How would I (or the admin) know? The contracts were no-bid.
I also really really like all those closed door dealings with top officials from energy companies when they tried to bulldog that atrocious energy bill.
Big business, inside jacket pocket. Little business, seat of our pants. Gotta love that whitehouse mantra.
coming from small town america, I can only attest to what they've done to my hometown friends and family. What rips me is their low price mantra is only offset by their whole corp being run by accountants. They have little to know customer service, its find what you can (though all big boxes are that way) And they literally crushed my hometown. Like all there is there now are wal-mart and a bunch of fast food joints, and thats it! There used to be a downtown full of clothing stores, furniture shops, jewelry, and everything. Without the local sports there'd be nothing.
there isn't too much of a "don't use my tax dollars for infrastructure" argument cost for big tax boons like wal-mart. however, that argument is EXTREMELY accurate against suburban-style developments, where developers build on an unfit road and strongarm the city for improvements, water, etc, that tax-payers end up paying for.
secondly, the heart of the real wal-mart issue is this: in order for wal-mart to deliver low prices, suppliers must deliver goods at the low cost that wal-mart requires. the only way that suppliers can provide their product at the price wal-mart expects is by exporting jobs (primarily manufacturing) oversees. this goes back to wal-mart being only a symptom of the larger problem, which, in this case, is globalization. if you don't have a problem with the US having virtually no manufacturing sector, then you should be all for global efficiency, etc. i think a manufacturing sector is important for economic vitality and maintaining a middle class. i could be wrong, but i am very, very, rarely incorrect.
coming from small town america, I can only attest to what they've done to my hometown friends and family. What rips me is their low price mantra is only offset by their whole corp being run by accountants. They have little to know customer service, its find what you can (though all big boxes are that way) And they literally crushed my hometown. Like all there is there now are wal-mart and a bunch of fast food joints, and thats it! There used to be a downtown full of clothing stores, furniture shops, jewelry, and everything. Without the local sports there'd be nothing.
yeah, the small town is dead. they are all like this now, unless the citizens know enough to fight this kind of development. however, the education level in small towns is usually pretty low and the city council can't see past the tax dollars so it is rare that citizens see the larger sector. i'm from a small town and it is horribly sad to see what it has become
This is a very naive way of framing this. Counties add infrastructure all the time and it isn't corporate welfare.
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
I live in NYC during the week and go to a very, very small town almost every weekend. It's scary how the only place to get anything is Wal Mart. It's a pretty dismal shopping experience, but when it's the only game in town what can you do?
On another note, I bet if we put tariffs on Chinese goods the way we shoudl Wal Mart would crumble.
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
10 points for a great argument! that was a very, very stupid idea on the town's part, so wal-mart isn't entirely to blame. crazy economic development packages always end up a zero-sum game anyway...i guess in this case, it went negative
I'm not criticizing Wal-Mart's business practices any more than I would criticize U.S. Steel's practices when it was a ruthless monopoly. Certainly the reason Wal-Mart is what it is is because it knew and knows how to play the game better than any other company. ok? But that is irrelavent. It goes against the whole idea of competition, something that must be maintained to keep the system working.
Standard Oil became a monopoly by being the best company. However, it destroyed the competition element and instantaneously created an evil that needed to be ended. None of you would argue that US Steel and Standard were good things?
Wal-Mart is evil and it needs to have Justice Department smack lain down upon it. However, with this administration, Wal-Mart could buy out Target and K-Mart . . . and nothing would happen. ::: sigh :::
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
I live in NYC during the week and go to a very, very small town almost every weekend. It's scary how the only place to get anything is Wal Mart. It's a pretty dismal shopping experience, but when it's the only game in town what can you do?
On another note, I bet if we put tariffs on Chinese goods the way we shoudl Wal Mart would crumble.
What about using the exception to prove the rule? What about if that exception is an unproven assertion that is phrased like an urban myth?
Now consider the reality of the situation. If having a Walmart was so terrible, why would another town attempt to lure it away?
Even if having a Walmart were an absolute zero sum game in terms of sales tax revenue, (which it isn't) the town obviously believes they get something out of it or else they wouldn't do it. Towns bid for box retailers because they get a percentage of the sales tax revenue. A retailer like Walmart can attract dollars from not only the town in which it resides, but also surrounding towns as well. Towns will give them a tax break because it can get them a large cut of the sales tax for the whole town and five surrounding towns.
