Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
Walmart carries the exact same, and more brands of food than Jewel. So to say the food quality sucks is absurd. Is the Jiff Peanut Butter at Walmart somehow different than the Jiff Peanut Butter at Jewel??
It's the same sh!t.
Jewel's Deli, meat and seafood departments are simply pathetic compaired to Walmart and Meijer. Scnhucks Deli, meat and seafood is better than all, but is ridiclously over priced for what you get. Meijers Deli and meat comes very close to Schnucks, though. Walmart and Meijers also offers more economical larger sizes than Jewel. Jewel's selection is VERY limited when it comes to different sizes. And to argue that Walmart's prices are not signifigantly cheaper than Jewel is laughable.
I live in Springfield, BTW.
That's what I'm getting at. There's little way to prove that Wal-Mart has a positive or negative impact without in-depth studies, and that information is simply not available to us. That's why I said the burden of proof you are asking for is outside the scope of what can be obtained for discussion in this forum. Very few people on this forum are economists, and even then I doubt any of them have particularly studied Wal-Mart's effect on the economy in a micro or even macro level. The best we have is anecdotal evidence, which is why this is a hotly contested issue. There's no "real" damning facts to prove either way what Wal-Mart's effects are.
I think it is important to realize the macro effect that purchasing Chinese goods has on the economy. Not only does it increase the trade deficit more (and I can't think of anyone that thinks that is good in the long haul), but it also gets rid of those American jobs that used to manufacture and produce those products instead. The demand for their product is replaced with the influx of Chinese goods, and they simply can't produce the amount or at the cheap cost that China does. Particularly of interest is the way China is able to do so -- through unethical business practices, unfair treatment of workers, and a pool of cheap labor. That's not the US's fault that China doesn't care to play on a level field. But it is Wal-Mart's fault that THEY(Wal-Mart) don't care. As for as wage of workers -- that is a more muddled and complex issue. There's no real way to assume that Wal-Mart doesn't exist, and then to assume what jobs would exist instead of the jobs they provide.
While it is true that Wal-Mart's wages don't differ that much, their practices of overtime, healthcare, and allowing workers to be full-time do differ. They pretty make do everything in their power to make sure the company has as little to do with worker healthcare as possible. They also prevent most workers from becoming full-time or from obtaining overtime. Some would call it shrewd business practices -- as Wal-Mart does have a duty to their shareholders -- but there is an expense. The expense is that it costs the non-shareholders a lot more. In the form of government assistance, healthcare differential, and the tax relief that Wal-Mart always somehow manages to obtain. If Wal-Mart was paying the same property taxes and income taxes that other retailers have it would be one thing, but in most cases they do not. Local governments are always willing to split the tax burden or under-collect to assure that a Wal-Mart will be built. Why? Because Wal-Mart's totality of revenue will eventually make up for the temporary of losses. As their revenue expands over the years, the city or county WILL collect more taxes than they would've, but at the expense of giving Wal-Mart a deal that no one else gets. The problem is that Wal-Mart benefits over and beyond, because that temporary reduction in their tax burden allows them to roll the money into pure profit and/or capital expansion. Most other businesses (minus the large chains) get such a deal. There's no small or medium size business that gets those great tax rates or deferments. Either they make their own way or they don't. They playing field is NOT level. If it were, then no one really could complain about Wal-Mart. But they are not playing by the same rules... they don't have the same burden that a small or medium business does. They get these great incentives for X number of years, while a local business has to contend with the normal tax rate and burden.
This may be very true, but the question remains of "WHY Wal-Mart." Why does Wal-Mart get attacked for it, and other low-wage places don't? There has to be a reason. Could it be that they actually DO prevent entrepreneurship? To a degree -- they have to. Instead of a lot of small or medium businesses with room to grow and expand into other markets, worker ownership, or even the ability to form your own business -- you've got to work at Wal-Mart instead. These cities and counties are willing to take the higher revenue yields down the road that are mostly assured than to take the risk of other businesses failing. If you are a city planner, are you going to take Wal-Mart's guaranteed tax revenue, or place your bets on a bunch of small or medium businesses that most likely WILL fail? The question is that they are willing to take the safer bet, but in doing so they prevent the larger gains that can come from local small and medium businesses. Fact is, most small and medium businesses do offer a much higher chance of advancing, better healthcare, and even treatment of workers. With Wal-Mart, you are just a number. A business that expands from 50 to 500 employees over a decade is likely better for a local economy, but why wait or take that risk when Wal-Mart offers you jobs, tax-revenue, and retail RIGHT NOW.
