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

[Bowfinger]

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

Go away, little boy. I'm not interested in rehashing half the posts in this thread just because some junior troll can't bother to read. Your red herrings and disinformation have already been addressed -- repeatedly. Your whole premise boils down to Wal-Mart is good because materialists can buy boat-loads of cheap crap there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is an extremely short-sighted and selfish view of the issue.

If there is a specific issue I raised about Wal-Mart with which you disagree, point it out and I will respond. Otherwise, if the best you can do is parrot the same specious attacks, go play. The grown-ups want to discuss serious matters.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Nice personal attacks, Bow! Now what was that you were saying about Red Herrings? And how about addressing those SPECIFIC issues I brought up? Oh, I'm sorry, that would take an adult, wouldn't it?

Jason

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Yup, but Mom and Pop are making a decent wage, most likely. How many Mom and Pops are killed by Walmart and how many Managers replace the lost Mom and Pops? How many small towns lost their Mom and Pop businesses when the outsider Walmart came in? How many local people lost their livlihood and towns lost their tax base due to Walmart?

How many poor families were able to buy more toys and clothes for their children than they could have gotten at the mom and pop stores? How many kids who wouldn't have gotten much of a Christmas now have at least a few things under the tree? How many teenagers who would have been broke because the mom and pop stores couldn't afford to hire them now have jobs that bring in a few hundred dollars a month? How many old people who were sitting at home with the bare minimum provided by the failed Socialist Security system now enjoy some semblance of purpose in life as greeters who welcome the Wal Mart shoppers and now have a few more bucks than they otherwise would?

Do you ever think about the real consequences of *anything* or do you just accept the nonsense that the Socialist Media pound into your head night after night? Good god, man, take an economics class and learn to THINK about what you blabber on about.

Jason

Wow. That's just messed up. The era of Low skill/high wage were the best times in US history. The Lower Class shrunk, Middle Class grew as did the Upper Class. Your Value judgement(based on "Skill") amounts to selling beads to an inevitable growing Lower Class.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Yup, but Mom and Pop are making a decent wage, most likely. How many Mom and Pops are killed by Walmart and how many Managers replace the lost Mom and Pops? How many small towns lost their Mom and Pop businesses when the outsider Walmart came in? How many local people lost their livlihood and towns lost their tax base due to Walmart?

How many poor families were able to buy more toys and clothes for their children than they could have gotten at the mom and pop stores? How many kids who wouldn't have gotten much of a Christmas now have at least a few things under the tree? How many teenagers who would have been broke because the mom and pop stores couldn't afford to hire them now have jobs that bring in a few hundred dollars a month? How many old people who were sitting at home with the bare minimum provided by the failed Socialist Security system now enjoy some semblance of purpose in life as greeters who welcome the Wal Mart shoppers and now have a few more bucks than they otherwise would?

Do you ever think about the real consequences of *anything* or do you just accept the nonsense that the Socialist Media pound into your head night after night? Good god, man, take an economics class and learn to THINK about what you blabber on about.

Jason

When you can demonstrate that Wal-Mart has created an overall net increase in jobs, we can discuss your questions. Until then, I'll continue to find your premise is too simplistic to be meaningful. Displacing jobs is not the same as creating jobs.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Nice personal attacks, Bow! Now what was that you were saying about Red Herrings? And how about addressing those SPECIFIC issues I brought up? Oh, I'm sorry, that would take an adult, wouldn't it?

Jason

Perhaps you should take Reading instead of your fabled Econ class. As I clearly stated, your points have been addressed earlier in the thread. I won't go back over them all just because you're too lazy to read it.

 

[Corn]

Yup, but Mom and Pop are making a decent wage, most likely. How many Mom and Pops are killed by Walmart and how many Managers replace the lost Mom and Pops? How many small towns lost their Mom and Pop businesses when the outsider Walmart came in? How many local people lost their livlihood and towns lost their tax base due to Walmart?