If you think the shopping experience is dismal with only a Walmart there, imagine what it would be without it. Something many people fail to consider is that Walmart, having so many stores doesn't have to make top dollar, or even any dollars from that store. Some stores might even run a loss.
I have friends who are in management at Rite-Aid, a fully union store. Rite-Aid had stores that were making no money, but because of the size of the company, they could afford to run them and provide services through them until the economic circumstances turned around, or unti the market matured enough to justify the store and services, etc. You assume with no Walmart something would fill the void. That is an unproven assuption. There are plenty of places where there just isn't a means of buying what you want and you just wait, drive even further, etc.
Finally if you slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, the people you would hurt the most are the poor. Do you think the wealthy are shopping at Walmart? Instead you would have the poor spending an even larger percentage of their income for what they need.
Globalization isn't responsible for the U.S. loss of manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains are the cause. Even CHINA is losing manufacturing jobs. It is like how 90% of the population use to engage in agriculture and now do not. We have 3% engaged in agriculture and have huge food surpluses. That is what is happening with manufacturing as well. Soon only 3-5% of the population will need to work to manufacture all we need. Other industries are growing up to replace the jobs just as they did in the past. We cannot remain static and pray the work just never changes.
Globalization isn't responsible for the U.S. loss of manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains are the cause. Even CHINA is losing manufacturing jobs. It is like how 90% of the population use to engage in agriculture and now do not. We have 3% engaged in agriculture and have huge food surpluses. That is what is happening with manufacturing as well. Soon only 3-5% of the population will need to work to manufacture all we need. Other industries are growing up to replace the jobs just as they did in the past. We cannot remain static and pray the work just never changes.
i don't think this is a fair analogy at all. if levi were able to produce some magical machine that made it so a single american plant could push through the amount of product that ten plants used to, your agriculture analogy would be valid. instead, levi replaces american manufacturing jobs with just as many (if not more) chinese manufacturing jobs and imports the product that is made from china.
levi is, of course, just an example. the same applies to pretty much any producer of a retail good. China's/Mexico's comparitive advantage is cheap labor, so American corporations take advantage of this. the working class in America then becomes unemployed.
of course, agriculture in america is just another corporate mess, but that is another thread.
Finally if you slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, the people you would hurt the most are the poor. Do you think the wealthy are shopping at Walmart? Instead you would have the poor spending an even larger percentage of their income for what they need.
First, let me say that i appreciate your post (this is only an excerpt) because it is clear you have read many of the posts of the thread and that you are not just spewing rhetoric.
The counter argument to the snippet above is that if we tariffed chinese goods, many of the poor would no longer be poor. while the working-class family used to make up a crucial middle class, working-class (employed in manufacturing) has become a poorly paid underclass because there is far less demand for manufacturing labor because it has been outsourced, thus reducing the wage for everyone who is employed in this sector, not to mention worsening the working conditions ("if you don't want this job, fine, there are twenty people lined up to take your job"). anyhow, back to my point: chinese tariffs would increase the demand for manufacturing labor in this country thus pushing up pay (and working conditions/benefits as a positive side effect) and reduce the number of poor people in the country
Now consider the reality of the situation. If having a Walmart was so terrible, why would another town attempt to lure it away?
Even if having a Walmart were an absolute zero sum game in terms of sales tax revenue, (which it isn't) the town obviously believes they get something out of it or else they wouldn't do it. Towns bid for box retailers because they get a percentage of the sales tax revenue. A retailer like Walmart can attract dollars from not only the town in which it resides, but also surrounding towns as well. Towns will give them a tax break because it can get them a large cut of the sales tax for the whole town and five surrounding towns.
yes, towns get some tax money (okay, a lot of tax money) from the big boxes and this is why some towns want them...everything looks rosey and cheery, money here, there, and everywhere. In many towns, however, this means a destruction of the local economy through a nearly non-existent multiplier effect (recycling of profits within the community to strengthen the local business environment)...in a non big-box situation, a town gains wealth in two ways: (1) profits from local businesses are recirculated within the community time and again, creating the mentioned multiplier effect. there is a ton of literature on the multiplier effect, but if you care, you'll do the researc on that (thousands of pages have been written about it) and (2) tax dollars. if an economy is entirely local, it receives the greatest benefit from reason (1) and a lesser benefit from reason (2) (tax dollars). big box can then waltz in, and say, we'll increase your tax dollars (number 2) by $3 million dollars. typically, the small town will get all giddy and and let big box in. of course, what is forgotten is that big box eliminates the number 1 way the town was making money before, through the multiplier effect and the recycling of profits! this is quite easy for the town to forget, because it does not exist as a nice neat number within the city finances, and no small-town finance director has the wherewithall (spelling?) to complete a sufficient analysis of the local economy in order to quantify the positive effect of reason (1) above. big box boosts the number that is easy to count, everyone gets excited, but in the LONG TERM (politicians, the decision makers, exist only in the short term) the town is worse off, because a larger Tax base does NOT make up for the money lost as a result of company profits being shipped out of town. Put very simply, all the wealth that the town creates by working at or shopping at wal-mart is LOST.
i recommend reading the above paragraph twice.
