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

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lalakai
Cast my vote: No.

Wal Mart approached our city and requested to build; the issue was so hotly contested that it was actually voted on. Majority of our township said "no". So Wal mart went just across the township line, donated 50k to that township, and got permission. Because we have an agreement for water and sewage issues with that township, our existing treatment plant is at capacity (due to influx from Wal mart). So we are beginning to design expanded treatment plant, something that we hadn't planned on doing for another 5 years. We had been ranked in the top "100 small towns to live in" but i think we've lost that distinction. I will shop local as much as possible but can probably count the times i've been in walmart, on both hands (even with the normal number of fingers on each hand ). I do not like walmart, I will not support walmart, and show it by shopping at the local stores.

Sounds like your city did not choose wisely.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No No No, you heard the experts here, they are paying so much Taxes on that 103 Billion that they are "hurting". Also all the money they are "Trickling" down into the Economy.

Who said people pay taxes on their net worth? Please provide a link.

Don't worry Dave, assests and taxation of assets have been added to the list of things you don't understand.

Well you do pay property tax here in california on the value of assets (fixed) used in business as well as real property.. but, other than that I suppose only estate tax would count but, then one would be gone and the heirs would get the leavings.

 

[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.

 

[skylark]

monopolizing is bad. the waltons have completely destroyed the competition in canada (the bay, eaton, k-mart, zellers). the only uncharted territory is supermarkets.

its odd that walmart attracts plenty of business. it is so much busier than all the canadian-owned stores, locally - from my personal impression.

i've never seen so many people raid the food section of walmart.

ie: east indian buying 10-15 jugs of milk in one sitting.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: skylark
monopolizing is bad. the waltons have completely destroyed the competition in canada (the bay, eaton, k-mart, zellers). the only uncharted territory is supermarkets.

its odd that walmart attracts plenty of business. it is so much busier than all the canadian-owned stores, locally - from my personal impression.

i've never seen so many people raid the food section of walmart.

ie: east indian buying 10-15 jugs of milk in one sitting.

Having all eggs in one basket is never a good thing. At some point it will come back to bite everyone.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: rudder

In order for walmart to offer those low prices they put hard demands on suppliers. This forces suppliers to either cut wages or to move production where it is cheaper. Now the person who can get the stuff for less at walmart has to buy it with their unemployment checks.

So this is bad when Walmart does it, but it's good when labor unions do it?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain
You know what's amazing? The fact that so many people claim to support the American Dream but hate its results.

Sorry, Wal-Mart is not an example of the American Dream. It is a perversion of the American Dream.

For the sake of a simple example, let's assume the American Dream is to become a millionaire.

It's not. It's to be given the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded more if you work harder than others. Maybe you should learn where Walmart came from (and, for that matter, Home Depot). Both those companies are the embodiment of the American Dream.

According to Forbes, in 2002 the five heirs to the Walton fortune were worth $103 Billion. Let that sink in for a moment . . . that's 103 thousand million dollars. That is a tenth of a trillion dollars. That is up to 102,995 Americans who were denied the American Dream because Wal-Mart took it from them.

Oh, they "took" someone else's money? Too bad the other person freely chose to give Walmart that money because Walmart was giving them the best value. There aren't any "do-overs" in real life.

Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but the principle holds. Wal-Mart's incomprehensible profits didn't just materialize out of thin air. One way or another, it came out of the pockets of Americans.

Americans who freely chose to give that money to Walmart.

It came from tens of thousands of potential business owners who could not compete with Wal-Mart.

Because they couldn't provide what the customers wanted. Do you really support keeping a business around even though it's not competitive with the other options? Are you really against the best option being available to the consumer? Are you going to require that all toys must cost more than $5 because of this, just like we have minimum wages? Are you going to require that all computers cost more than $1000? Is that really good for America?

It came from countless factory workers who became unemployed because Wal-Mart forced their former employers to move their factories overseas.

How did Walmart force them to do that? Did they hold a gun to the head of the company's owners and tell them to move the factory overseas?

Why? Because Wal-Mart wanted to lower the retail price of its goods, but it was NOT willing to make less money.

No really, it's their blood, sweat, and tears.

That $5 you saved on those cheap shoes didn't come out of the 103,000 million dollars in the Waltons' pockets. It came out of the pocket of a former factory worker or factory owner.

So what? He didn't work his ass off enough to make the shoes cheaper, so why should I work my ass off more to pay him extra? Are you saying that I should be FORCED to buy the MORE EXPENSIVE pair of shoes?