Why don't you provide me some hard data to back up those assertions made in the above quote. A few meaningless anecdotes is not hard data.

I live on the outer edges of suburbia where Walmart has just made their presence known. In each instance of a new Walmart (3 stores within 15 minutes of my home) stores going up, a none too insignificant increase in business, both corporate and sole properietorships sprung up in the immediate vicinity of these stores. Everything from convience stores to restaurants to other retail shops.

That's what an anecdote get's you.

I can't comment on Walmart's effect on "small town America", only what I've seen here in my slice of suburbia. But I doulbt that Walmart has had a negative impact on small business as you claim, just from seeing the proliferation of small businesses here in mega-big-box-store suburbia.

I don't believe it. Give me some numbers--large scale.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Your whole premise boils down to Wal-Mart is good because materialists can buy boat-loads of cheap crap there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is an extremely short-sighted and selfish view of the issue.

No, the point is that Wal Mart is good because it enables PEOPLE --who are MATERIAL beings with MATERIAL NEEDS-- to get more for their hard-earned dollars than they otherwise could. Why do you find this to be so bad? Is it because you desperately cling to your "materialist" buzzword without evaluating the meaning of the concept behind it?

Now as for my views being selfish, I'll gladly claim that title. Selfishness literally means "To be concerned with one's own interests," and unlike you, I find that to be a morally PROPER position to take. I take my interests to mean my well being, the well being of those I care about, including my friends and my family, and in a larger, more diffused sense, humanity at large.

When there are lots of goods available at reasonable prices, every person from the richest to the poorest benefits and the overal standard of living for EVERYONE is raised. I take my position because I give a damn about quality of life, and I see as every honest person must that the poorest among us benefit the MOST from having goods and services available at low prices.

Clearly, however, human beings, particularly the poor, aren't on your list of conerns, Bowfinger.

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Tell that to the Mom and Pops.

Funny. Across the street from my office is a "mom and pop" hardware store, liquor store, pizzeria, dry cleaner, and take out chinese food shop. All seem to be staffed by minimum, or even below, wage earners--mostly kids and immigrant employees.

Evidently mom and pop exploit cheap labor every bit as much as Walmart. Down with mom and pop!!!!

"Why don't you provide me some hard data to back up those assertions made in the above quote. A few meaningless anecdotes is not hard data."

Where did I read this quote?

 

[Corn]

When you can demonstrate that Wal-Mart has created an overall net increase in jobs, we can discuss your questions.

Why don't you first start by demonstrating that Walmart has created a net decrease in jobs first, since that is *your* assertion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Your whole premise boils down to Wal-Mart is good because materialists can buy boat-loads of cheap crap there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is an extremely short-sighted and selfish view of the issue.

No, the point is that Wal Mart is good because it enables PEOPLE --who are MATERIAL beings with MATERIAL NEEDS-- to get more for their hard-earned dollars than they otherwise could. Why do you find this to be so bad? Is it because you desperately cling to your "materialist" buzzword without evaluating the meaning of the concept behind it?

Now as for my views being selfish, I'll gladly claim that title. Selfishness literally means "To be concerned with one's own interests," and unlike you, I find that to be a morally PROPER position to take. I take my interests to mean my well being, the well being of those I care about, including my friends and my family, and in a larger, more diffused sense, humanity at large.

When there are lots of goods available at reasonable prices, every person from the richest to the poorest benefits and the overal standard of living for EVERYONE is raised. I take my position because I give a damn about quality of life, and I see as every honest person must that the poorest among us benefit the MOST from having goods and services available at low prices.

Clearly, however, human beings, particularly the poor, aren't on your list of conerns, Bowfinger.

Jason

As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is an extremely short-sighted and selfish view of the issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, Corn, Mom and Pop aren't getting rich themselves, either, certainly not in terms of being 4 of America's 10 wealthiest individuals. And they're not exactly big players in the downward pressures on wages and benefits, either...