Quote:
If you think the shopping experience is dismal with only a Walmart there, imagine what it would be without it. Something many people fail to consider is that Walmart, having so many stores doesn't have to make top dollar, or even any dollars from that store. Some stores might even run a loss.
wal-mart won't keep stores that are running a loss. wal-mart is huge because they pinch every penny, and they will not keep a store if it is not profitable for the corporation.
Quote:
I have friends who are in management at Rite-Aid, a fully union store. Rite-Aid had stores that were making no money, but because of the size of the company, they could afford to run them and provide services through them until the economic circumstances turned around, or unti the market matured enough to justify the store and services, etc. You assume with no Walmart something would fill the void. That is an unproven assuption. There are plenty of places where there just isn't a means of buying what you want and you just wait, drive even further, etc.
a well-run local business has money in the bank that will help it through economic downturns. if the store exists without demand for what it does (you framed this as the market having not matured enough to justify the store and services) then yes, it will go under. i'm not sure i see the argument here.
i don't think this is a fair analogy at all. if levi were able to produce some magical machine that made it so a single american plant could push through the amount of product that ten plants used to, your agriculture analogy would be valid. instead, levi replaces american manufacturing jobs with just as many (if not more) chinese manufacturing jobs and imports the product that is made from china.
levi is, of course, just an example. the same applies to pretty much any producer of a retail good. China's/Mexico's comparitive advantage is cheap labor, so American corporations take advantage of this. the working class in America then becomes unemployed.
of course, agriculture in america is just another corporate mess, but that is another thread.
You make it sound as if they number of people farming dropped ten fold in a year or two. It is a progression. Lastly I didn't just make it up and it isn't just a U.S. situation, it is worldwide.
Levi might shift some jobs for example to another country. But the new plant is redesigned and ends up employing fewer people, or creates more product with the same number of people. That is productivity.
Also cheap labor typically means unskilled labor. Even in the tech sector the big exodus of "skilled" jobs to India is primarily things like call centers handling tech support. Sure there are indeed some high end engineering projects finally occuring there. But there are limits to what you can do when a country doesn't have the infrastructure to support more and small but very talented base that you then find and use.
Quote:
First, let me say that i appreciate your post (this is only an excerpt) because it is clear you have read many of the posts of the thread and that you are not just spewing rhetoric.
The counter argument to the snippet above is that if we tariffed chinese goods, many of the poor would no longer be poor. while the working-class family used to make up a crucial middle class, working-class (employed in manufacturing) has become a poorly paid underclass because there is far less demand for manufacturing labor because it has been outsourced, thus reducing the wage for everyone who is employed in this sector, not to mention worsening the working conditions ("if you don't want this job, fine, there are twenty people lined up to take your job"). anyhow, back to my point: chinese tariffs would increase the demand for manufacturing labor in this country thus pushing up pay (and working conditions/benefits as a positive side effect) and reduce the number of poor people in the country
If we removed tariffs, it wouldn't raise wages here. This has already been seen with minimum wage laws. All it does it make companies reinvest in equipment to become more productive and avoid the increased labor costs. The clearest example of this today are fast food restaurants. I (believe it or not ) was a teenager and like most had an entry level job. The same size restaurants employed at least twice as many people when I entering the work force. They would put you on the silliest jobs, but it didn't matter because they could afford to pay you what the crap job was actually worth. California has a higher minimum wage than the national minimum wage. I believe we are now at almost $7 an hour. All of these same restaurants have now entirely revamped so instead of using 10-12 people, they have all new equipment and employ 4-5 people.
The jobs that get shipped overseas typically require next to no education. They can be done in environments where there does not have to be any sort of super high tech infrastructure, etc. No one is going to pay someone $25 an hour to screw three screws into a a toy, or to sew the sleeve onto a shirt. Even if you did pay that, it would just raise the cost of everything proportionally and we would be right back where we are now. Tariffs wouldn't push up the wages or demand for manufacturing workers. Those jobs are already disappearing, even in China because of productivity increases. The only thing tariffs would do is increase the attempts at innovation to enhance productivity even more.
