliers, offering to pay as much as 5% more for U.S.-made products.

In his 1992 memoir, "Made in America," Walton claimed that the program had saved or created nearly 100,000 jobs by using "the power of this enormous enterprise as a force for change."

[snip...]

As late as 1995, Wal-Mart said imports accounted for no more than 6% of its products. Today, consulting firm Retail Forward estimates that 50% to 60% of the merchandise in the company's U.S. stores is imported.

Source

 

[DealMonkey]

Millions of jobs lost...

To win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China, and its shelves bear little trace of the "Buy America" philosophy of its founder.

Source

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here's another article re. Wal-Mart. It was printed in today's paper, but I had to track down an on-line copy:

Wal-Mart: Enduring Bargain Or Sunset Of Our Middle Class?
Neal Peirce

While bargain-hunting Americans flock into Wal-Mart's thousands of retail stores this free-spending holiday season, an incipient movement is taking shape that is bent on curbing America's retail leviathan, now the single largest corporation on the face of the globe.

Admittedly, the opponents are relatively few, their resources minuscule against a corporation that last year sold a quarter-trillion dollars worth of goods. But a collection of civic activists and very alarmed unions, along with a handful of politicos and wounded manufacturers, has begun the tough process.

It surely won't be easy. Wal-Mart is at once smart, crafty, frugal and fearsomely efficient. It frequently browbeats suppliers, demanding ever-lower prices, but it pays its bills promptly. It compensates "associates" so little that most can't support a family on what they earn, but it's made retailing history in its demands for precise on-time performance and constant trimming of costs. It reacts instantly, contests labor law to stop union organizing of its 1.2 million workers. Yet its low prices have helped restrain U.S. inflation, and its squeezing of costs is credited with 4 percent of the total U.S. productivity increase from 1995 to 1999.

Founder Sam Walton's brilliant original insight -- offering dramatically lower prices that draw herds of shoppers away from competitors -- continues to work like a charm. Wal-Mart's niche is rooted in the Achilles' heel of American thrift: our notion that a good bargain is a pleasure of which we ought never deprive ourselves.

Yet at what price? Inexorably, notes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, consumers' addiction to low prices is speeding the United States toward a two-tiered economy, with a shrinking middle class and larger share of low-wage workers. "We have split brains," Reich recently told the Los Angeles Times. "The half of our brain that wants the best deal prevails."

Sam Walton's "Buy American" promise of the '80s is now a cruel joke as 50 percent to 60 percent of Wal-Mart's goods are made in factories of such nations as China, Bangladesh and Honduras, often by workers earning just pennies an hour.

As Los Angeles Times writers Nancy Cleeland and Abigail Goldman note in a new investigative series: "By squeezing suppliers to cut wholesale costs, Wal-Mart has hastened the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. By scouring the globe for the cheapest goods, it has driven factory jobs from one poor nation to another."

The current big battle is a Southern California strike of 70,000 workers, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), to stop four major grocery chains there -- Vons and Pavillions, Ralphs and Albertsons -- from cutting store clerks' medical benefits by 50 percent. Why the cost-cutting effort? Forty Wal-Mart grocery-selling Supercenters are set to enter Southern California, imperiling the existing chains' profits. Eight thousand Teamster drivers recently joined the strike, now two months old.

The UFCW has been trying hard to organize Wal-Mart directly, only to encounter hardball -- and so-far successful -- anti-union campaigns directed from the retailer's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters.

In California cities such as Oakland, Bakersfield and Los Angeles, local ordinances have been drafted to stop Wal-Mart superstores. Wal-Mart is retaliating by getting local politicos to lobby its projects through planning bureaucracies. In some cases it's plied groups like the Urban League with major contributions. And it's threatened to mount popular local initiatives to overturn hostile ordinances.

For years individual communities have fought to stop Wal-Marts -- with isolated successes. New Orleans attorney William Borah had been leading a prolonged fight to stop a 200,000-square-foot Wal-Mart, with parking for 825 vehicles, proposed for the historic, pedestrian-scale Lower Garden District.

Local officials, failing to recognize the difference between a job-producing factory and Wal-Marts (which studies indicate are likely to cost three jobs for every two they create), have generally backed new stores -- up to now, anyway.

But Rep. Earl Blumenauer, head of the U.S. House Livable Communities Task Force, counsels them to take a new tack. Wal-Marts, he warns, pay rock-bottom wages, "weaken the sense of community and of place, actually lower the value of other commercial and residential properties, and force expenditures for expensive infrastructure."

