Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

[SupaDupaCheez]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: SupaDupaCheez
I saw that report and I believe it also said that Wal-mart 'saved' the average shopper $897 over last year (or something to that effect). So (unless they were just 'spinning' it) it appears that Wal-Mart overall savings to the public as a whole, outweighs the negatives of lower wages/welfare.

That's what I got from it anyway

So basically it's okay that the rest of us are paying for YOUR CHEAP ASS to save money by buying immoral sweatshop produced products. Must be the New Capitalism or something.

You need to calm down. No need to call people names. I am not advocating anything. All I did was relay information so as to bring as much pertinent information to this dialog as possible. I did not post this so that you could come in with your all-knowing and judgemental attitude and up your post count by flaming.

Why don't you go back to P&N where you belong.

 

[RU482]

my little tidbit to contribute is that the quality of the sweatshop products is better than when the crap was made in the US 20 or so yrs ago

 

[Chaotic42]

Until other stores in my area stay open all night , start carrying a larger variety of items, and open locations that are at least somewhat convenient to get to, I will continue to shop at Wal Mart.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

 

[alm4rr]

The world's biggest retailer also lowered consumer prices by 3.1 percent, and real disposable income was 0.9 percent higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart, researchers at Global Insight concluded.

 

[illusion88]

No matter what I do, I will probably never be able to afford to kick the wallmart habbit.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: malcontent

Originally posted by: PHiuR
but will you stop shopping at Wal-Mart?

nope.

I have. And I encourage others to stop as well.

I havent shopped at walmart for a while now.

Same here, and I will continue to not shop at WalMart.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

I don't want this to be a personal attack, but I find too many people who shows complete indifference to the current situation. I'm quite sad that it will only be too late for these indifferent people to realize the gravity of the situation. I've been boycotting Walmart ever since I've learned of their business method. I can only hope that others will follow the same, vote with their wallet.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

I don't want this to be a personal attack, but I find too many people who shows complete indifference to the current situation. I'm quite sad that it will only be too late for these indifferent people to realize the gravity of the situation. I've been boycotting Walmart ever since I've learned of their business method. I can only hope that others will follow the same, vote with their wallet.

lol, serious, does anyone learn anything in school any more? No wonder all our jobs are going to china.

 

[tcsenter]

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you don't bother with those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

 

[Ornery]

Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

Oh dear, now that's a problem!

 

[SupaDupaCheez]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you IGNORE those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

Fixed for truth

BTW :thumbsup:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you don't bother with those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

Amazing how the facts yet again trump the anti-capitalist propaganda.

Thanks, TC. When I saw this thread, I figured as much from the mindless sheep bleating the anti-capitalist hate-Walmart mantra.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

I don't want this to be a personal attack, but I find too many people who shows complete indifference to the current situation. I'm quite sad that it will only be too late for these indifferent people to realize the gravity of the situation. I've been boycotting Walmart ever since I've learned of their business method. I can only hope that others will follow the same, vote with their wallet.

lol, serious, does anyone learn anything in school any more? No wonder all our jobs are going to china.

lol, Wal-Mart is the #1 employer in the nation, if it weren't for retailers like them all our jobs WOULD be in China. Boycott em all you want, the rest of us like the convenience of being able to walk into a Wal-Mart which can be found on every block at any time of the day. How anyone can b!tch about Wal-Mart screwing the tax payer while our President anally rapes our economy is beyond me.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

I don't want this to be a personal attack, but I find too many people who shows complete indifference to the current situation. I'm quite sad that it will only be too late for these indifferent people to realize the gravity of the situation. I've been boycotting Walmart ever since I've learned of their business method. I can only hope that others will follow the same, vote with their wallet.

lol, serious, does anyone learn anything in school any more? No wonder all our jobs are going to china.

lol, Wal-Mart is the #1 employer in the nation, if it weren't for retailers like them all our jobs WOULD be in China. Boycott em all you want, the rest of us like the convenience of being able to walk into a Wal-Mart which can be found on every block at any time of the day. How anyone can b!tch about Wal-Mart screwing the tax payer while our President anally rapes our economy is beyond me.

because of Wal-Mart more jobs are sent over seas and the ones they make pay so low they make a number of their employees have to go on goverment wel-fare systems to survive.
Mind you what bush, and his fellow republicans, are doing is awful but that is a different subject and there is not much we can do about them until the next election. But speak with your wallet and MAYBE wal-mart will change.