Quote:
yes, towns get some tax money (okay, a lot of tax money) from the big boxes and this is why some towns want them...everything looks rosey and cheery, money here, there, and everywhere. In many towns, however, this means a destruction of the local economy through a nearly non-existent multiplier effect (recycling of profits within the community to strengthen the local business environment)...in a non big-box situation, a town gains wealth in two ways: (1) profits from local businesses are recirculated within the community time and again, creating the mentioned multiplier effect.
No town is an island. Even if a local business gets a profit from the mark up on an item, the item was still most likely manufactured somewhere else. Someone still had to deliver it to the town, etc. You claim more dollars stay in the town, but how can that be so when you must also spend more dollars to get those goods? Do you think that Ma and Pa Hardware store gets the same delivery rate, wholesale price, etc as Walmart? The higher prices typically charged by a smaller business reflect higher prices also charged to them. Higher prices charged by wholesalers, transporters, etc who are outside of the town.
The reality is that people will pay more for a better product, or better service. Any retailer who can provide that has no fear of someone even as large as Walmart.
The sport good store is a typically mentioned example for Walmart. We have local bike shop I have gone to since our town was about 5,000 people. It is locally owned and operated. I purchased all my families bicycles there. The prices at a Walmart/Target/Kmart were a lower, but this bike shop will give free adjustments of brakes, calipers, etc for any bike that was purchased there. They offer more service so they get my business. Many local tire shops can't match the price of say, a Pep Boys, but they toss in free rotation for the life of the tires and they have my business. McDonald's can make the cheapest hamburger, but that doesnt't mean I always desire to eat there or even ever desire to eat there. To provide those cheap burgers, they have to move people which means garish colors, hard plastic seats, crowds, etc. You offer something different, people are willing to pay different.
As for the multiplier effect and tax dollars, the easiest way to keep a dollar in town, is of course not having to spend it in the first place. Lower prices accomplish that. The tax base gains are important because they are not just tossed out the window. They fund the local improvements that give a better quality of life. They fund the roads, parks, water treatment, etc. That needs to occur. Having more dollars for this means a better quality of life. Cities realize this and that is why they fight for these box stores.
Quote:
wal-mart won't keep stores that are running a loss. wal-mart is huge because they pinch every penny, and they will not keep a store if it is not profitable for the corporation.
Sure they will. The point is that large corporations can wait long term for their gains. Microsoft is a prime example of a company that can take losses in areas for years until they become competitive, the field becomes profitable, both or none.
Most retailers won't put a store in a sparsely populated area because there aren't enough people to support the store in terms of profitability. Walmart will put that store in though. The flip side is that people, seeing an area has some amenities, are more willing to move there. As this happens there is more competition, and the costs of land, building, etc. begin to go up. Well those costs aren't had by Walmart, they moved in when the land and labor were cheap. They took the losses up front, but now they are established, people have their buying habits formed, and even when the competition moves in, they are already in a better position. The power and habits of branding are huge. Your kids will scream to go to McDonalds in the middle of Paris simply because it is a known experience. The same is true for Walmart. Those stores may lose money in some areas, but they establish the habits, experiences, and identity which reap dividends later or in other places. You may be stuck out in the middle of nowhere, but you know who can afford to run a store in the middle of nowhere and automaticlaly start search for them first to spend those dollars.
Quote:
a well-run local business has money in the bank that will help it through economic downturns. if the store exists without demand for what it does (you framed this as the market having not matured enough to justify the store and services) then yes, it will go under. i'm not sure i see the argument here.
The argument is as stated up above. Walmart can wait for the demand, and benefit from the habits and attitudes formed even when the stores are earning them a dime. If your local Walmart is the place you go to get your diapers on a Friday night on special. They will benefit from that habit having been formed when the store wasn't making a dime. Later when the area becomes more populated, and they are making plenty of money. You have identified now with shopping at Walmart. You know the store, how to look for sales, the hours, etc. Those are powerful inducements to shop there. They will cause you to shop there even if you move. They might even been in your considerations of what you want in a community when you move as a result.
Most of us do this with our beloved Macs as well. Plenty of people know, even to the day of the week, when Apple is most likely to change products. We follow the company and in doing so feel more compelled to shop there.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
name one AMERICAN company who could do what Haliburton is doing, for the same price...Good luck.
