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

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

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?

i've posted many times my personal objections to unions having monopoly power in the labor market, my stand on that issue has always been clear.

however, just as unions can exercise monopoly powers so can employers.

in a free market economy prices (and in prices i'm including interest-price on money, rent-price on borrowing land, wages-price on labor) are determined by what the market will bear. it is a juxtaposition of demand for the labor and supply for that labor.

if you have only one "supplier" of labor than you skew the results. the same happens if you have only one "demander" of labor.

 

[razor2025]

Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

Monopoly buyer? Good gawd, as if suppliers don't have a choice who and how they deal?

Next we hear it's evil to drive a hard bargin.

Funny how the same people who think Steve Jobs is a saint for forcing the RIAA to sell at a price point think Walmart is the devil for doing the same thing.

Communist? Probably not. But you are anything but a free market capitalist. You even admit it calling it an "ideal" as if that somehow makes it impossible. It is far from impossible with the exception of those twsited people who believe we can be "fair" and free at the same time.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

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?

i've posted many times my personal objections to unions having monopoly power in the labor market, my stand on that issue has always been clear.

however, just as unions can exercise monopoly powers so can employers.

in a free market economy prices (and in prices i'm including interest-price on money, rent-price on borrowing land, wages-price on labor) are determined by what the market will bear. it is a juxtaposition of demand for the labor and supply for that labor.

if you have only one "supplier" of labor than you skew the results. the same happens if you have only one "demander" of labor.

Walmart is far from the only buyer of goods. Far, Far, Far from it. This is where your argument and monopoly claims fall apart.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: razor2025
Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

exactly, it's only free market capitalism if both sides have something they are providing. you cannot have a nation of JUST consumers. that's just ludicrous.

the japanese, koreans (that's where i am from btw) and the chinese have effectively created situations where they steal research and patents from the US, improve upon those designs and sell them back in the form of products to the US. TV industry is a classic example of that.

obviously the above example is simplified but the fact is, the asian country's have closed the border to US products and yet have flooded our stores with there products.

how long do you think this trend can continue before the US becomes a 3rd world country again?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: razor2025
Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

exactly, it's only free market capitalism if both sides have something they are providing. you cannot have a nation of JUST consumers. that's just ludicrous.

the japanese, koreans (that's where i am from btw) and the chinese have effectively created situations where they steal research and patents from the US, improve upon those designs and sell them back in the form of products to the US. TV industry is a classic example of that.

obviously the above example is simplified but the fact is, the asian country's have closed the border to US products and yet have flooded our stores with there products.

how long do you think this trend can continue before the US becomes a 3rd world country again?

It IS a free market economy. The fact is, by our labor pool pricing itself out of the competition, we are losing. We wont become a 3rd world country, but until foreign labor markets increase their wages, or we take a hit in ours, we will continue LOSING in the free market.

Again, you can be "fair" or free. You cannot be both. I love how it's no longer a free market when we are losing. We are losing because we priced ourselves out of the market. If goods were cheaper to buy here, Walmart would buy them here.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Monopoly buyer? Good gawd, as if suppliers don't have a choice who and how they deal?

Next we hear it's evil to drive a hard bargin.

Funny how the same people who think Steve Jobs is a saint for forcing the RIAA to sell at a price point think Walmart is the devil for doing the same thing.

Communist? Probably not. But you are anything but a free market capitalist. You even admit it calling it an "ideal" as if that somehow makes it impossible. It is far from impossible with the exception of those twsited people who believe we can be "fair" and free at the same time.

where did i use the word fair?

also, you are completely ignorant if you think the free market model can ever be anything than an ideal to shoot for.

first of all, if you have a complete FREE ECONOMY, you would have NO large corporations with the exception of a few industries. in a free market economy, prices would vary very very little from place to place.

one of the biggest barriers to a free market economy is availability of information.

when you look at how people making a LOT of money, it's based on having access to information other people don't have.

the internet has done a lot to change that to an extent.

it is also impossible for workers to have complete mobility, it's a huge barrier to have a worker sell his house and move to another location just for a job. sometimes it's cheaper for the worker to wait a few months where he is at and get employement there. he doesn't KNOW this tho, as he doesn't know when and where jobs will be available.