 

[platinumike]

In Florida, Walmart pays the best anywhere around for a cashier. My friend who had minimal restaurant experience started there at $7.25/hr (min wage is 6.15) meanwhile Sears pays 6.55 starting, BB=$7.00, etc.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

here in pa too...i remember i was working at tj maxx and i started at 6.75, while shop-rite was 6.00 and wal-mart paid 7.75. thats a huge diffreence.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975


because of Wal-Mart more jobs are sent over seas and the ones they make pay so low they make a number of their employees have to go on goverment wel-fare systems to survive.
Mind you what bush, and his fellow republicans, are doing is awful but that is a different subject and there is not much we can do about them until the next election. But speak with your wallet and MAYBE wal-mart will change.

This is what happens when uneducated, unskilled factory workers and their unions price themselves out of a job. They do so by demanding middle and upper middle class wages as high, if not higher than your average college grad for basically unskilled labor.

I do vote with my wallet. I shop where ever is cheapest and most convenient. If that happens to be Walmart, so be it.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Thing is you can get a raise every year at Wal-Mart after your annual performance review. It was 3% for "meeting expectations" and 5% for "exceeding expectations". Though in 2004 they changed the maximum annual raise from 5% to $.55 under the guise of fairness to all pay grades. I'm sure it was just to save money though.

I started at $8.50/hr and four years later was making $11.42 IIRC.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
but will you stop shopping at Wal-Mart?

nope.

i almost never shop at walmart. sams club sometimes but not walmart.

if costco were closer tho, i'd go to costco instead.

 

[dartworth]

Haven't been in a WM since...2001

:thumbsdown:

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you don't bother with those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

Amazing how the facts yet again trump the anti-capitalist propaganda.

Thanks, TC. When I saw this thread, I figured as much from the mindless sheep bleating the anti-capitalist hate-Walmart mantra.

i have to disagree with you. hating the largest corporations isn't hating capitalism.

an ideal free market economy would actually have many smaller (not smallest mom and pop sized but smaller than walmart) type chains that compete. there would be competition for market share, the suppliers would be competing etc.

right now, we have walmart becoming pretty much a monopoly and they are using a monopoly source (china) and they are making artificial barriers to entry because of their monopoly power.

they are also becoming monopoly employers. meaning they don't have to pay as much. someone above said "Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers. " but that's not accurate, if walmart becomes a monopoly employer for that area, then they set the market wage, hence it's not the free market wage if there had been competitors for that limited supply of labor.

don't dismiss peoples dislike of walmart by calling them commies, that's just not true. i'm a died in the wool hardcore free market competition market setting prices capitalistic economist. but i don't like what walmart does to economies of local towns.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: razor2025

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
So fvcking what, that's the cost of business. Wal-Mart is a giant monopoly, they earned their place, that's how capitalism works. If you don't like it you can always start a commy revolution.

Obviously you haven't taken any economics course. The worst thing to a capitalist free-market society is prescense of a strong monopoly. In order to maximize profit of a monopoly in a given market (retail for example), that monopoly finds the "sweet spot" between revenue and cost. Often, that "sweet spot" creates deadweight. To put it simply, deadweight is "lost business" that could've been realized if the monopoly did not try to maximize its profit. Thus, having monopoly is BAD for the society and capitalism. Many people often misunderstand capitalism and free market as unrestricted business without regard. Capitalism works when there is a true free market. Free market only exist when there are numerous competition in the market. A monopoly is a complete contradiction to such.