When you shop at Wal-Mart, you're helping put Americans out of work. Sure, a fraction of those unemployed will get "lucky" and get crappy jobs at Wal-Mart. That's only a drop in the bucket compared to the total jobs lost.

You claim that jobs were lost, but there's no proof that jobs were actually lost because of Walmart.

It's clear, however, that you are vigorously opposed to freedom of choice on the part of the producer, consumer, and retailer. If they want to spend their money where it gets them the best value, why should we forbid them?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

He who purchases labor determines, generally, the level of ones capability. In a constant world this is easy. In a dynamic and technical world the capability of one today diminishes tomorrow without training.. no argument from me. The salient issue, however, remains to be, IMO, the JOB. All work performed by an adult on a full time basis ought to provide the basic level of survival.. shelter, food and the like without need to be on food stamps or welfare. Military pay for enlisted junior grade folks, for instance, almost makes it with the BOQ etc add ons.. A wage of $6.50 an hour is fine for a high school student or even a college student living at home or on campus.. but, it is not a livable wage.. On average, I'd say no full time adult job should be worth less than 12$ an hour.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

He who purchases labor determines, generally, the level of ones capability. In a constant world this is easy. In a dynamic and technical world the capability of one today diminishes tomorrow without training.. no argument from me. The salient issue, however, remains to be, IMO, the JOB. All work performed by an adult on a full time basis ought to provide the basic level of survival.. shelter, food and the like without need to be on food stamps or welfare. Military pay for enlisted junior grade folks, for instance, almost makes it with the BOQ etc add ons.. A wage of $6.50 an hour is fine for a high school student or even a college student living at home or on campus.. but, it is not a livable wage.. On average, I'd say no full time adult job should be worth less than 12$ an hour.

Without the right to a life through work, or to homestead land and fully opt out, we are not really free. We live in a slavery that excludes many so others will work for less. Most people don't care till it happens to them. It's basically why we're swine and root for jobs like pigs. The resume is pig stool with perfume.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

Without the right to a life through work, or to homestead land and fully opt out, we are not really free. We live in a slavery that excludes many so others will work for less. Most people don't care till it happens to them. It's basically why we're swine and root for jobs like pigs. The resume is pig stool with perfume.

We once could raise a middle class family on the income of 'Dad' alone. Mom would stay home and raise the kids. This provided society with an influx of reasonably stable people. Today this is not the case. Starting in the '70s kids more and more were left without parental influence to guide and nurture them. The rate of divorce and all the anti social behavior issues started to increase. Today, in two earner households we turn out to society psychologically marginal kids who perpetuate this condition to the point where it has become the norm. If you want to rid society of many ills you start with the family. You insure there is parental control of the kids by insuring that that family can exist on a single salary. Maybe not in the penthouse suite on fillet and caviar but, at least all members can have three hots and a cot. Walmart, or any place of employment that does not provide a livable wage for the locale it exists in should be boycotted. Stores that do should be supported. Ask not what you can do for Walmart. Ask Walmart what it can do for America.

edit to add an 'e'

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

He who purchases labor determines, generally, the level of ones capability. In a constant world this is easy. In a dynamic and technical world the capability of one today diminishes tomorrow without training.. no argument from me. The salient issue, however, remains to be, IMO, the JOB. All work performed by an adult on a full time basis ought to provide the basic level of survival.. shelter, food and the like without need to be on food stamps or welfare. Military pay for enlisted junior grade folks, for instance, almost makes it with the BOQ etc add ons.. A wage of $6.50 an hour is fine for a high school student or even a college student living at home or on campus.. but, it is not a livable wage.. On average, I'd say no full time adult job should be worth less than 12$ an hour.

So in other words, you do support a hidden social tax on consumer goods and services in order to support those folks in society who are unwilling to educate themselves or develop their skills? Personally, if I was a business owner I'd only hire college students and pay them $10 an hour rather than take some 33 year old barely literate high-school dropout and pay him $12.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From UltraQuiet, in refernce to WalMart wages being higher-

Without question. As do all the other businesses that relocate or are attracted by Wal-Mart either in the out-parcels or strip malls that always accompany a new Wal-Mart.

It seems to me that if you're prepared to make a statement that strong, that you'd best be prepared to back it up. That might be difficult, considering it's contrary to everything I've ever read on the subject...