it is also difficult for workers to gain new job skills. it takes time and money.

that's just a few examples of why free market economy is difficult. there are a lot more, many of which i have forgotten.

free market economy tho is just a model and it will never be a reality.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: razor2025
Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

exactly, it's only free market capitalism if both sides have something they are providing. you cannot have a nation of JUST consumers. that's just ludicrous.

the japanese, koreans (that's where i am from btw) and the chinese have effectively created situations where they steal research and patents from the US, improve upon those designs and sell them back in the form of products to the US. TV industry is a classic example of that.

obviously the above example is simplified but the fact is, the asian country's have closed the border to US products and yet have flooded our stores with there products.

how long do you think this trend can continue before the US becomes a 3rd world country again?

It IS a free market economy. The fact is, by our labor pool pricing itself out of the competition, we are losing. We wont become a 3rd world country, but until foreign labor markets increase their wages, or we take a hit in ours, we will continue LOSING in the free market.

Again, you can be "fair" or free. You cannot be both. I love how it's no longer a free market when we are losing. We are losing because we priced ourselves out of the market. If goods were cheaper to buy here, Walmart would buy them here.

wrong, it cannot be free if it's only free on one side. why is that difficult to understand?

hey, the country i'm from and where a lot of my relatives live, is taking advantage of this loophole to get rich, so don't talk to me about losing.

my relatives tell me about how they are winning and they understand that they are taking advantage of US policy's that put US companies at a disadvantage.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Monopoly buyer? Good gawd, as if suppliers don't have a choice who and how they deal?

Next we hear it's evil to drive a hard bargin.

Funny how the same people who think Steve Jobs is a saint for forcing the RIAA to sell at a price point think Walmart is the devil for doing the same thing.

Communist? Probably not. But you are anything but a free market capitalist. You even admit it calling it an "ideal" as if that somehow makes it impossible. It is far from impossible with the exception of those twsited people who believe we can be "fair" and free at the same time.

where did i use the word fair?

also, you are completely ignorant if you think the free market model can ever be anything than an ideal to shoot for.

first of all, if you have a complete FREE ECONOMY, you would have NO large corporations with the exception of a few industries. in a free market economy, prices would vary very very little from place to place.

one of the biggest barriers to a free market economy is availability of information.

when you look at how people making a LOT of money, it's based on having access to information other people don't have.

the internet has done a lot to change that to an extent.

it is also impossible for workers to have complete mobility, it's a huge barrier to have a worker sell his house and move to another location just for a job. sometimes it's cheaper for the worker to wait a few months where he is at and get employement there. he doesn't KNOW this tho, as he doesn't know when and where jobs will be available.

it is also difficult for workers to gain new job skills. it takes time and money.

that's just a few examples of why free market economy is difficult. there are a lot more, many of which i have forgotten.

free market economy tho is just a model and it will never be a reality.

WTF???

Your idea of a free market economy is anything but. That sounds like a tightly regulated economy where success is hindered and the legs cut off of the best competitors.

You have "fair" confused with "free."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: razor2025
Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

exactly, it's only free market capitalism if both sides have something they are providing. you cannot have a nation of JUST consumers. that's just ludicrous.

the japanese, koreans (that's where i am from btw) and the chinese have effectively created situations where they steal research and patents from the US, improve upon those designs and sell them back in the form of products to the US. TV industry is a classic example of that.

obviously the above example is simplified but the fact is, the asian country's have closed the border to US products and yet have flooded our stores with there products.

how long do you think this trend can continue before the US becomes a 3rd world country again?

It IS a free market economy. The fact is, by our labor pool pricing itself out of the competition, we are losing. We wont become a 3rd world country, but until foreign labor markets increase their wages, or we take a hit in ours, we will continue LOSING in the free market.

Again, you can be "fair" or free. You cannot be both. I love how it's no longer a free market when we are losing. We are losing because we priced ourselves out of the market. If goods were cheaper to buy here, Walmart would buy them here.

wrong, it cannot be free if it's only free on one side. why is that difficult to understand?

hey, the country i'm from and where a lot of my relatives live, is taking advantage of this loophole to get rich, so don't talk to me about losing.

my relatives tell me about how they are winning and they understand that they are taking advantage of US policy's that put US companies at a disadvantage.