Wal-Marts, observes Seattle planner Mark Hinshaw, "ravage communities economically and socially," and with their "warehouse-type buildings, spiritually as well."

Two Los Angeles newspaper readers (Larry Wiener and Carl Martz) summarize the current economic case perhaps best -- that Wal-Mart, in its globalized race to push wages to the bottom, is a corporation "gone amok," the opposite of how Ford and General Motors brought people into America's middle class.

Their solution? "Civil society needs to balance capitalism if it is to work for the entire population." If not, "tooth-and-claw competition will lead to the sunset of the middle class in America."

I'll point out one line, that "studies indicate [ that Wal-Marts ] are likely to cost three jobs for every two they create." Sadly, he doesn't cite those studies, so we don't have more specific information. The last few paragraphs are especially good too.

It's a good read for those who don't worship at the alter of unmitigated greed (a.k.a. unfettered capitalism).

Don't forget that one Wal-Mart job created is a Salary INCREASE even though the job is $8.50 hr.
The AT Experts said so.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

With the possible exception of managers and supervisors, the jobs aren't *WORTH* more than $8.50 an hour. You're talking about jobs that require little more than a trained monkey to perform, for goodness' sake.

Jason

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
With the possible exception of managers and supervisors, the jobs aren't *WORTH* more than $8.50 an hour. You're talking about jobs that require little more than a trained monkey to perform, for goodness' sake.

Jason

$8.50 US is $11.31 CDN.. more than I make now, I work 25 hrs and make $10. If you're single you can afford your own place and a decent car and some spending money.. but forget a family.

Minimum wage here is $7.30 CDN which is probably what the Walmart here pays.. when I worked at a pharmacy a year ago that's what I made. That is $5.60 US. Of course housing costs are likely much lower where I live.. although the cost of material goods (cars etc..) is pretty similar between here and the US after you account for currency exchange

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I know what you mean. I've done it. Hell, I *literally* worked for Wal Mart in overnight maintenance about 10 years ago while I went to school during the day to learn Networking Technologies. I made...well I can't remember the exact amount, but it was just a shade over minimum wage. It was enough to scrape by with while I went to school, and as far as I was concerned then --and now--that's what it was meant to do. Just keep me alive until I managed to get enough education to move into something better.

Keep working, and get some classes under your belt. You can make a better life *without* resorting to the dishonest ways many here would propose by forcing an employer to pay more than your job is worth. You'll like yourself a lot better in the end if you do it the honest way, too.

Jason

 

[LunarRay]

DragonMaster,

No, no, no, this is complete nonsense. A Trade Deficit is NOT a bad thing. What does the term Trade Deficit mean? It means that we buy more stuff from other countries than we sell to them. Think about it. The basic gist is that we are so rich we can afford to pay the people of other countries to do our work for us!

Well, Dragon, may I call you Dragon.. so much easier on the fingers? We don't have the $ to pay the accumulated trade deficit.. we owe some... getting on 3 trillion.. owe.. as a nation.. they leave it here in $ accounts to buy dollar denominated commodities. But, if you believe a trade deficit is a good thing.. well... it's not.. if it were a trade surplus and accumulated surplus existed we'd be much better off.

here's a good example of a trade deficit scenario: You and the grocery store. I *guarantee* that you have a trade deficit with the grocery store, and you *always* will. So will I, and so will everyone else. Does that mean I should take action to remedy that situation? NO! There isn't anything *wrong* with the situation! Your notion of "think America first" is rhetorical nonsense. The way you should buy products is by searching for the best quality at the best price, amke your judgment about the tradeoffs either way, and buy the product that suits you best. The notion of abandoning globalization is foolish at best. It won't help *anyone* at this point, it will only hurt all of us.

Is that so?! I can't follow the logic so I'll simply let it pass. I think I might suggest the basic dynamic that provides economic sense is when you build wealth by purchasing and selling and generating wealth and not debt.. but, I'm not sure that theory would be acceptable to your grocer It would be to mine.. He'd not willingly want to increase his debt on the inflows and out flows. It really don't matter if it is food, rocks or money that makes up the trading.. now does it. Just who has the debt and who holds it when the deal is done.