Oh, come now!. Willingly? Perhaps at first. But once you are sucked in and the threats start, are you really in a quid-pro-quo relationship? Hardly.
But that's oversimplified. Vlasic was worried (and rightly so they even had evidence) that their competitors would then swoop in and have their products sold. With how Wall Street is, it is better to have a very have revenue with a marginal profit than a low revenue with an average profit. Vlasic knew that, but there's no doubt they didn't realize how much over a barrel they really were. if it was in Vlasic's best interests to tell Wal-Mart to piss off then why didn't they? Why would they knowingly keep doing business that way if there was a logical out?
That's very idealistic, but it isn't reality. You don't think they want to stand up to Wal-Mart? What would be their reasoning for not doing so? There has to be a reason. Sure, they have choices, but when Wal-Mart 100% guarantees you product exposure and high revenue, then why wouldn't you place your product there? After they suck you in and have 90% of your business, it isn't like you can just back out, layoff staff, and reorganize without losing your entire company. I don't think they lack balls. I think they don't have a logical out, and that's because Wal-Mart doesn't play on a fair playing field. They use their national presence and prominence to assure that there is no "bigger" market for these companies. Either go with Wal-Mart and suffer, or don't go at all. That's basically what happens. In the end, Wal-mart is just leeching those companies profits and turning them into their own.
I couldn't agree more. However, I think the reason that people lash out at Wal-Mart is not because they are the biggest, but because they are the most egregious offender when it comes to the big business bullies. I'm not anti-big business -- it is a major reason I've got what I have. However, Wal-Mart's version of big business is very different than most other Fortune 500 companies.
And that's the reality of it. So why does Wal-Mart care about its public image then? Because obviously it still does matter, so if their business practices bring them heat, then either they've got to ignore it or change. It is really that simple. If they are worried that public pressure and backlash is going to hurt them then they will change. Otherwise they will just keep trucking-a-long doing what they do best -- making a profit for their shareholders. I see nothing they need to be punished for, but personally I won't support it. I don't think the government has to swoop in, either. If people have a problem with Wal-Mart then don't shop there. Sure, explain your reasoning to those that want to hear it, but there is no need for anything else. The Consumer mindset drives the current economy, so if anyone wants a change it has to start with the consumer. Crying to the government won't help -- except in those local cases where they want to prevent Wal-Mart from coming there. And that *IS* their right. The citizens of a community have a say in what stores are established there, and if they don't want it then too bad for Wal-Mart. It doesn't mean that these governments that pass ordinances and laws against Wal-Mart are being unfair -- they are reacting to what their citizens want. Wal-Mart, nor the citizens, have a right to bitch if they don't stick to their guns.
Pre-packaged products won't be any different unless Wal-Mart doesn't rotate their stock like everyone else, or unless the manufacturer produces special lines for Wal-mart. However, Wal-Mart's dairy(minus outside produced brands), cheese, meat, vegetables, and other non-perishables are crap. The selection at my local stores are superior to Wal-mart in those areas. Wal-Mart may have an overall higher amount of product, but quality and variety matter more to me than 6 different kinds of Kraft Singles.
you know, if it wasn't Wal-Mart it would be <insert dollar store name here>. I am not sure where everyone here is from so you may not have them around you, but dollar stores are cropping up all over. Think Wal-Mart has cheap crap? They have nothing on these dollar stores. To bash Wal-Mart as the single most important factor in the collapse of the mom & pop stores nationwide is ignorant when you take in the dollar store phenomenon that is sweeping this county. If Wal-Mart had not become as big as it is and continuing to grow, these dollar stores would have the same effect. I mean I live in a fairly small farming town and there are 3 here alone within 1 mile of each other and another 3-4 within a 15 mile radius.
Let me be more specific. I don't know which is more evil.. the people running Comcast, or the people running Walmart
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
Walmart's dairy, produce and meat are FAR better than Jewel, but not up to snuff with foo-foo stores like Schnucks and Kroger. Walmart and Sams have decent meats at very good prices.
Jewel stores are small, with pathetic delis, near non-existent meat and seafood departments and a piss poor selection of prepackaged stuff at prices far higher than even the foo-foo stores.
Now Meijer has an excellent meat, seafood, dairy and deli. Close, but not quite up to the upper market stores like Kroger and Schnucks, but better than Walmart and light years ahead of Jewel.
My whole point was to counter his claim that Jewel is comparable on prices. They are not.
Originally posted by: Vic
So Wal-Mart will have to increase its wages to remain competitive in the employment market. I don't see the problem here. In the meantime, Costco gets their pick of the best employees and leaves the dregs for Wal-Mart.