Again, we are at a disadvantage because we priced our labor market out of the competition. We are losing because we refuse to compete. The market in this case is perfectly free and retailers are perfectly free to buy from American producers. They FREELY choose not to because American producers cannot match the price of overseas producers. Sounds free to me

There would be no need or desire to buy or produce goods from overseas if it could be done and had here for the same money or cheaper.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Monopoly buyer? Good gawd, as if suppliers don't have a choice who and how they deal?

Next we hear it's evil to drive a hard bargin.

Funny how the same people who think Steve Jobs is a saint for forcing the RIAA to sell at a price point think Walmart is the devil for doing the same thing.

Communist? Probably not. But you are anything but a free market capitalist. You even admit it calling it an "ideal" as if that somehow makes it impossible. It is far from impossible with the exception of those twsited people who believe we can be "fair" and free at the same time.

where did i use the word fair?

also, you are completely ignorant if you think the free market model can ever be anything than an ideal to shoot for.

first of all, if you have a complete FREE ECONOMY, you would have NO large corporations with the exception of a few industries. in a free market economy, prices would vary very very little from place to place.

one of the biggest barriers to a free market economy is availability of information.

when you look at how people making a LOT of money, it's based on having access to information other people don't have.

the internet has done a lot to change that to an extent.

it is also impossible for workers to have complete mobility, it's a huge barrier to have a worker sell his house and move to another location just for a job. sometimes it's cheaper for the worker to wait a few months where he is at and get employement there. he doesn't KNOW this tho, as he doesn't know when and where jobs will be available.

it is also difficult for workers to gain new job skills. it takes time and money.

that's just a few examples of why free market economy is difficult. there are a lot more, many of which i have forgotten.

free market economy tho is just a model and it will never be a reality.

WTF???

Your idea of a free market economy is anything but. That sounds like a tightly regulated economy where success is hindered and the legs cut off of the best competitors.

You have "fair" confused with "free."

you are right, i was confused. it wasn't "free market" model i was thinking of it was "perfect competition model". replace every "free market" model i quoted above and replace with "perfect competition".

hey, it's been a very very long time since i studied this stuff.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Monopoly buyer? Good gawd, as if suppliers don't have a choice who and how they deal?

Next we hear it's evil to drive a hard bargin.

Funny how the same people who think Steve Jobs is a saint for forcing the RIAA to sell at a price point think Walmart is the devil for doing the same thing.

Communist? Probably not. But you are anything but a free market capitalist. You even admit it calling it an "ideal" as if that somehow makes it impossible. It is far from impossible with the exception of those twsited people who believe we can be "fair" and free at the same time.

where did i use the word fair?

also, you are completely ignorant if you think the free market model can ever be anything than an ideal to shoot for.

first of all, if you have a complete FREE ECONOMY, you would have NO large corporations with the exception of a few industries. in a free market economy, prices would vary very very little from place to place.

one of the biggest barriers to a free market economy is availability of information.

when you look at how people making a LOT of money, it's based on having access to information other people don't have.

the internet has done a lot to change that to an extent.

it is also impossible for workers to have complete mobility, it's a huge barrier to have a worker sell his house and move to another location just for a job. sometimes it's cheaper for the worker to wait a few months where he is at and get employement there. he doesn't KNOW this tho, as he doesn't know when and where jobs will be available.

it is also difficult for workers to gain new job skills. it takes time and money.

that's just a few examples of why free market economy is difficult. there are a lot more, many of which i have forgotten.

free market economy tho is just a model and it will never be a reality.

WTF???

Your idea of a free market economy is anything but. That sounds like a tightly regulated economy where success is hindered and the legs cut off of the best competitors.

You have "fair" confused with "free."

you are right, i was confused. it wasn't "free market" model i was thinking of it was "perfect competition model". replace every "free market" model i quoted above and replace with "perfect competition".

hey, it's been a very very long time since i studied this stuff.

That's cool. "Perfect competition" is just another term for "fair." It's the same as forcing football teams to cut the legs off all their players so the legless man can compete.

