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

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger<brWith all due respect, I believe you need to try representing the entire equation. You're only considering the consumer side of the equation. You take a simplistic position that low prices are unconditionally good. You ignore the bigger picture, the societal costs that subsidize those low prices. These costs have been widely discussed in this thread: loss of high-paying maunfacturing jobs overseas, employee welfare costs, tax subsidies (direct and indirect), loss of locally-owned business, etc. We may disagree about the extent and relative impact of each cost, but we cannot blindly dismiss them. They are an integral part of the equation. They must be considered too.

Following the theme of "with all due respect," it's certainly fair to say that there are various costs in terms of certain kinds of jobs being lost overseas, etc. However, I would argue that it's a mistake to think that you can solve all these issues by forbidding company's to do what they can to keep consumer costs low or by making it illegal for poor people to take certain jobs at certain rates (which is what Minimum Wage does: It says to the poor man, "It's better for you to have NO job than to have one that pays $5 an hour", because many companies simply won't hire as many workers when they have to pay a lot more for them.

When you talk about forcing higher wages for low skill jobs like Wal Mart cashiers, you're failing to see that the people you will harm the most are *precisely* the middle class. When the wages go up, so will the prices, effectively nullifying the improved wage for the people who work in those jobs. The middle class folks (and these are NOT wal mart clerks, these are most assuredly poor, not middle class, with the exception of supervisors and managers) have to pay higher prices and therefore cannot afford as many goods and services as they otherwise could. Goods and Services *are* wealth. The more that there are available for people and the better the prices are, the higher the standard of living goes for everyone.

By jacking up wages you won't hurt the rich much at all; they have a far better cushion against price jumps than you or I do. Whereas if the price of say, a package of cookies goes up by $1 it might really make the difference between whether you or I can afford them, a rich person will just accept the $1 increase and move along. Who's wounded? The rich guy paid more, sure, but now *I* don't have cookies because I couldn't afford them. Forget for a moment that I'm a cookie addict and will probably put back something more important so I can get the cookies (or consider that and ask if it's better that I should have to make that tradeoff or be able to enjoy cookies *and* have the something I need more...)

Globalization is here to stay. It's not going to go away, and it's so widespread at this point that cutting it off would be disastrous for every economy on earth, including ours. I'm all for "Buy American," but ONLY if the American product is better. Look at how the japanese cars in the 70's and 80's just ripped the American car market to shreds. Why? Because American cars were overpriced junk and japanese cars offered value and quality all in an affordable package. What makes the most sense in choosing how to spend your money is simply this: Where can I get the most VALUE for my money?

It is in this area that Wal Mart is a *good* thing for the people of America, indeed for the world: they are *extremely* proficient in brokering great deals on goods, which they then pass along to the people who shop there. It would be idiocy to claim that any organization can fix all the problems of the world; Wal Mart, like any other business, focuses on fulfilling a very specific need, which is low-priced goods for consumers. Wal Mart's success is a testament to the fact that consumers overall *want* low priced stuff, and I think most people realize that it isn't always the best quality. There are certain things I won't buy at Wal Mart (clothes, except sometimes for T shirt,s sweats, stuff that doesn't really need to be high quality because it's just casual nonsense for wearing while hanging out or lounging about...) but many others that I will. I also rarely buy video games there, because the deals are mediocre at best.

Anyway, so that's about as quiet as I can be about it, but I hope that explains my feeling and thought on the matter a little better, particularly for you, Bowfinger.

Jason

DMA, no one would argue that they didn't do a good job at what they have done, the argument is actually too much of a good thing that they've crossed over from it being a good thing by using the power of so much money which brings power and then you have a choice of doing good with the power or bad. It is clear they have chosen to do bad. You and a handful of others here do not see the bad, not seeing the Forest through the Trees syndrome until it's too late.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Again, DMA, you're letting ideology get in the way of your perceptions. I think that I've accurately described the situation, and will add that with very high unemployment, as we have now, even the lowest jobs won't remain open for long- just the way it is, right? Somebody will fill that walmart job.