And for the person above who stated that the grocery workers at $15 an hour don't get any medical or benefits, that is a bald-faced lie and you damn well know it. What the hell do you think they are striking about right now? They are striking because Safeway is asking the employees to pay $20 a month as a share of their own healthcare costs (more like $60-80 if you have a couple of dependents) and these idiots are bitching. THe problem isn't that they don't have healthcare, it's that they want FREE healthcare.

I don't suppose you're addressing me on this but, I'd say I think I know pretty much what the issue is regarding the strike and lockout. The management wishes to share the increased cost of health care and establish an employee pay scale for new hires different to the existing union members. But, maybe I'm reading the union and management positions incorrectly.. BTW, they pay some folks 7.00$ per hour and on up to 17.75 $ per hour. Depends on the department and tenure. Some butchers are paid even more.

Now WHO is it who's irrational greed is out of control?

Jason

This presumes you've written something that answers that question and I don't think you did.. so I'll simply say.. as I've said before "OUR" greed... and pedal away.. to another day.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

Prove is a very strong demand. I can provide an analysis that would indicate what ever I want it to. Depends how I design the model..

Yes you can!!! But then again, I would still have *some* data to review that led you to whatever determination you wanted to prove--at least it's a starting point. What has been provided so far? Nada.

Good luck in your search, I'm anxious about the results.

I failed to get the data I was after.. the economic assumptions, the algorithms that turn the inputs of data into a defensible argument.

I'd expect to see a marginal loss of jobs but, a general reduction to the level of wage this class of job pays as more Walmarts open and other union shops lose workers or close.

edit.. the service sector jobs might also be break even but, the duplicate overhead elimination would be the big loser..

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: LunarRay
DragonMasterAlex,
The only issue is the elevation of other nations at the expense of America. While we have a 500b a year trade deficit you cannot but notice that we are consuming their production and elevating them. We are getting stuff somewhat cheaper than we otherwise could and this is the motivation to continue. Our accumulated trade deficit is nearing 3 trillion $. We have many folks out of work and many underemployed here in The US. Sort out this issue and then we'll all rah rah the World Market prospects. Show the means to redevelop the industry here in the US with the same standard of living that has been garnered over time... the cashier who makes enough to raise a family or the factory worker who can afford middle class status.. We shouldn't have to rely on India to provide our technical support or China our shoes while our shoe maker works at McDonald's.. Think America first and let the others build their economy as we did and then we'll compete on an even footing.. but, to build them up will only deprive Americans because we are or were the richest.. Equilibrium brings us down and them up.. maybe in 30 or 40 years we'll all be on an even footing but, not now...

No, no, no, this is complete nonsense. A Trade Deficit is NOT a bad thing. What does the term Trade Deficit mean? It means that we buy more stuff from other countries than we sell to them. Think about it. The basic gist is that we are so rich we can afford to pay the people of other countries to do our work for us!

Here's a good example of a trade deficit scenario: You and the grocery store. I *guarantee* that you have a trade deficit with the grocery store, and you *always* will. So will I, and so will everyone else. Does that mean I should take action to remedy that situation? NO! There isn't anything *wrong* with the situation! Your notion of "think America first" is rhetorical nonsense. The way you should buy products is by searching for the best quality at the best price, amke your judgment about the tradeoffs either way, and buy the product that suits you best. The notion of abandoning globalization is foolish at best. It won't help *anyone* at this point, it will only hurt all of us.

And for the person above who stated that the grocery workers at $15 an hour don't get any medical or benefits, that is a bald-faced lie and you damn well know it. What the hell do you think they are striking about right now? They are striking because Safeway is asking the employees to pay $20 a month as a share of their own healthcare costs (more like $60-80 if you have a couple of dependents) and these idiots are bitching. THe problem isn't that they don't have healthcare, it's that they want FREE healthcare.

Now WHO is it who's irrational greed is out of control?

Jason

Your Grocery store example is not an example of The Trade Deficit, a trade deficit perhaps, but The Trade Deficit is another matter. Here is a much better example:

You Earn $50k a year, but Spend $100k a year. You can do this for a few years, but eventually your Creditors are going to stop giving you the extra $50k you need each year. When that occurs not only will you have a huge Debt to repay, but your Lifestyle will be severely cutback.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Sandorski, that is NOT an example of a Trade Deficit by any stretch of the imagination. Yours is an example of financial irresponsibility, not a Trade Deficit.

And for the record, may I say to you, DUH. I can't believe you even had the gall to make such a STUPID statement.