I don't want this to be a personal attack, but I find too many people who shows complete indifference to the current situation. I'm quite sad that it will only be too late for these indifferent people to realize the gravity of the situation. I've been boycotting Walmart ever since I've learned of their business method. I can only hope that others will follow the same, vote with their wallet.

lol, serious, does anyone learn anything in school any more? No wonder all our jobs are going to china.

lol, Wal-Mart is the #1 employer in the nation, if it weren't for retailers like them all our jobs WOULD be in China. Boycott em all you want, the rest of us like the convenience of being able to walk into a Wal-Mart which can be found on every block at any time of the day. How anyone can b!tch about Wal-Mart screwing the tax payer while our President anally rapes our economy is beyond me.

that's just IDIOTIC. retail jobs can NEVER be sent overseas. HTF do you think it would be possible to have those jobs sent overseas?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you don't bother with those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

Amazing how the facts yet again trump the anti-capitalist propaganda.

Thanks, TC. When I saw this thread, I figured as much from the mindless sheep bleating the anti-capitalist hate-Walmart mantra.

i have to disagree with you. hating the largest corporations isn't hating capitalism.

an ideal free market economy would actually have many smaller (not smallest mom and pop sized but smaller than walmart) type chains that compete. there would be competition for market share, the suppliers would be competing etc.

right now, we have walmart becoming pretty much a monopoly and they are using a monopoly source (china) and they are making artificial barriers to entry because of their monopoly power.

they are also becoming monopoly employers. meaning they don't have to pay as much. someone above said "Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers. " but that's not accurate, if walmart becomes a monopoly employer for that area, then they set the market wage, hence it's not the free market wage if there had been competitors for that limited supply of labor.

don't dismiss peoples dislike of walmart by calling them commies, that's just not true. i'm a died in the wool hardcore free market competition market setting prices capitalistic economist. but i don't like what walmart does to economies of local towns.

Walmart isn't anything near or close to a monopoly. There is nothing I can get at walmart, I cannot easily get elsewhere.

Capitalism is not about small mom and pop stores. Capitalism is about freedom. If a business cannot compete, it dies. You can either be free, or fair. You cannot be both.

Walmart employes largely unskilled labor. Want a better job? Get an education.

Same goes for the factory jobs lost to overseas. This is what happens when uneducated, unskilled factory workers and their unions price themselves out of a job. They do so by demanding middle and upper middle class wages as high, if not higher than your average college grad for basically unskilled labor.

WTF are they teaching in school these days?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

Well, sort of...when you don't bother with those pesky details. Here are the actual findings of the report:


[*]The expansion of Wal-Mart over the 1985 to 2004 period can be associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index - All Items.

[*]The 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices was partially offset by a 2.2% decline in nominal wages, so that the net effect was to increase real disposable income by 0.9% by 2004.

[*]With the estimated 3.1% CPI impact, total cumulative savings to consumers amounted to $263 billion by 2004, or $895 per person.

[*]Wal-Mart had a positive impact on employment nationwide, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004

[*]Global Insight's analysis of employee wage data provided by Wal-Mart shows its wages are comparable to the retail industry average for positions in the same area, leading the study to conclude that Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers.

[*]The study shows that with the opening of a typical 150-350 person Wal-Mart, retail employment increases by an average of 137 jobs over the near-term and levels off to a 97-job increase over the long-term. It also leads to net job losses in food stores, and apparel and accessory stores, and net job gains in building materials and garden supply stores, and general merchandise stores.

[*]To supplement the national analysis, the study includes an in-depth examination of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area where Wal-Mart has a significant presence. Consumer cost savings in the area are estimated at 4.0% by 2004. "The impact of the cost savings in conjunction with other direct, indirect and induced impacts has led to 6,300 more jobs and a 2.6% increase in real disposable income in the area," the study said.

---------------------------------------------------

Nationally (but not regionally), the report finds a 2.2% decline in nominal wages associated with Walmart. This amounts to 22 cents less an hour based on a nominal wage of $10.00, $8.80 less per week based on 40 hours, or $458 less per year based on annual income of $20,000.

Nobody goes from financial stability to public assistance because of $8.80 less per week or $440 less per year. These people are one paycheck, one significant auto repair, or one speeding ticket away from financial trouble, Walmart or no Walmart.

None of Walmart's critics can explain in cause-and-effect terms exactly how Walmart could possibly cause more people to rely on government services. Walmart isn't displacing Boeing or GM factories. They are displacing locally owned grocery and thrift stores, pharmacies, and other retailers who employ teenagers, college students, and retired people by paying them minimum wage with zero benefits, affectionately called Mom and Pop.

I currently live in a town with a population of 12K, which is approx. 5K more than the town in which I grew up and lived until the age of 20. I've lived most of my life in communities where Mom and Pop are still thriving. I worked many years for Mom and Pop. Many of my friends worked for Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop don't pay jack sh-t.

Health insurance, prescription drug discount, retirement plan, stock options, profit sharing, tuition assistance, and career opportunities...from Mom and Pop? Fat chance!

Mom and Pop are sitting pretty, though, always driving a new Benz, Caddy, or SUV and have a nice spread in the hills. Is that what people are worried about? That if Walmart comes in, they will have to close their business and let all their minimum-wage employees go? Or maybe their parents own a business and they are afraid they won't get an inheritance? Walmart critics can't possibly be concerned for the well being of Mom and Pop's employees.

Rite-Aid opened in a few years ago and closed down at least one local pharmacy and thrift shop. Applebee's and TGI Friday's aren't exactly good for local greasey spoons and diners (who always pay minimum wage with no benefits). Mom and Pop have many many national chains other than Walmart to worry about.

Amazing how the facts yet again trump the anti-capitalist propaganda.

Thanks, TC. When I saw this thread, I figured as much from the mindless sheep bleating the anti-capitalist hate-Walmart mantra.

i have to disagree with you. hating the largest corporations isn't hating capitalism.

an ideal free market economy would actually have many smaller (not smallest mom and pop sized but smaller than walmart) type chains that compete. there would be competition for market share, the suppliers would be competing etc.

right now, we have walmart becoming pretty much a monopoly and they are using a monopoly source (china) and they are making artificial barriers to entry because of their monopoly power.

they are also becoming monopoly employers. meaning they don't have to pay as much. someone above said "Wal-Mart pays a market wage that fairly reflects the skills, experience and education it requires of its workers. " but that's not accurate, if walmart becomes a monopoly employer for that area, then they set the market wage, hence it's not the free market wage if there had been competitors for that limited supply of labor.

don't dismiss peoples dislike of walmart by calling them commies, that's just not true. i'm a died in the wool hardcore free market competition market setting prices capitalistic economist. but i don't like what walmart does to economies of local towns.

Walmart isn't anything near or close to a monopoly. There is nothing I can get at walmart, I cannot easily get elsewhere.

Capitalism is not about small mom and pop stores. Capitalism is about freedom. If a business cannot compete, it dies. You can either be free, or fair. You cannot be both.

Walmart employes largely unskilled labor. Want a better job? Get an education.

Same goes for the factory jobs lost to overseas. This is what happens when uneducated, unskilled factory workers and their unions price themselves out of a job. They do so by demanding middle and upper middle class wages as high, if not higher than your average college grad for basically unskilled labor.

WTF are they teaching in school these days?

uhhh, i finished my masters in econ in '91, we are probably not so far apart in age, so don't try to use age as an arguement.

walmart is becoming a monopoly buyer. they have undue influence on the market. you keep speaking as if monopoly can only exist on the retail end. monopoly's can exist at any point from production to distribution to retail sales.


again you have said nothing about the free market model. captalism is supposed to be a public policy that attempts to move a country's economy towards the free market model. is the free market model a possibility? no, it is just an ideal.

but we base our judgements on what is and is not a monopoly based on how far they move from the free market model.

bottom line is, you obviously have the right to believe and act as you will but to casually dismiss those that disagree with you on walmart as communist seems simplistic at best. fact is, i'm not a communist, but i don't agree with what walmart does to an economy.