How would I (or the admin) know? The contracts were no-bid.
Originally posted by midwinter
How would I (or the admin) know? The contracts were no-bid.
I also really really like all those closed door dealings with top officials from energy companies when they tried to bulldog that atrocious energy bill.
Big business, inside jacket pocket. Little business, seat of our pants. Gotta love that whitehouse mantra.
there isn't too much of a "don't use my tax dollars for infrastructure" argument cost for big tax boons like wal-mart. however, that argument is EXTREMELY accurate against suburban-style developments, where developers build on an unfit road and strongarm the city for improvements, water, etc, that tax-payers end up paying for.
secondly, the heart of the real wal-mart issue is this: in order for wal-mart to deliver low prices, suppliers must deliver goods at the low cost that wal-mart requires. the only way that suppliers can provide their product at the price wal-mart expects is by exporting jobs (primarily manufacturing) oversees. this goes back to wal-mart being only a symptom of the larger problem, which, in this case, is globalization. if you don't have a problem with the US having virtually no manufacturing sector, then you should be all for global efficiency, etc. i think a manufacturing sector is important for economic vitality and maintaining a middle class. i could be wrong, but i am very, very, rarely incorrect.
Originally posted by progmac
wal-mart being only a symptom of the larger problem, which, in this case, is globalization.
Globalization is merely the global expansion of the broken system.
Originally posted by kraig911
coming from small town america, I can only attest to what they've done to my hometown friends and family. What rips me is their low price mantra is only offset by their whole corp being run by accountants. They have little to know customer service, its find what you can (though all big boxes are that way) And they literally crushed my hometown. Like all there is there now are wal-mart and a bunch of fast food joints, and thats it! There used to be a downtown full of clothing stores, furniture shops, jewelry, and everything. Without the local sports there'd be nothing.
yeah, the small town is dead. they are all like this now, unless the citizens know enough to fight this kind of development. however, the education level in small towns is usually pretty low and the city council can't see past the tax dollars so it is rare that citizens see the larger sector. i'm from a small town and it is horribly sad to see what it has become
Originally posted by midwinter
Globalization is merely the global expansion of the broken system.
good point. advanced capitalism is a real drag on the middle class.
Originally posted by progmac
good point. advanced capitalism is a real drag on the middle class.
Hell, it's a drag on anyone who isn't wealthy.
Originally posted by midwinter
Hell, it's a drag on anyone who isn't wealthy.
Can I be wealthy too? I promise I won't shop at Walmart anymore. REALLY!
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Can I be wealthy too? I promise I won't shop at Walmart anymore. REALLY!
Dude. The wealthy don't shop. Much less at Wal-Mart.
This is a very naive way of framing this. Counties add infrastructure all the time and it isn't corporate welfare.
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
I live in NYC during the week and go to a very, very small town almost every weekend. It's scary how the only place to get anything is Wal Mart. It's a pretty dismal shopping experience, but when it's the only game in town what can you do?
On another note, I bet if we put tariffs on Chinese goods the way we shoudl Wal Mart would crumble.
Originally posted by trick fall
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
10 points for a great argument! that was a very, very stupid idea on the town's part, so wal-mart isn't entirely to blame. crazy economic development packages always end up a zero-sum game anyway...i guess in this case, it went negative
Standard Oil became a monopoly by being the best company. However, it destroyed the competition element and instantaneously created an evil that needed to be ended. None of you would argue that US Steel and Standard were good things?
Wal-Mart is evil and it needs to have Justice Department smack lain down upon it. However, with this administration, Wal-Mart could buy out Target and K-Mart . . . and nothing would happen. ::: sigh :::
Originally posted by trick fall
What about the town in CA that gave Walmart like ten years in tax breaks for infrastructure improvements and as soon as they were due to be over WalMart moved out to the next town over?
I live in NYC during the week and go to a very, very small town almost every weekend. It's scary how the only place to get anything is Wal Mart. It's a pretty dismal shopping experience, but when it's the only game in town what can you do?
On another note, I bet if we put tariffs on Chinese goods the way we shoudl Wal Mart would crumble.
What about using the exception to prove the rule? What about if that exception is an unproven assertion that is phrased like an urban myth?
Now consider the reality of the situation. If having a Walmart was so terrible, why would another town attempt to lure it away?