It is anything but free.

 

[PlatinumGold]

however, what i was trying to say about the "perfect competition" model is true. the perfect competition model is what our policies were set to achieve, altho it is an impossiblity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
however, what i was trying to say about the "perfect competition" model is true. the perfect competition model is what our policies were set to achieve, altho it is an impossiblity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Agreed. You cannot achieve fairness and still be free. The best bet is to just allow the market to be free, and those who cannot compete, die and move on to areas in which they can compete.

 

[Finality]

Most people forget that while Wal Mart increased the purchasing power of consumer by in effect lowering prices.

What would have happened if there was no Wal Mart? Back to $40 an hour grocery baggers? In my mind that would add up to at least 5-7% less purchasing power for the average Joe.

The overall savings Wal Mart gives far outweighs any negative effects the have.

 

[tcsenter]

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

 

[TheToOTaLL]

Wally's Sams should take a look at Costco as well to see how retail is SUPPOSED to be....

The Costco Way: Higher wages mean higher profits. But try telling Wall Street

The Costco Challenge: An Alternative to Wal-Martization?

Higher Wages Mean Higher Profits

Costco continues to clobber competition

More smarts at the top of Costco's corporate ladder not only help consumers but also employees as well.

 

[DrPizza]

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

I saved $894.50 by shopping at Walmart last year. However, $1400 of the goods I bought at Walmart were so cheaply made, that they all broke/died/shrunk immediately after the warranty ran out.

 

[Ornery]

Yeah, their Cameras, DVDs, Jeans and iPods are quite inferior to the ones purchased at Costco... :roll:

BTW, what's the scoop with your car?

 

[Finality]

Originally posted by: TheToOTaLL
Wally's Sams should take a look at Costco as well to see how retail is SUPPOSED to be....

The Costco Way: Higher wages mean higher profits. But try telling Wall Street

The Costco Challenge: An Alternative to Wal-Martization?

Higher Wages Mean Higher Profits

Costco continues to clobber competition

More smarts at the top of Costco's corporate ladder not only help consumers but also employees as well.

Too bad you really dont read the articles. Costco really doesn't compete with wal mart, their main competitor is Sams club. Costco competes for upper end clientelle which are ultimately limited.

Wal Marts way too big to be compared to anyone. They are the largest retailer on the planet bar none. They aren't the 800 pound Gorilla they are the 8000 pound Gorilla that no one can mess with.

Though Wal Mart is changing their stores to have a larger more upmarket variety, when that happens Costco can kiss themselves goodbye. Read up an article about how mobile Wal Mart is during Thanksgiving shopping day. Within 3 hours they knew there strategy had not worked and they reworked the entire thing. They are not a lumbering bohemoth they are the MJ of retailers

 

[Cruez]

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

Yup, cause most of the crap that Wal-mart sells COMES from China...


BTW, no I don't shop there anymore either.

 

[Philippine Mango]

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.

Yea but please tell me, how much the cost of living has gone up? People don't factor in the fact that the cost of living has soared far higher than the "net savings" people get from shopping at walmart. I hate walmart and this is just another reason not to shop there, stop being a cheap ass and spend the extra .50 somewhere else.

 

[Schadenfroh]

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.

Hahaha, it is the only department store within 80 miles of me now that the coast is gone. As for grocery, it is the only thing that has everything i need. I have also compared the prices of what i buy when it comes to foods to the local grocery store and walmart is around 10% less.

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: Finality
They are not a lumbering bohemoth they are the MJ of retailers

heck yeah!

i :heart: walmart forever!

where else can i go to change the tires on my car, buy some fresh veggies, and check out the latest lcd tvs...all in one place!

 

[yllus]

These Walmart hate threads always make me laugh. I can't think of a thing I've bought there, ever, but I'd never hesitate if their price on something I was after beat all competitors.

Get a grip, you whiny socialist dorks. Take it from a Canadian who's seen lots of it; you don't want BS 'helper' legislation to even out the field. It never works that way. Instead, the business converts that extra advantage directly into cash for its stockholders and continues to dig itself a hole. Long live the fighters!