And, of course, walmart and other business giants oppose any kind of changes to labor laws that work to their disadvantage, and will also oppose any changes that deny their ability to transfer the cost of doing business onto the taxpayers. Just the way it is.

Walmart is a leading player in the offshoring of jobs, maintaining low wage rates, and even exploiting illegal immigrant labor. Just the way it is.

Like a Dairyman who won't feed his cows enough to survive, walmart's and others' milking of the american economy for profits will come to an end, with cows who can't give milk... just the way it is...

It really is a form of looting, of taking more than you put in. And we blame it on welfare recipients, while perceiving taxes as theft and maintaining the "right" of employers and investors to act this way. Just the way it is, apparently...

Excellent post Jhhnn. The illusion of low prices.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Bowfinger,

Excuse me for pointing it out *again*, but you are a MORON. The "Social pact" that you like to extol isn't intended, as you would use it, as a license to STEAL from some people and give to others. Nor is it a license to Lie, Cheat and Steal your way into more wealth. The "Social Pact," that the Constitution and the government of the United States is intended to protect and maintain is very simply that the government will protect the right of ALL INDIVIDUALS to pursue their own RATIONAL SELF INTERESTS. That means that they are to be left alone to live and work as they choose, and to reap the benefits of their labor and their ideas to whatever extent that they are naturally capable. It is NOT intended to guarantee an equality of outcome, and your idiotic rhetoric claiming that Liberty leads to Serfdom is complete and utter nonsense.

The idea of Liberty is simply that we are all FREE TO CHOOSE whether we engage in contracts with one another, whether we deal with each other at all, and the government's job is simply to ensure that we do not harm one another through force, whether that force be physical or through breach of contract. The key to the issue of Wal Mart employees choosing to work for $8 an hour is simply CHOICE. They have CHOSEN to work there. They have CHOSEN to take $8 an hour. They have CHOSEN to work doing unskilled labor rather than learning a skill and pursuing better means. Have you gotten the concept of CHOICE yet? So long as no one is FORCED to work for $8 an hour at the point of a gun, so long as no one is FORCED by the government to pay a wage more or less than the market will bear, there is NO MORAL HARM DONE. It is NOT the government's place to regulate the economy. It is NOT the government's place to tell me where I can hire workers from. It is NOT the government's place to decide how much I will be willing to pay my employees. If a person doesn't want to work for $8 an hour, guess what? He or she is FREE TO CHOOSE NOT TO WORK FOR WAL MART.

Do you understand the concept of FREEDOM yet? Our government was NEVER intended to grant freedom from responsibility, freedom from want, freedom from need, it was only intended to prevent freedom from forceful interference, PERIOD. And if you want to get down to it, FOOL, you are LIVING in the richest nation on earth BECAUSE of those premises. The regulation of today is NOT the government that our founding fathers implemented, nor is it the cause of our current wealth. The wealth of this nation is a result of man being FREE to work hard and enjoy the fruits of his labor.

All your empty rhetoric, you impudent blowhard, is directed toward one goal: To justify why it's OK to STEAL from some people and give to others. It's your twisted deception and distortion of Jefferson's words that you now seek to make mean that some men are justified in enslaving others, and that the qualification for that enslavement is simply that you be ineffective at earning your own bread.

You and your ilk are the moral enemies of this and EVERY OTHER nation on earth that believes that EACH man has certain inalienable rights, and that no man, no group of men, can ever have a right to violate those rights.

Your extoling of the virtues of slavery makes me sick, you diseased bastard.

Jason

It is not a choice if it is the only job you can get. Jobs are hard to find. Walmart destroys good jobs so working at Walmart may be all you have left.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A couple of points I don't recall being brought up:

A) What about the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't operate on a level playing field with other businesses? For example, when a new Wal-Mart goes into a community, quite often, the city council will give Wal-Mart special incentives to locate in their towns. Reduced taxation, tax credits, etc. Sometimes Wal-Mart gets an outright cash incentive to move in. How is that fair to other businesses that have to compete with Wal-Mart, but who do not receive the same incentives?