Even if having a Walmart were an absolute zero sum game in terms of sales tax revenue, (which it isn't) the town obviously believes they get something out of it or else they wouldn't do it. Towns bid for box retailers because they get a percentage of the sales tax revenue. A retailer like Walmart can attract dollars from not only the town in which it resides, but also surrounding towns as well. Towns will give them a tax break because it can get them a large cut of the sales tax for the whole town and five surrounding towns.
If you think the shopping experience is dismal with only a Walmart there, imagine what it would be without it. Something many people fail to consider is that Walmart, having so many stores doesn't have to make top dollar, or even any dollars from that store. Some stores might even run a loss.
I have friends who are in management at Rite-Aid, a fully union store. Rite-Aid had stores that were making no money, but because of the size of the company, they could afford to run them and provide services through them until the economic circumstances turned around, or unti the market matured enough to justify the store and services, etc. You assume with no Walmart something would fill the void. That is an unproven assuption. There are plenty of places where there just isn't a means of buying what you want and you just wait, drive even further, etc.
Finally if you slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, the people you would hurt the most are the poor. Do you think the wealthy are shopping at Walmart? Instead you would have the poor spending an even larger percentage of their income for what they need.
Globalization isn't responsible for the U.S. loss of manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains are the cause. Even CHINA is losing manufacturing jobs. It is like how 90% of the population use to engage in agriculture and now do not. We have 3% engaged in agriculture and have huge food surpluses. That is what is happening with manufacturing as well. Soon only 3-5% of the population will need to work to manufacture all we need. Other industries are growing up to replace the jobs just as they did in the past. We cannot remain static and pray the work just never changes.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Globalization isn't responsible for the U.S. loss of manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains are the cause. Even CHINA is losing manufacturing jobs. It is like how 90% of the population use to engage in agriculture and now do not. We have 3% engaged in agriculture and have huge food surpluses. That is what is happening with manufacturing as well. Soon only 3-5% of the population will need to work to manufacture all we need. Other industries are growing up to replace the jobs just as they did in the past. We cannot remain static and pray the work just never changes.
i don't think this is a fair analogy at all. if levi were able to produce some magical machine that made it so a single american plant could push through the amount of product that ten plants used to, your agriculture analogy would be valid. instead, levi replaces american manufacturing jobs with just as many (if not more) chinese manufacturing jobs and imports the product that is made from china.
levi is, of course, just an example. the same applies to pretty much any producer of a retail good. China's/Mexico's comparitive advantage is cheap labor, so American corporations take advantage of this. the working class in America then becomes unemployed.
of course, agriculture in america is just another corporate mess, but that is another thread.
Originally posted by trumptman
Finally if you slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, the people you would hurt the most are the poor. Do you think the wealthy are shopping at Walmart? Instead you would have the poor spending an even larger percentage of their income for what they need.
First, let me say that i appreciate your post (this is only an excerpt) because it is clear you have read many of the posts of the thread and that you are not just spewing rhetoric.
The counter argument to the snippet above is that if we tariffed chinese goods, many of the poor would no longer be poor. while the working-class family used to make up a crucial middle class, working-class (employed in manufacturing) has become a poorly paid underclass because there is far less demand for manufacturing labor because it has been outsourced, thus reducing the wage for everyone who is employed in this sector, not to mention worsening the working conditions ("if you don't want this job, fine, there are twenty people lined up to take your job"). anyhow, back to my point: chinese tariffs would increase the demand for manufacturing labor in this country thus pushing up pay (and working conditions/benefits as a positive side effect) and reduce the number of poor people in the country
Originally posted by trumptman
Now consider the reality of the situation. If having a Walmart was so terrible, why would another town attempt to lure it away?
Even if having a Walmart were an absolute zero sum game in terms of sales tax revenue, (which it isn't) the town obviously believes they get something out of it or else they wouldn't do it. Towns bid for box retailers because they get a percentage of the sales tax revenue. A retailer like Walmart can attract dollars from not only the town in which it resides, but also surrounding towns as well. Towns will give them a tax break because it can get them a large cut of the sales tax for the whole town and five surrounding towns.