And it's obviously not true in the case of California Grocers, whose union labor renders them non-competitive with grocery prices at WalMart Supercenters, at least according to the management of Albertsons, Vons, et al...

WalMart also actively exploits the welfare system, too, maintaining a website to help their low-pay employees obtain services at no/reduced cost, apply for earned income credits on their taxes... very few WalMart employees are fulltime, either, meaning that Walmart pays and their laid off employees receive much lower unemployment insurance. Forget pensions, and their health insurance plan requires large employee contributions, making it out of reach for many of their employees...

Compassionate Conservatism at its best, from 4 of the 10 wealthiest Americans, the Walton heirs...

First I will tell you that it doesn't always go as you say. Here in the town I live in - we recently(last couple of years) built a Super Walmart to replace the plain old Walmart. They built it in a somewhat undeveloped area - now there isn't hardly a free piece of commercial property near it. Menards already existed right across from it but we've added a Home Depot, a Gas station, a new bank, a Super Target, a car wash or two, Radio Shack, Kohls, IHOP, Hollywood video,Chilis, a new tire store just popped up, and just the other day a HUGE NEW sporting goods store opened it's doors. Now I know I'm missing a ton of smaller little shops like a craft store and the like but the point is that they all didn't exist just a few years ago. Infact there were only about 3-4 businesses in the area 3 years ago. The only "casualty" was a locally owned TV/appliance store who went under...but that was mainly their own fault from what I've heard and it wasn't in that area of town. Now Ankeny is about 35K people ATM. I quite enjoy having that amount of retail close by and that is only in one little section of town.

Now as to your contention that Walmart is bad for Albertson's and the others - I think you identified the problem they have. Care to guess what it is? What rendered them "non-competitive"?

Oh, and BTW - the Walton heirs while part of the cause of this - it wasn't directly them. After Sammy croaked - the company wasn't run by the family although they have a lot of stake in the company. Sam believed in selling American made products and up until he died - those that ran the corporation honored his wishes. Afterwards however - the almighty dollar kicked in as king. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it did alter their business style and product lines a bit. But like I said - although it isn't directly the fault of the heirs - they could have forced the company to run the way Sam wanted it to - and for that they get my scorn as they now can just kick back and live off of their share of the company.
Walmart has done alot of good things for America, but they aren't "perfect" for society. They are a business - businesses exist to provide goods/services and make money - I don't blame them for that.

CkG

Go back in 8 years and find a ghost of a shopping center, they're all over the place here. The only thing left standing is the Wal-Mart, even McDonalds leaves the location.

Actually this may be true in some places. I remember in one part of town two malls practically died and the walmart closed down and went to another part of town.

What's funnier is that in another part of the city, this walmart closed and tore down their building only to reopen in the exact same spot, but with a different orientation to the building. WTF?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

We once could raise a middle class family on the income of 'Dad' alone. Mom would stay home and raise the kids.

Of course that was before the women's liberation movement and such. People can still live on one income. Look back at the life that the average middle class person had. They didn't have a huge house or two $50,000 automobiles that are so common now.

Women now choose to work over staying home because they want more money to afford the luxeries they desire. Is this the fault of companies or the fault of the consumer for wanting more and more and more and more.

People can be happy one one income, it's just that they choose not to.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

He who purchases labor determines, generally, the level of ones capability. In a constant world this is easy. In a dynamic and technical world the capability of one today diminishes tomorrow without training.. no argument from me. The salient issue, however, remains to be, IMO, the JOB. All work performed by an adult on a full time basis ought to provide the basic level of survival.. shelter, food and the like without need to be on food stamps or welfare. Military pay for enlisted junior grade folks, for instance, almost makes it with the BOQ etc add ons.. A wage of $6.50 an hour is fine for a high school student or even a college student living at home or on campus.. but, it is not a livable wage.. On average, I'd say no full time adult job should be worth less than 12$ an hour.

So in other words, you do support a hidden social tax on consumer goods and services in order to support those folks in society who are unwilling to educate themselves or develop their skills? Personally, if I was a business owner I'd only hire college students and pay them $10 an hour rather than take some 33 year old barely literate high-school dropout and pay him $12.