B) Do the underemployed that labor at Wal-Mart, often without health care (or decent health care if they actually opt-in) and at the low-end of the wage spectrum, end up costing the taxpayer every time they have to visit the hospital and can't pay their bill? Or their family member has to go to the doctor and they can't pay that bill either. Raising medical rates and health care rates for the rest of us. Or what if the Wal-Mart employee is on other entitlement programs like foodstamps, HUD, etc.? Doesn't this indirectly affect all taxpayers? Is that fair?

Good points DM. More smoke and mirrors behind Walmart's low prices. How much public subsidies do Walmart and its employees get?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Heres something that nobody has mentioned. Sure Wal-Mart gives us what we want at a good price, BUUUUUUUT.......did you ever notice that the almost always build outside of city limits, or get special tax-free xoning to develop a swamp, or an unwanted parcel of land? It's no mistake. They are famous for doing this to reduce their tax burden. It does not add to the towns tax base because of the location, or arrangement, and kills businesses that do pay taxes, and decentralizes most any small town it enters.

In Jacksonville, AR, they (Wal-Mart) closed up shop on one side of the road, and built a new store on the other side of the highway on an unwanted property. This killed most all the business on the other side that had grown alongside of Wal-Mart, and moved the center of commerce another 1/4 the opposite way from downtown. It also lowered Wal-Marts tax burden enough to pay for the new building. Great planning and execution! Kill the competition, and lower your property taxes while incresing profit.

I understand that Wal-Mart is out to make a buck. That's what businesses do. I understand that they want to drive away competition as it's the natural order of commercialism. What I don't get is why people let them do what they want, then complain about it later. Just take a look a Germany to see how it should be done. They allowed Wal-Mart to come in, and Wal-Mart planned on opening around 50 stores. The Germans evaluated the locations that the mega chain wanted, and concluded that in many cases, it wouldn't be good for the local businesses or the character of the towns themselves, and that by giving Wal-Mart tax breaks, they would be unfairly promoting one business over another. As a result, Wal-Mark withdrew most of the store locations for the stores, and is now planning on less than half of the original number of stores.

That is interesting about Germany. Why can't we use common sense too?

I do not want to close Walmart. I want to stop paying for others to shop there. Make Walmart compete fairly. If Walmart will not pay a living wage, charge them for all welfare and medical claims.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Obviously, there's a zero-sum game involved here," says Stone. "If you plop down a 200,000 sq. ft. Supercenter someplace like Ankeny, Iowa (population 27,000), and are expecting your average $75-80 million a year in sales, that money doesn't come out of thin air. It comes from somewhere else."
Wal-Mart proponents invariably cite the "democracy of the marketplace," that a company that serves customers better deserves their business more. The logic might work were all things equal, but they're not. One hitch often glossed over is that many municipal administrations are do gung-ho for "economic development" that they defer local taxes and disproportionately subsidize new projects as opposed to reinvesting in existing businesses and infrastructure, according to an exhaustive analysis of "mega retail" chains by Edward Shils, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "Many of the development packages provide that a new 'Big Box' will be able to retain all sales taxes collected for a given number of years in order to help finance the construction and debt costs of the new facility," Shils stated in a 1997 report. "When this happens, the local government and the school districts which depend on sales and real estate tax revenues, find themselves in desperate financial condition since the small retailers which have been displaced are not providing revenues and sales tax to the schools and property and real estate taxes to the community."


The median income of a Wal-Mart employee stands at around $12,000 a year, less than half the national median.


Not only are the profits winging off to Bentonville, but the labor that earns them isn't even building up a healthy tax base for the local community. Various economic impact studies obtained for this story have found that, for every Wal-Mart hire in a new town, it destroys about 1.5 jobs at competing businesses. Further, per its standing policy that a "full-time" job is a 28-hour work-week, the median income of a Wal-Mart employee stands at around $12,000 a year, less than half the national median, according to the National Labor Committee. Even should workers seek redress, Wal-Mart yields so much clout that the company can simply change the rules of the game. More than 200 major corporations, at the retailer's bidding, have opened offices in Bentonville to better "service the account."