yes, towns get some tax money (okay, a lot of tax money) from the big boxes and this is why some towns want them...everything looks rosey and cheery, money here, there, and everywhere. In many towns, however, this means a destruction of the local economy through a nearly non-existent multiplier effect (recycling of profits within the community to strengthen the local business environment)...in a non big-box situation, a town gains wealth in two ways: (1) profits from local businesses are recirculated within the community time and again, creating the mentioned multiplier effect. there is a ton of literature on the multiplier effect, but if you care, you'll do the researc on that (thousands of pages have been written about it) and (2) tax dollars. if an economy is entirely local, it receives the greatest benefit from reason (1) and a lesser benefit from reason (2) (tax dollars). big box can then waltz in, and say, we'll increase your tax dollars (number 2) by $3 million dollars. typically, the small town will get all giddy and and let big box in. of course, what is forgotten is that big box eliminates the number 1 way the town was making money before, through the multiplier effect and the recycling of profits! this is quite easy for the town to forget, because it does not exist as a nice neat number within the city finances, and no small-town finance director has the wherewithall (spelling?) to complete a sufficient analysis of the local economy in order to quantify the positive effect of reason (1) above. big box boosts the number that is easy to count, everyone gets excited, but in the LONG TERM (politicians, the decision makers, exist only in the short term) the town is worse off, because a larger Tax base does NOT make up for the money lost as a result of company profits being shipped out of town. Put very simply, all the wealth that the town creates by working at or shopping at wal-mart is LOST.
i recommend reading the above paragraph twice.
If you think the shopping experience is dismal with only a Walmart there, imagine what it would be without it. Something many people fail to consider is that Walmart, having so many stores doesn't have to make top dollar, or even any dollars from that store. Some stores might even run a loss.
wal-mart won't keep stores that are running a loss. wal-mart is huge because they pinch every penny, and they will not keep a store if it is not profitable for the corporation.
I have friends who are in management at Rite-Aid, a fully union store. Rite-Aid had stores that were making no money, but because of the size of the company, they could afford to run them and provide services through them until the economic circumstances turned around, or unti the market matured enough to justify the store and services, etc. You assume with no Walmart something would fill the void. That is an unproven assuption. There are plenty of places where there just isn't a means of buying what you want and you just wait, drive even further, etc.
a well-run local business has money in the bank that will help it through economic downturns. if the store exists without demand for what it does (you framed this as the market having not matured enough to justify the store and services) then yes, it will go under. i'm not sure i see the argument here.
Originally posted by Scott
I thought it was Enron?
Speaking of Enron....
Originally posted by progmac
i don't think this is a fair analogy at all. if levi were able to produce some magical machine that made it so a single american plant could push through the amount of product that ten plants used to, your agriculture analogy would be valid. instead, levi replaces american manufacturing jobs with just as many (if not more) chinese manufacturing jobs and imports the product that is made from china.
levi is, of course, just an example. the same applies to pretty much any producer of a retail good. China's/Mexico's comparitive advantage is cheap labor, so American corporations take advantage of this. the working class in America then becomes unemployed.
of course, agriculture in america is just another corporate mess, but that is another thread.
You make it sound as if they number of people farming dropped ten fold in a year or two. It is a progression. Lastly I didn't just make it up and it isn't just a U.S. situation, it is worldwide.
More with less
Levi might shift some jobs for example to another country. But the new plant is redesigned and ends up employing fewer people, or creates more product with the same number of people. That is productivity.
Also cheap labor typically means unskilled labor. Even in the tech sector the big exodus of "skilled" jobs to India is primarily things like call centers handling tech support. Sure there are indeed some high end engineering projects finally occuring there. But there are limits to what you can do when a country doesn't have the infrastructure to support more and small but very talented base that you then find and use.
First, let me say that i appreciate your post (this is only an excerpt) because it is clear you have read many of the posts of the thread and that you are not just spewing rhetoric.
The counter argument to the snippet above is that if we tariffed chinese goods, many of the poor would no longer be poor. while the working-class family used to make up a crucial middle class, working-class (employed in manufacturing) has become a poorly paid underclass because there is far less demand for manufacturing labor because it has been outsourced, thus reducing the wage for everyone who is employed in this sector, not to mention worsening the working conditions ("if you don't want this job, fine, there are twenty people lined up to take your job"). anyhow, back to my point: chinese tariffs would increase the demand for manufacturing labor in this country thus pushing up pay (and working conditions/benefits as a positive side effect) and reduce the number of poor people in the country
If we removed tariffs, it wouldn't raise wages here. This has already been seen with minimum wage laws. All it does it make companies reinvest in equipment to become more productive and avoid the increased labor costs. The clearest example of this today are fast food restaurants. I (believe it or not
The jobs that get shipped overseas typically require next to no education. They can be done in environments where there does not have to be any sort of super high tech infrastructure, etc. No one is going to pay someone $25 an hour to screw three screws into a a toy, or to sew the sleeve onto a shirt. Even if you did pay that, it would just raise the cost of everything proportionally and we would be right back where we are now. Tariffs wouldn't push up the wages or demand for manufacturing workers. Those jobs are already disappearing, even in China because of productivity increases. The only thing tariffs would do is increase the attempts at innovation to enhance productivity even more.
yes, towns get some tax money (okay, a lot of tax money) from the big boxes and this is why some towns want them...everything looks rosey and cheery, money here, there, and everywhere. In many towns, however, this means a destruction of the local economy through a nearly non-existent multiplier effect (recycling of profits within the community to strengthen the local business environment)...in a non big-box situation, a town gains wealth in two ways: (1) profits from local businesses are recirculated within the community time and again, creating the mentioned multiplier effect.
No town is an island. Even if a local business gets a profit from the mark up on an item, the item was still most likely manufactured somewhere else. Someone still had to deliver it to the town, etc. You claim more dollars stay in the town, but how can that be so when you must also spend more dollars to get those goods? Do you think that Ma and Pa Hardware store gets the same delivery rate, wholesale price, etc as Walmart? The higher prices typically charged by a smaller business reflect higher prices also charged to them. Higher prices charged by wholesalers, transporters, etc who are outside of the town.
The reality is that people will pay more for a better product, or better service. Any retailer who can provide that has no fear of someone even as large as Walmart.
The sport good store is a typically mentioned example for Walmart. We have local bike shop I have gone to since our town was about 5,000 people. It is locally owned and operated. I purchased all my families bicycles there. The prices at a Walmart/Target/Kmart were a lower, but this bike shop will give free adjustments of brakes, calipers, etc for any bike that was purchased there. They offer more service so they get my business. Many local tire shops can't match the price of say, a Pep Boys, but they toss in free rotation for the life of the tires and they have my business. McDonald's can make the cheapest hamburger, but that doesnt't mean I always desire to eat there or even ever desire to eat there. To provide those cheap burgers, they have to move people which means garish colors, hard plastic seats, crowds, etc. You offer something different, people are willing to pay different.
As for the multiplier effect and tax dollars, the easiest way to keep a dollar in town, is of course not having to spend it in the first place. Lower prices accomplish that. The tax base gains are important because they are not just tossed out the window. They fund the local improvements that give a better quality of life. They fund the roads, parks, water treatment, etc. That needs to occur. Having more dollars for this means a better quality of life. Cities realize this and that is why they fight for these box stores.
wal-mart won't keep stores that are running a loss. wal-mart is huge because they pinch every penny, and they will not keep a store if it is not profitable for the corporation.
Sure they will. The point is that large corporations can wait long term for their gains. Microsoft is a prime example of a company that can take losses in areas for years until they become competitive, the field becomes profitable, both or none.
Most retailers won't put a store in a sparsely populated area because there aren't enough people to support the store in terms of profitability. Walmart will put that store in though. The flip side is that people, seeing an area has some amenities, are more willing to move there. As this happens there is more competition, and the costs of land, building, etc. begin to go up. Well those costs aren't had by Walmart, they moved in when the land and labor were cheap. They took the losses up front, but now they are established, people have their buying habits formed, and even when the competition moves in, they are already in a better position. The power and habits of branding are huge. Your kids will scream to go to McDonalds in the middle of Paris simply because it is a known experience. The same is true for Walmart. Those stores may lose money in some areas, but they establish the habits, experiences, and identity which reap dividends later or in other places. You may be stuck out in the middle of nowhere, but you know who can afford to run a store in the middle of nowhere and automaticlaly start search for them first to spend those dollars.
a well-run local business has money in the bank that will help it through economic downturns. if the store exists without demand for what it does (you framed this as the market having not matured enough to justify the store and services) then yes, it will go under. i'm not sure i see the argument here.
The argument is as stated up above. Walmart can wait for the demand, and benefit from the habits and attitudes formed even when the stores are earning them a dime. If your local Walmart is the place you go to get your diapers on a Friday night on special. They will benefit from that habit having been formed when the store wasn't making a dime. Later when the area becomes more populated, and they are making plenty of money. You have identified now with shopping at Walmart. You know the store, how to look for sales, the hours, etc. Those are powerful inducements to shop there. They will cause you to shop there even if you move. They might even been in your considerations of what you want in a community when you move as a result.
Most of us do this with our beloved Macs as well. Plenty of people know, even to the day of the week, when Apple is most likely to change products. We follow the company and in doing so feel more compelled to shop there.
Nick