I figure if someone is able to work they should work at their functional capabilities.. some folks must for a time be underemployed as a walmarter, but, the quest should be to be employed at their capabilities. Those folks who don't want to put forth any effort beyond the hard work in an unskilled function should be afforded the basics from their efforts.. three hots and a cot.. and a roof..
The cost of goods and services sold in the US cannot provide this when competition from abroad make those companies affected by this 'competition' depend on a labor structure that mandates a lower wage while doing little to reduce the price the consumer pays..
I'd rather hire the individual who wishes to become more than she currently is. Formal education is a factor in some cases but, grabbing on to the tigers tail and not letting go is more important.. IMO.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: LunarRay

We once could raise a middle class family on the income of 'Dad' alone. Mom would stay home and raise the kids.

Of course that was before the women's liberation movement and such. People can still live on one income. Look back at the life that the average middle class person had. They didn't have a huge house or two $50,000 automobiles that are so common now.

Women now choose to work over staying home because they want more money to afford the luxeries they desire. Is this the fault of companies or the fault of the consumer for wanting more and more and more and more.

People can be happy one one income, it's just that they choose not to.

Exactly... they have been environmentally and genetically altered to perpetuated this need.. so the process must be reversed or not depending on what we want as a society to become... fine by me either way.. I'll not be here when 'push comes to shove'
The auto's back then cost about 1/4 a years salary at middle class wages.. maybe lower middle.. but now they are maybe 1/4 of upper middle.. and the tax rate is lower so maybe uncle sam is funding the coffers of business .. whatever.. We want luxury not family.. I guess.
As Moonbeam said.. we are pigs... snorting at the trough...

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We want luxury not family..

Today that is what people want. What future generations will want and value is unknown.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: LunarRay

This means, at least to me, that there are other rights not explicitly stated above but, are such that they derive their reality from the foundational three. The ability to work full time at the level of our capability and from such work derive at least the basic notion of the quoted holdings upon which we sought to provide to all citizens.

My point exactly. These people would deny the walmart employees the ability to work. Who judges the level of your capability, btw? Who is supposed to earn money in order to give money to people who want more but don't want to work for it?

He who purchases labor determines, generally, the level of ones capability. In a constant world this is easy. In a dynamic and technical world the capability of one today diminishes tomorrow without training.. no argument from me. The salient issue, however, remains to be, IMO, the JOB. All work performed by an adult on a full time basis ought to provide the basic level of survival.. shelter, food and the like without need to be on food stamps or welfare. Military pay for enlisted junior grade folks, for instance, almost makes it with the BOQ etc add ons.. A wage of $6.50 an hour is fine for a high school student or even a college student living at home or on campus.. but, it is not a livable wage.. On average, I'd say no full time adult job should be worth less than 12$ an hour.

So in other words, you do support a hidden social tax on consumer goods and services in order to support those folks in society who are unwilling to educate themselves or develop their skills? Personally, if I was a business owner I'd only hire college students and pay them $10 an hour rather than take some 33 year old barely literate high-school dropout and pay him $12.

I figure if someone is able to work they should work at their functional capabilities.. some folks must for a time be underemployed as a walmarter, but, the quest should be to be employed at their capabilities. Those folks who don't want to put forth any effort beyond the hard work in an unskilled function should be afforded the basics from their efforts.. three hots and a cot.. and a roof..
The cost of goods and services sold in the US cannot provide this when competition from abroad make those companies affected by this 'competition' depend on a labor structure that mandates a lower wage while doing little to reduce the price the consumer pays..
I'd rather hire the individual who wishes to become more than she currently is. Formal education is a factor in some cases but, grabbing on to the tigers tail and not letting go is more important.. IMO.

OK so the basics...basically an efficiency apartment. Why should they only have to work 40 hours per week to do this? Why should a college student do the same job, but have to work 2x as much to make the same money? I'm buying slightly into the "living wage" thing, but man it needs to be a HARD life. Just handing out $24K/40 hour a week jobs to any schlep that walks in off the street is just wrong, IMHO. Our country wasn't built on handouts, it was built on hard work.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: LunarRay

We once could raise a middle class family on the income of 'Dad' alone. Mom would stay home and raise the kids.

Of course that was before the women's liberation movement and such. People can still live on one income. Look back at the life that the average middle class person had. They didn't have a huge house or two $50,000 automobiles that are so common now.

Women now choose to work over staying home because they want more money to afford the luxeries they desire. Is this the fault of companies or the fault of the consumer for wanting more and more and more and more.

People can be happy one one income, it's just that they choose not to.