Recently, when meat cutters at its Jacksonville, Texas Supercenter voted to join the national union, the company -- whose view of labor mirrors that of J.P. Morgan -- went to meat vendor IBP and demanded "case ready" meat, i.e. cut and packaged before shipping, thus circumventing meat cutters across all of its Supercenters.
For Wall Street, all this reads as "efficiency," something its denizens slaver over. At Main Street level, however, a Genesis effect is happening, wherein for all the gee-whiz buzz over big boxes, commerce is bulldozed until cities are transmuted into mere colonies of mega corporations. Consumers might live a few cents cheaper in the short run, but as Stone wrote after his first study in 1988, "The money a Wal-Mart drains from the community won't come back; it isn't in the hands of local people who might invest it back into the community. Then you lose a sense of community loyalty, that small town atmosphere, and you are in danger of becoming a bedroom community. You don't have business and civic leaders, you have transient managers."
If Wal-Mart's labor policies seem regressive, the longer-term worst-case scenario may be even more anachronistic: communities whose fortunes are dangerously dependent on a single corporate entity, owing their souls, as it were, to the "company store."

I only find the diminshment of wages in a particular craft and net reduction in jobs ... well plus the power they hold to be the problem.

Great post. Do you have a link?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I can't believe most of you think Wal Mart is *bad* for America. You should be ASHAMED of yourselves for not paying attention in economics class. Good god, people, Wal Mart provides decent goods at dirt cheap prices. What does that REALLY mean? It means that the average joe can afford to buy MORE STUFF than they otherwise could, which in turn means that the STANDARD OF LIVING for the poorest among us is INCREASED.

Wal Mart is one of the best things to EVER happen to this country.

Jason

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.

Roger that. There are more important things than buying more stuff.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well, Bowfinger, since your entire ridiculous statement was based on Red Herrings and BS buzzwords, I don't see that he's that far out of line. Your assertion that Wal Mart destroys good paying jobs is utterly ridiculous at best. Like the slackers at the Grocery Stores in California you obviously think EVERY job deserves a high wage even when it's simple, unskilled labor, a premise which, if enacted, would drive ALL of us into bankruptcy.

There's a damn good reason why simple, manual labor jobs don't make $50,000 a year: THEY DON'T DESERVE TO. It's a simple supply and demand issue. How many people out there can learn to run a cash register or stock shelves in a short amount of time? WAY over 90% of us can, and *that* is the reason why those jobs pay very little. Look at something more skilled, like say, a Network Systems Engineer who designs LAN/WAN systems and earns $60,000 a year or more and then try to replace that person quickly and easily. You can't do it, and why? Because there are fewer people with those skills, and so the value of the labor is increased. If people want to get good paying jobs then they need to get their butts out of the chair and get some freaking skills! LEARN something that someone will pay you a good wage to do! Don't demand ridiculous labor for monkey-work! Good god, man! You bet your ass it's hard to make ends meet on those unskilled jobs, and it SHOULD be! Maybe that's a little incentive for people to get some education and improve THEIR OWN lives! And frankly, if you can't muster the ambition to do something about your situation, I have no pity for you AT ALL. You can sit there and sink into the filth until you rot to death in it, I *DON'T* care. I will NOT help those who refuse to help themselves.

Jason

That is a phony argument. Nobody said Walmart employees should be paid $50,000. The average Walmart workers makes $12,000.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Try this on for size, Corn-

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I may have exaggerated, but they're definitely one of the major reasons for offshoring...

If Wal-Mart suddenly folded out of sheer nobility towards the lost American jobs, 50 new Wal-Marts would spring up in its place. The shipping of jobs overseas is a globalization problem...not a Wal-Mart problem. Eventually any job that can be will be shipped overseas from Wal-Mart to Grandma's Cookie Hut. Any other scenario and you're talking about massive inflation as costs and, correspondingly, incomes skyrocket.

The solution is not to bash Wal-Mart, it's to think more deeply about this issue and figure out how to use globalization to our benefit.

Wal-Mart aggravates globalization. Globalization is good for China and wealthy Americans. It is bad for American workers. Massive inflation is another phony argument. We can control inflation without impoverishing the middle class. Falling wages hurts more than inflation.

 

[Ldir]

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...

5 stars! Well said.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: 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

Social responsibility. What a quaint idea. Sam will never amount to anything. He needs to learn it is all about greed. Looking out for #1. Show me the money.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Try this on for size, Corn-

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I may have exaggerated, but they're definitely one of the major reasons for offshoring...

If Wal-Mart suddenly folded out of sheer nobility towards the lost American jobs, 50 new Wal-Marts would spring up in its place. The shipping of jobs overseas is a globalization problem...not a Wal-Mart problem. Eventually any job that can be will be shipped overseas from Wal-Mart to Grandma's Cookie Hut. Any other scenario and you're talking about massive inflation as costs and, correspondingly, incomes skyrocket.

The solution is not to bash Wal-Mart, it's to think more deeply about this issue and figure out how to use globalization to our benefit.

Wal-Mart aggravates globalization. Globalization is good for China and wealthy Americans. It is bad for American workers. Massive inflation is another phony argument. We can control inflation without impoverishing the middle class. Falling wages hurts more than inflation.

"Falling wages hurts more than inflation". But But but , wages are rising, just ask CAD.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well here's a novel idea: Why don't we institute *real* economic Freedom and see what happens!

I'm really sick to death of all this gloom-and-doom fearmongering about "the destruction of the middle class" crap that ends up serving no other function than to justify why some people should have the right to steal the property of other people "for the greater good."

Jason

Great idea. Here's a better one. You take your HappyLand idea and try it yourself first, somewhere else, where the rest of us don't have to suffer the consequences. Then get back to us in a few years, let us know how it went.

Most people don't want "*real* economic Freedom." Unrestrained economic freedom mostly means the people with the most wealth get to set the rules to give themselves even greater wealth ... at the expense of everyone else. Unrestrained economic freedom inexorably leads to "the destruction of the middle class" and a return to the bad old days of lords and serfs. That's because for every wealthy person like Sam Walton who recognized and respected the source of his success, you have a hundred leeches like the Walton heirs who only know how to take more, more, more.

This is completely contrary to the ideals that formed this country. Here in the civilized world, we have an agreement, a social pact. We enjoy the services and support and infrastructure provided for the common benefit of all Americans. In turn, we collectively give the dollars to fund these services.

That's right, we give the dollars. They are NOT taken. You get to choose. It is an optional system. If you decide you receive less value than you pay, you are quite welcome to haul your whiny butt to another country providing an environment better suited to your whims.

The problem is you don't want to leave. You are selfish. You are greedy. You are comfortable here. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You don't want to change. You want all the opportunities and conveniences and quality of life offered in the US -- indeed you demand it -- but you don't want to pay your fair share. You want someone else to foot the bill. You refuse to recognize what you take from the system, how the system is the only reason you had the opportunity to get where you are. In short, you're a wanna-be leech and you have my sincere contempt.



I know you didn't read the thread. Here's something else you've apparently never read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ...

We the People - the People, not the coporations.

promote the general welfare - not the welfare of the elite few, the general welfare.

Nothing there about unlimited wealth. Nothing about the right to take as much as you can get away with. Nothing about an individual's right to lie and cheat and steal his way to riches. Nothing suggesting it's OK to turn the U.S. into a third world country so corporations can gain an extra half-point of margin.

I am sick to death of selfish SOBs worshipping at the alter of greed, continually whining about how this country is all about unfettered capitalism. It wasn't and still isn't, but it may someday be if the ultra-wealthy can continue duping the greedy sheep into believing they can have mansions and personal jets and 20 year old supermodels on their arms too, someday, if only they work a little harder to put more money in the shareholders' pockets today. It is a delusion.

Like all good things, too much capitalism is bad for us.

Someone listed the most affluent countries under another topic. All have extensive social infrastructure. Dragon's idea has been tried. It does not work.

Is there anything in the US Constitution about capitalism? Is there anything that says companies have a right to make unlimited money without regulation? Is there anything about business rights at all?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,

An excellent post!

I agree.

Dragon- There are places on earth that do things closer to your way than than Bo's.
They don?t have unions.
They don?t have any welfare system.
They don?t have social security.
They spend next to nothing on public infrastructure.
They have no public schools.
They have no workers protections.
They have no anti-trust laws.

And every one of them underdeveloped third world sh!t holes your "freedom" self would'nt be caught dead in. Please travel to Angola, Brazil, and a hundred other hell holes where they have rich elite as a fractional percentage living on the backs of the people who do the work. And you'll see why western coutries (or as you'd say soclialistic) are so-called civilized.

As far as you're accounting "methods" where you believe trade deficts ar'nt bad I think you better let your spouse handle the checkbook when you grow up because being in the red is a negative even to a ten year old with a lemonaid stand.

Excellent post.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,

An excellent post!

I agree.

Dragon- There are places on earth that do things closer to your way than than Bo's.
They don?t have unions.
They don?t have any welfare system.
They don?t have social security.
They spend next to nothing on public infrastructure.
They have no public schools.
They have no workers protections.
They have no anti-trust laws.

And every one of them underdeveloped third world sh!t holes your "freedom" self would'nt be caught dead in. Please travel to Angola, Brazil, and a hundred other hell holes where they have rich elite as a fractional percentage living on the backs of the people who do the work. And you'll see why western coutries (or as you'd say soclialistic) are so-called civilized.

As far as you're accounting "methods" where you believe trade deficts ar'nt bad I think you better let your spouse handle the checkbook when you grow up because being in the red is a negative even to a ten year old with a lemonaid stand.

Excellent post.

You guys are bringing tears to my eyes. Maybe just maybe there is still hope or we'll just become another China.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Try this on for size, Corn-

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

I may have exaggerated, but they're definitely one of the major reasons for offshoring...

If Wal-Mart suddenly folded out of sheer nobility towards the lost American jobs, 50 new Wal-Marts would spring up in its place. The shipping of jobs overseas is a globalization problem...not a Wal-Mart problem. Eventually any job that can be will be shipped overseas from Wal-Mart to Grandma's Cookie Hut. Any other scenario and you're talking about massive inflation as costs and, correspondingly, incomes skyrocket.

The solution is not to bash Wal-Mart, it's to think more deeply about this issue and figure out how to use globalization to our benefit.

Wal-Mart aggravates globalization. Globalization is good for China and wealthy Americans. It is bad for American workers. Massive inflation is another phony argument. We can control inflation without impoverishing the middle class. Falling wages hurts more than inflation.

"Falling wages hurts more than inflation". But But but , wages are rising, just ask CAD.

Not if we keep globalizing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,

An excellent post!

I agree.

Dragon- There are places on earth that do things closer to your way than than Bo's.
They don?t have unions.
They don?t have any welfare system.
They don?t have social security.
They spend next to nothing on public infrastructure.
They have no public schools.
They have no workers protections.
They have no anti-trust laws.

And every one of them underdeveloped third world sh!t holes your "freedom" self would'nt be caught dead in. Please travel to Angola, Brazil, and a hundred other hell holes where they have rich elite as a fractional percentage living on the backs of the people who do the work. And you'll see why western coutries (or as you'd say soclialistic) are so-called civilized.

As far as you're accounting "methods" where you believe trade deficts ar'nt bad I think you better let your spouse handle the checkbook when you grow up because being in the red is a negative even to a ten year old with a lemonaid stand.

Excellent post.

You guys are bringing tears to my eyes. Maybe just maybe there is still hope or we'll just become another China.

Not China, they're getting too many good manufacturing jobs. Their star is rising.

No, if the cheap-labor conservatives get their way, I think we're looking more like another Mexico, the rural parts where they don't have all the American factories. It will take a few years, but that's our direction today.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Bowfinger,

An excellent post!

I agree.

Dragon- There are places on earth that do things closer to your way than than Bo's.
They don?t have unions.
They don?t have any welfare system.
They don?t have social security.
They spend next to nothing on public infrastructure.
They have no public schools.
They have no workers protections.
They have no anti-trust laws.

And every one of them underdeveloped third world sh!t holes your "freedom" self would'nt be caught dead in. Please travel to Angola, Brazil, and a hundred other hell holes where they have rich elite as a fractional percentage living on the backs of the people who do the work. And you'll see why western coutries (or as you'd say soclialistic) are so-called civilized.

As far as you're accounting "methods" where you believe trade deficts ar'nt bad I think you better let your spouse handle the checkbook when you grow up because being in the red is a negative even to a ten year old with a lemonaid stand.

Excellent post.

You guys are bringing tears to my eyes. Maybe just maybe there is still hope or we'll just become another China.

Not China, they're getting too many good manufacturing jobs. Their star is rising.

No, if the cheap-labor conservatives get their way, I think we're looking more like another Mexico, the rural parts where they don't have all the American factories. It will take a few years, but that's our direction today.

True, they are Industralizing like America was early last Century.

"I think we're looking more like another Mexico, the rural parts"

Just take a ride through the decimated Towns where every Factory and decent jobs have gone overseas, they are quickly becoming slums and ghost towns that not even Walmart can save them.

Funny, this keeps up Walmart won't even be able to survive because so many of the folks will lose jobs:

Walmart is like a snake eating it's own tail and working it's way back to it's head.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
[ ... ]
Funny, this keeps up Walmart won't even be able to survive because so many of the folks will lose jobs:

Walmart is like a snake eating it's own tail and working it's way back to it's head.

I like that image. It keeps getting fatter and fatter even as it's killing itself.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
[ ... ]
Funny, this keeps up Walmart won't even be able to survive because so many of the folks will lose jobs:

Walmart is like a snake eating it's own tail and working it's way back to it's head.

I like that image. It keeps getting fatter and fatter even as it's killing itself.

Looking at the big picture, this is true. As Walmart moves [their] manufacturing from one low cost provider to the next, this will happen. No doubt that when Walmart goes to a country and has them produce goods, it is good for that country. But when the wages go up there, Walmart moves out, which leaves them devistated as well. If Walmart is bent on having lower prices, the question is how long can they sustain it? Probably for quite awhile, but eventually they will run into their own problems.

In the meantime millions of American's love to shop there, so their legacy will continue to live on for quite some time.

 

[LunarRay]

Lidr,

Great post. Do you have a link?

I thought I did include the link.. I remember CAD and I discussing the location and topic.. now I can't find it.. but, bet CAD has the link.. I will try to relocate it..

this contains the quote..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Lidr,

Great post. Do you have a link?

I thought I did include the link.. I remember CAD and I discussing the location and topic.. now I can't find it.. but, bet CAD has the link.. I will try to relocate it..

this contains the quote..

I don't know what you are searching for.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Lidr,

Great post. Do you have a link?

I thought I did include the link.. I remember CAD and I discussing the location and topic.. now I can't find it.. but, bet CAD has the link.. I will try to relocate it..

this contains the quote..

I don't know what you are searching for.

CkG

I edited in the link... the issue about walmart in that Iowa town we spoke of..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Lidr,

Great post. Do you have a link?

I thought I did include the link.. I remember CAD and I discussing the location and topic.. now I can't find it.. but, bet CAD has the link.. I will try to relocate it..

this contains the quote..

I don't know what you are searching for.

CkG

I edited in the link... the issue about walmart in that Iowa town we spoke of..

 

[dirtboy]

Why is Walmart the only target here?

When Home Depot moved in not far from here, it put all the smaller stores out of business. Their wages are low, they don't bring people in for 40 hours a week and I don't believe they pay for health insurance.

How about Best Buy? Last time I was there I noticed that many of their products were of Korean brands. Low cost Korean labor = cheap electronics. Yet I hear nobody complaining about how many small businesses are losing out there.

The Walmart test can be applied to any store. Any time a bigger retailer that buys in bulk moves in, the small store loses out.

Same with computer parts. How many AT members buy off the Internet instead of supporting their local small businesses? Yet nobody complains when they place an order with Buy.com, Newegg or Mwave.