I wouldn't detest Walmart quite so much if they still followed Sam's policies of pushing American made goods. They've pushed more jobs offshore than any other single entity, near as I can tell, and for what? So that sneakers are 50 cents cheaper but last half as long?

I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying that I'll pay a slight premium for american manufactured goods, but the whole thing has gone far enough that the made in america label is tough to come by at any price...

 

[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

 

[Corn]

Where did I read this quote?

Hey, check my edit, I said that's what an anecdote get's you.

I see pleny of assertions made, but nothing of substance to back 'em up. Lookie here:

They've pushed more jobs offshore than any other single entity, near as I can tell, and for what?

OK, prove it. How many jobs have been pushed offshore by Walmart? From where did this data come from that brought you to this conclusion? Did you compare the effect of the removal of American jobs to the likes of Target and K-Mart? Where did you get that data from?

Hey, I wouldn't be suprised to see Walmart taking away from the "general store" in small town USA purely on the basis of price. One thing is for sure though, price isn't everything. Some shop compete by specializing, other use an elevated level of service to attract customers, others still sell "high-end". None of these business are impacted by Walmart in the grand scheme.

What has Walmart done? Probably taken the business of those who are resistant to change and innovation. That's no great loss IMHO, and was ultimately inevitable.

 

[LunarRay]

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..

But, there are always case studies done in the graduate business schools that stand the critique of very knowledgeable professors, Nobel Laurette's and other leading economists. I'd suggest The Wharton School or Harvard or Stanford or University of Chicago.. I'd pick one for ya but, figure you can do that.. I'll look up a case study on Walmart and its economic impact on the nation and see what it says.
Given the size of Walmart you can't just say 'all other things being equal' cuz the dynamics are so wide spread. But, for sure one thing is constant or reasonably so and that is the money supply.. the ability to grow the economy.
I assume my password will still work.. if not ... well ... oh well..

 

[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.

 

[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...

 

[LunarRay]

Corn,
OK but, you choose the University.. of the four I mentioned.. I think I can get the data..

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

At the risk of offending modern "sensibilities", there would be *nothing* noble about Wal Mart folding voluntarily. What's noble about Wal Mart is what's noble about any small business, about any individual who gets their ass out of bed each morning and goes to work, and that is simply: They MAKE money. That's right, they PRODUCE wealth, and their existence spurs countless manufacturers and distributors and individuals all over the world to PRODUCE wealth. Every dollar's worth of wealth that is produced increases the supply of wealth available on this planet and thusly increases the standard of living for human beings. The answer isn't *LESS* consumerism, *Less* production, *LESS* success, the answer is MORE, MORE, MORE of all of these things and the liberation of humankind to pursue wealth and improvement.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

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 know, I hate to say it, but that might just be the most moronic analogy I've ever seen. Globalization isn't a *cancer*, it's a natural evolution of the free market (granted, ours isn't exactly a free market, but it's closer than any other on the face of the earth...) and it stands to benefit every man, woman and child on this planet. How? By bringing trade to every corner of the earth, by bringing manufacturing and distribution and retail, all of which will create jobs and wealth, lots and lots of wealth.

But then, if you don't want the living standards of the world to be raised through the production of more wealth, by all means, keep railing against globalization.

Jason

 

[Moonbeam]

You know, I hate to say it, but that might just be the most moronic analogy I've ever seen.
------------------------
A very common reaction to truth.

Don't forget I was showing Hero something.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Now, I would have responded to truth if you had supplied any, Moonbeam, but what you supplied was idiocy.

Jason

 

[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...

 

[LunarRay]

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.

The cancer is our greed and the solution is to use our greed to our benefit by consuming our products. Keep the disease that grew us into the most powerful economic entity on earth within the body of America.. let the world develop their own disease or they will surely pour the vaccine of poverty upon us.