Jason

EDIT: Ray, lemme streamline the grocery store analogy:

You buy more stuff from the grocery store than they buy from you. Chances are, in fact, they'll NEVER buy anything from you. And *that* is what a Trade Deficit actually is. It's NOT a bad thing.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sandorski, that is NOT an example of a Trade Deficit by any stretch of the imagination. Yours is an example of financial irresponsibility, not a Trade Deficit.

And for the record, may I say to you, DUH. I can't believe you even had the gall to make such a STUPID statement.

Jason

Ok, what is, in your words, a Trade Deficit?

You may want to find a real definition before you give yours.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sandorski, that is NOT an example of a Trade Deficit by any stretch of the imagination. Yours is an example of financial irresponsibility, not a Trade Deficit.

And for the record, may I say to you, DUH. I can't believe you even had the gall to make such a STUPID statement.

Jason

EDIT: Ray, lemme streamline the grocery store analogy:

You buy more stuff from the grocery store than they buy from you. Chances are, in fact, they'll NEVER buy anything from you. And *that* is what a Trade Deficit actually is. It's NOT a bad thing.

Drag,
There is an equality of trade there. I trade some green backs for some food.. we are equal.. I don't owe him and he don't owe me..

Edit.. those greenbacks may be what I got in trade for some labor or maybe some peaches..

 

[sandorski]

Dragon: After reading Lunar's post I realize my example may not have been too clear. So I will extrapolate.

In your example, you brought up a Grocery Store and a Consumer. It is true, the Consumer has a Trade Deficit with the Grocery Store, for the Consumer(assuming he isn't a farmer or other Grocery Producer) gives more to the Store than it receives. This is only a small part of the Consumers "Trade" though, an example of Nation A's Trade Deficit with Nation B, but it doesn't take into account Nation A's Trade Balance with Nation C, D, or others.

In my example, and what the Trade Deficit is, I take into account the whole picture. The Consumers Trade with the Grocery Store, its' Bank, Department Store, and the other Businesses/Persons it Trades with. In kind, the Trade of Nation A with Nation B..n.

Your Consumer has a Trade Deficit with the Grocery Store, but makes no mention of its' Trade Surplus(Wages,Income). Your Consumer can have a Deficit with the Grocery Store or many Stores, but if its' Wages/Income exceed all those Deficits, it has a Trade Surplus over all and not a Trade Deficit. OTOH, my Consumers Trade Deficits exceed its' Trade Surpluses(spends more than earns)and thus has a Trade Deficit overall.

Yours is an example of A Trade Deficit, mine is an example of The Trade Deficit.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: LunarRay
DragonMasterAlex,
The only issue is the elevation of other nations at the expense of America. While we have a 500b a year trade deficit you cannot but notice that we are consuming their production and elevating them. We are getting stuff somewhat cheaper than we otherwise could and this is the motivation to continue. Our accumulated trade deficit is nearing 3 trillion $. We have many folks out of work and many underemployed here in The US. Sort out this issue and then we'll all rah rah the World Market prospects. Show the means to redevelop the industry here in the US with the same standard of living that has been garnered over time... the cashier who makes enough to raise a family or the factory worker who can afford middle class status.. We shouldn't have to rely on India to provide our technical support or China our shoes while our shoe maker works at McDonald's.. Think America first and let the others build their economy as we did and then we'll compete on an even footing.. but, to build them up will only deprive Americans because we are or were the richest.. Equilibrium brings us down and them up.. maybe in 30 or 40 years we'll all be on an even footing but, not now...

No, no, no, this is complete nonsense. A Trade Deficit is NOT a bad thing. What does the term Trade Deficit mean? It means that we buy more stuff from other countries than we sell to them. Think about it. The basic gist is that we are so rich we can afford to pay the people of other countries to do our work for us!

Here's a good example of a trade deficit scenario: You and the grocery store. I *guarantee* that you have a trade deficit with the grocery store, and you *always* will. So will I, and so will everyone else. Does that mean I should take action to remedy that situation? NO! There isn't anything *wrong* with the situation! Your notion of "think America first" is rhetorical nonsense. The way you should buy products is by searching for the best quality at the best price, amke your judgment about the tradeoffs either way, and buy the product that suits you best. The notion of abandoning globalization is foolish at best. It won't help *anyone* at this point, it will only hurt all of us.

You are an ignorant blowhard. That is the stupidest explantion of the trade deficit I have ever seen. I hope you know more about networking than you do about economics.