You might want to ask yourself HOW it is that Wal-Mart decimates small business, as you claim. You make it sound like they must be doing something shady or illegal, but that's not true at all, is it? The reality is that consumers choose to shop at Wal-Mart instead of the small businesses, now isn't it? Just like employees can choose to work at Costco if Costco pays more.
But choice! OMG we can't have people actually choosing, can we? They might choose other that what you would prefer!
Walmart eliminates choices. I dont see how this concept is so foreign.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
Ever see the South Park where the kidsfound the heart of walm-mar t and kileld it?
Welcoem to the real world. I love South Park, because tehy can really make one feal stupid while using the facts.
Welcoem to the real world. I love South Park, because tehy can really make one feal stupid while using the facts.
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
The aim of a corporation is to improve their employees' quality of life? Which school you went to? Did you major in socialism?
Last time I check Walmart did not force anyone into slavery. Everyone that works there volunteerily work for them. Tell them to work for Costco instead of telling Walmart paying more.
newParadigm
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2003
- 3,667
- 1
- 0
Actually, Wal Mart controlls such a large share of the market, and is so large, that it simply runs every one else out of busienss through predatory pricing (selling below cost to shut competition down), which many times is actually not technically predatory pricing because WalMarts prices from their suppliers are so much chepaer becuase of their size, than their competitors prices fro mtheir suppliers, that they can sell below their competition's cost prices while still making a profit.
Here's a paper I wrote on the subject:
While some may think of Wal-Mart as being a perfectly competitive entity, the pure embodiment of the Capitalist?s Dream, the store?s true functioning may lead to its acquisition of market power. Over the years the store?s practices have allowed them to save vast amounts of money, cut processing times, and maintain such exacting inventory control systems, that they have become overgrown.
Wal-Mart has created such enormous barriers to entry that no new companies can enter its market. This is one of the key definitions of a company with market power. Some ways Wal-Mart limits new businesses from being successfully initiated, is to take advantage of their size and employ predatory pricing strategies. Predatory pricing is when a corporation sells a product at lower than cost, in order to either drive other businesses out of the market, or to prevent an upstart from gaining a foothold.
In its current state, Wal-Mart is able to obtain such low prices from its suppliers that it is simply impossible for anyone to compete. Wal-Mart?s prices may not even need to be truly classified as ?predatory pricing? to accomplish their goals. Because they can obtain prices so low on their goods, they may still be making a profit, while selling the product to the end user cheaper than any other stores can obtain the product from their suppliers. This, once more, makes it impossible for any new firms to compete with Wal-Mart.
The following quote from an article discussing Wal-Mart?s manipulation of its suppliers (specifically, Vlasic Pickles) clearly shows how Wal-Mart uses it size to leverage its venders.
Young remembers begging Wal-Mart for relief. ?They said, ?No way,? ?says Young. ?We said we'll increase the price?--even $3.49 would have helped tremendously??and they said, ?If you do that, all the other products of yours we buy, we'll stop buying.? It was a clear threat.? Hunn recalls things a little differently, if just as ominously: ?They said, ?We want the $2.97 gallon of pickles. If you don't do it, we'll see if someone else might.? I knew our competitors were saying to Wal-Mart, ?We'll do the $2.97 gallons if you give us your other business.??
The low prices Wal-Mart was demanding from Vlasic, while boosting sales, were destroying the company?s profits. It was a ?detrimental success? story for them. When Vlasic begged Wal-Mart to allow them to increase the price, a mere ¢50, Wal-Mart essentially threatened a boycott of all of Vlasic?s products should they raise the price.
By selling the Vlasic gallon jar so cheaply, Wal-Mart not only destroyed the company?s profits by selling those pickles so cheaply, but customers who were buying smaller jars at other grocery stores, began to buy the gallons from Wal-Mart, reducing Vlasic?s customer base elsewhere. The ?cheap gallon? also destroyed Vlasic?s reputation as a, for lack of a better term, gourmet pickle.
The market power that Wal-Mart?s size grants them not only drives out their competitors and creates barriers of entry in many markets, but put incredible pressure on its suppliers. The effect this has on the US economy is much more apparent than many may believe. Wal-Mart overseas purchases account for over 10% of all imports last year; this definitely contributes to the US trade deficit, which inhibits economic growth in the nation. Without laws in place to maintain the nice assumption, pareto optimality will never be reached. The irony is that Wal-Mart?s perfect competition is what planted them in a position of market power in the first place.
Do you think Wal-Mart should respect the wishes of those that vote to keep them out? Instead of filing lawsuits, getting state/county intervention, or other methods?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
Since when should the public get to vote against private property owners doing lawful things? Should the public get to vote you out of your house?