Exactly... they have been environmentally and genetically altered to perpetuated this need.. so the process must be reversed or not depending on what we want as a society to become... fine by me either way.. I'll not be here when 'push comes to shove'
The auto's back then cost about 1/4 a years salary at middle class wages.. maybe lower middle.. but now they are maybe 1/4 of upper middle.. and the tax rate is lower so maybe uncle sam is funding the coffers of business .. whatever.. We want luxury not family.. I guess.
As Moonbeam said.. we are pigs... snorting at the trough...

Moonbeam can speak for himself. I'm a 1950's family. You can have Ward and June Cleaver (although June wears sweat pants, and tells you to help out with the dishes), but you've got to make sacrifices. And they are the most important sacrifices you can make...providing your children with a mom in the home 24x7 to raise kids right. Whatever your version of "right" is, I guarantee you it's gonna be better than anything they learn in daycare, or in the back of the SUV watching Ice Age on the way there and back (unless it's moonbeam's version. Then they are probably better off being robots). Just as many liberals running around with this luxury "me first" lifestyle as conservatives, I promise you.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is your Uncle Moonbeam saying nothing but Oink.

 

[LunarRay]

alchemize,

OK so the basics...basically an efficiency apartment. Why should they only have to work 40 hours per week to do this? Why should a college student do the same job, but have to work 2x as much to make the same money? I'm buying slightly into the "living wage" thing, but man it needs to be a HARD life. Just handing out $24K/40 hour a week jobs to any schlep that walks in off the street is just wrong, IMHO. Our country wasn't built on handouts, it was built on hard work.

The college student can work the same job for the same pay but, I'd think a full time hard working person wouldn't have the time nor energy to tend to the academic objective which ought to be primary in her mind. I'm thinking McJob for the student.. she lives at home or in a dorm. This is the student from the average home.. not like me who had everything handed to him on a silver platter.. (Or what ever that platter was that held the mail)...

Hard work is like what ever it is.. some is not physically hard but, may be mentally hard.. draining.. maybe like... heck.. I don't know what you'd think is hard.. Construction Laborer makes (Davis Bacon) 25$ per hour..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain
You know what's amazing? The fact that so many people claim to support the American Dream but hate its results.

Sorry, Wal-Mart is not an example of the American Dream. It is a perversion of the American Dream.

For the sake of a simple example, let's assume the American Dream is to become a millionaire.

It's not. It's to be given the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded more if you work harder than others. Maybe you should learn where Walmart came from (and, for that matter, Home Depot). Both those companies are the embodiment of the American Dream.

How presumptuous of you to declare that your American dream is the American dream. But even if we adopt your one true definition, Wal-Mart hurts it more than it helps. There are untold thousands of factory workers and small business owners who wanted to work harder and be rewarded more. Now, thanks to Wal-Mart, they're either unemployed or they're working harder and being rewarded less in some mediocre service sector job, maybe working at Wal-Mart.

According to Forbes, in 2002 the five heirs to the Walton fortune were worth $103 Billion. Let that sink in for a moment . . . that's 103 thousand million dollars. That is a tenth of a trillion dollars. That is up to 102,995 Americans who were denied the American Dream because Wal-Mart took it from them.

Oh, they "took" someone else's money? Too bad the other person freely chose to give Walmart that money because Walmart was giving them the best value. There aren't any "do-overs" in real life.

Why don't you read it again, champ. I didn't say Wal-Mart took their money, I said it took their American Dream. And no, they didn't "freely choose" to sacrifice their dream to Wal-Mart.

Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but the principle holds. Wal-Mart's incomprehensible profits didn't just materialize out of thin air. One way or another, it came out of the pockets of Americans.

Americans who freely chose to give that money to Walmart.

Your point? First, your statement isn't wholly true -- many people lack practical alternatives to Wal-Mart because it's driven competing businesses out of the area and/or reduced some people's earnings to the point where Wal-Mart is all they can afford. Catch-22.

More to the point, do you claim drug dealers are good for America since some Americans "freely choose" to give money to them? Didn't think so. Your claim fails for the same reason. The fact that Wal-Mart's customers are so selfish or ignorant that they make short-sighted purchasing decisions doesn't change the fact that Wal-Mart is bad for America.

It came from tens of thousands of potential business owners who could not compete with Wal-Mart.

Because they couldn't provide what the customers wanted. Do you really support keeping a business around even though it's not competitive with the other options? Are you really against the best option being available to the consumer? Are you going to require that all toys must cost more than $5 because of this, just like we have minimum wages? Are you going to require that all computers cost more than $1000? Is that really good for America?

Yes.

Oh, you probably need an explanation, too. I expect to provide a fair and reasonable level playing field where a monster business cannot drive smaller companies out of business simply due to its size. Others here have documented the many ways Wal-Mart competes unfairly, putting honest local businesses at a fatal disadvantage. If that ultimately means people have to pay a few percent extra on their purchases, that's a reasonable trade-off for preserving American jobs and the American standard of living.

That Wal-Mart low price is bogus anyway. We all pay for the "great savings" through higher taxes and welfare costs. Again, that 103,000 million dollars in the Waltons' pockets didn't come out of thin air. One way or another, every dollar of it came out of our pockets -- willingly or not.

It came from countless factory workers who became unemployed because Wal-Mart forced their former employers to move their factories overseas.

How did Walmart force them to do that? Did they hold a gun to the head of the company's owners and tell them to move the factory overseas?

Yes, in a business sense. Wal-Mart tells its suppliers "you will sell to us at this price or we will buy elsewhere". Given Wal-Mart's market share, this translates to "play our game or your business is dead." Since these companies can't meet Wal-Mart's demands with American labor, they are forced to move overseas to survive.

Why? Because Wal-Mart wanted to lower the retail price of its goods, but it was NOT willing to make less money.

No really, it's their blood, sweat, and tears.

No, it isn't. It's the blood, sweat, and tears of Sam Walton, not his leeching children. (Note that Sam also had the moral fiber and the business sense to recognize the high value of Made in America. The leeches don't.) It's the blood, sweat, and tears of their suppliers and their former, now-unemployed employees. Other businesses have to choose between higher profits or lower prices. Wal-Mart has the market domination to demand both.

That $5 you saved on those cheap shoes didn't come out of the 103,000 million dollars in the Waltons' pockets. It came out of the pocket of a former factory worker or factory owner.

So what? He didn't work his ass off enough to make the shoes cheaper, so why should I work my ass off more to pay him extra? Are you saying that I should be FORCED to buy the MORE EXPENSIVE pair of shoes?

As before, your statement is both false and missing the point. He did "work his ass off", he just isn't able to feed his family on a dollar an hour. And yes, I am saying as an allegedly patriotic American, you should be willing to pay an extra $5 for a pair of shoes because it is good for America. It helps keep the American economy healthy. It helps keep people like you employed so you aren't mooching off the shrinking base of taxpayers.

When you shop at Wal-Mart, you're helping put Americans out of work. Sure, a fraction of those unemployed will get "lucky" and get crappy jobs at Wal-Mart. That's only a drop in the bucket compared to the total jobs lost.

You claim that jobs were lost, but there's no proof that jobs were actually lost because of Walmart.

Right. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

It's clear, however, that you are vigorously opposed to freedom of choice on the part of the producer, consumer, and retailer. If they want to spend their money where it gets them the best value, why should we forbid them?

It's clear, however, that you don't care about anyone but yourself. It's that kind of screw-everyone-else, me-me-me greed that is killing this country. The only difference between you and the sleaze bags in Enron's executive suite is the $3,000 suits (which they didn't buy at Wal-Mart).

 

[dmcowen674]

You're a Good American Bow. As you can see that is a shrinking population

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
alchemize,

OK so the basics...basically an efficiency apartment. Why should they only have to work 40 hours per week to do this? Why should a college student do the same job, but have to work 2x as much to make the same money? I'm buying slightly into the "living wage" thing, but man it needs to be a HARD life. Just handing out $24K/40 hour a week jobs to any schlep that walks in off the street is just wrong, IMHO. Our country wasn't built on handouts, it was built on hard work.

The college student can work the same job for the same pay but, I'd think a full time hard working person wouldn't have the time nor energy to tend to the academic objective which ought to be primary in her mind. I'm thinking McJob for the student.. she lives at home or in a dorm. This is the student from the average home.. not like me who had everything handed to him on a silver platter.. (Or what ever that platter was that held the mail)...

Hard work is like what ever it is.. some is not physically hard but, may be mentally hard.. draining.. maybe like... heck.. I don't know what you'd think is hard.. Construction Laborer makes (Davis Bacon) 25$ per hour..

Hard work to me means a) physically hard labor or b) long hours (or maybe even both). Sunup to sundown. Just like the "good ole days". College learnin ain't your style? Then workin hard is. If we're gonna apply a tax to every single good and service in the country, then we need some serious sweat equity in it to offset the impact.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're a Good American Bow. As you can see that is a shrinking population

Bowfinger you have a fan club. I assume you are joining the revolution?