The absurdity is that Walmart buys land zoned for business, and is then discriminated against by city councils filled with business owners or in the pockets of local businesses who are using their government power to try and keep out legal competition. The proof that the locals truly want a Walmart is in their success. If they didn't want it, the store would fail. And that burns up the anti-capitalists and local businesses running on outdated business models. They cannot stand that Walmart is successful, so they try to use the government rather than free market to shut them down.
I'm not going to sit here and listen to rhetoric. I asked a question that was very valid.
Buzz. Wrong. I am talking about the PUBLIC GOVERNMENT having to design roads, give tax-payer money for tax breaks, expand city services, and add traffic control for Wal-Mart. If residents vote to keep Wal-Mart out, then shouldn't Wal-Mart respect those wishes instead of forcing the state or county into making the city provide those things? I'm not talking about emminent domain here (that's a whole nother barrel of laughs), I'm speaking of taxpayer resources that *are* used to make a Wal-Mart cite viable. If Wal-Mart builds the road, traffic control device, does the groundwater, flood, and other surveys, and then makes it without tax breaks that is different. If they *are* using the public's money -- which in 99% of the cases they are -- then what right does Wal-Mart have in getting a higher power to force their will on citizens that voted against them?
Bullsh!t. Don't strawman me, Amused. I never said any sort of thing. The whole time I've been talking about Wal-Mart using lawsuits and other forms of pressure to counteract votes against them entering an area. If they want to buy private property and develop it on their own then that's fine. If they want to get zoning changed, public roads built, traffic control devices built, flood retention ponds built, and the plethora of other things that a development that side needs, then do it with their own fvcking dime. Don't sit here and build some strawman that it is to "prevent competition." That's just plain dishonest!
Put down the Ayn Rand book. If the locals are FORCED to pay for Wal-Mart to come in, then they'd be STUPID not to shop there and get a return on their investment. Are you denying that special treatment that big-box retailers get(especially Wal-Mart). Are you denying that public funds are used there? Don't come at me with that "Anti-Capitalist, you're a commie socialist" sh!t. I'm not one, and you know that. I'm tired of you acting as if Wal-Mart is just doing their godly duty to expand. If they do it with THEIR OWN MONEY and not the public's money that is fine. When they use the public's money and then squeeze out all other competition that is NOT a level playing field.
Actually I believe the problem is they buy land that is not zoned for use and then they must get zoning changed to build. That is when govt and residents enter the equation.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
I hate walmart, the slightly lower prices than other stores don't justify the crowds and the place looking like ass. Not to mention you can get cheaper prices or as cheap if you simply clip coupons
Walmart moves in, destroys all other businesses that compete with it through predatory pricing. Then, walmart raises prices back to its normal levels when there is no competition left.
They use the same strategy if a competitor moves in nearby.
Mill: I had my responce partially written up, but I cut it and saved it because I thought the forums were going down tonight, not tomorrow. It's at work and I'm way too lazy to retype that sh!t.
I don't know how things are run down south (probably sh!tty), but up north here in NY we have designated zones called "empire zones" that companies can get tax breaks and grants to develop or open a business in. That's really the only way you're getting a break in your taxes in this state. Otherwise none of the towns in my area have cut any breaks for wal-mart to come in. This is actually a rather hot debate in this area, because many people want the town counsels to contribute money to the development of wal-mart centers in the area, but the towns refuse.
Just recently the development plan of a new super wal-mart was canned because the town wouldn't rezone the property wal-mart bought to build the center. The counsel even took it a step further by zoning the land state wetlands and forcing wal-mart to give it up.
NY is strict, not sure about the rest of the nation though.
I don't know how things are run down south (probably sh!tty
), but up north here in NY we have designated zones called "empire zones" that companies can get tax breaks and grants to develop or open a business in. That's really the only way you're getting a break in your taxes in this state. Otherwise none of the towns in my area have cut any breaks for wal-mart to come in. This is actually a rather hot debate in this area, because many people want the town counsels to contribute money to the development of wal-mart centers in the area, but the towns refuse.Just recently the development plan of a new super wal-mart was canned because the town wouldn't rezone the property wal-mart bought to build the center. The counsel even took it a step further by zoning the land state wetlands and forcing wal-mart to give it up.
NY is strict, not sure about the rest of the nation though.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
Walmart licks doggie nuts, and so does the OP's post because the data he introduces says absolutely nothing about what Walmart does to small communities when it invades them.
Maybe P&N does tho. :roll:
Please don't submit again, you already submitted a useless post, and we don't need any more of your bent hypotheses.
Maybe P&N does tho. :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter