What I would be interested in is proving the assumption that Walmart takes multiple small businesses, drives them under and then hires back on the former owner and employees at a standard of living lower than they previously enjoyed.
Is there any actual proof of this, or is it just one of those things that is repeated until it is true?
In my town for example we have a Walmart coming. We also have loads of big box retailers within driving distance. The local sporting goods store was specifically mentioned and in our instance, it happens to be what a store I am very familiar with.
In many instances, I have seen the sport stores basically go in a different direction than what Walmart can handle. So Walmart brings in loads of $99 Huffys, and the local bike shop moves on to $2000-4000 mountain and road bikes that need plenty of personal customer service and care. Walmart can't compete with this at all.
Saying Walmart will kill competition is like claiming that Dell has killed white box computer makers. It just isn't true in fact white box makers continue to grow their marketshare year after year. Some people want a $400 Dell, but others want the same company, a local company who will build the boxes, string the network, put it all together with software recommendations and the quickly come out and service it for three years.
The point is that I have heard the contention about Walmart harming local business, but I have not seen true examples of it happening.
I am also amused that the current iteration of Wal-Mart has gone so far against Sam Walton's stated vision; no stores in big cities, no involvement in politics and countless other dictums they happily ignore in the name of corporate greed.
I certainly understand the popular trend of crapping on WalMart, but I also think that it's a good thing -- it keeps other folks honest. Not the crapping on, but the store concept. Before WalMart, small shopowners were taking their precious small towns for a ride in many cases.
Besides, the only folks to blame for the success of WalMart is its customers. If WM sells junk, it's because folks will buy junk and don't want to pay for better.
I certainly understand the popular trend of crapping on WalMart, but I also think that it's a good thing -- it keeps other folks honest. Not the crapping on, but the store concept. Before WalMart, small shopowners were taking their precious small towns for a ride in many cases.
Besides, the only folks to blame for the success of WalMart is its customers. If WM sells junk, it's because folks will buy junk and don't want to pay for better.
Indeed. It is the system itself that is the problem. Walmart is just a symptom of its evils.
I got into the labor argument with my parents (both in Wal-Mart management) and it is hilarious really. They say that unions are bad because what the Wal-Mart employees who organize get is worse than what those who do not organize get.
So Wal-Mart punishes the employees that organize, and this is passed off as a sign of good treatment of workers by Wal-Mart. Pretty damned funny when you think about it.
Why the most successful business in the history of the world cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage AND provide them good health coverage is beyond me if they really care about their workers.
It is valid for labor folks to be concerned with Wal-Mart, it is the largest private employer in the nation.
There is no question about it: Wal-mart is evil, in a U.S.-Steel-Standard-Oil-Trust sort of way.
Much has already been said about how Wal-Mart treats its workers. I do not believe that anyone yet has mentioned anything about the suppiers of the products that Wal-Mart sells. Have you ever wondered just exactly how Wal-Mart's prices are so low?
Wal-Mart has essentially formed a monopoly on low-priced goods in this country. Take any random product. You have vendor A and vendor B. Wal-Mart comes along and takes bids from both vendors for the product. Let's say that vendor A has the lower price. Wal-Mart goes with A, and B goes out of business because there is no-one else to sell the product to. One year elapses. Wal-Mart comes back to vendor A and demands that vendor A lower the price of the product, however unreasonable lowering the price of production might be. Vendor A must comply or else Wal-Mart will go to another vendor. If vendor doesn't comply, then Wal-Mart goes to vendor C and puts vendor A out of business.
It is a cycle that Wal-Mart has been through thousands of times over the course of its modern lifespan. Many suppliers have gone out of business because of Wal-Mart, and suppliers have been forced to make things for ridiculously low prices, many times at great losses to the suppliers, because if they don't they'll simply die.
The vast majority of people who don't care about Wal-Mart's business practices and only care about how the Doritos at Wal-Mart are $.15 less than at Safeway just happens to be the same majority of people who I don't want to be around on account of their disgusting physical appearance and limited intellectual capacity. Have you ever been to a Wal-Mart? My God, they are UNDESIRABLE PEOPLE MAGNETS! Ughh . . . Wherever there is a Wal-Mart there are hordes and hordes of them. And they never quit, hence why Wal-Mart never quits.
Yes, yes . . . Wal-Mart is evil. In fact, Wal-Mart is far more evil than Microsoft, if Microsoft is even evil at all.
In the town I used to live in, there was a grill manufacturer. WM ordered a certain number of grills from them. When they were delivered, WM wanted to sell them at what amounted to cost. The company refused. WM refused the shipment.
Listen, I have been in Wal-Mart at 7pm on a payday weekend and have seen the undesireables. The cut-off jean shorts and shrimp boots, the 400 pounders who park sideways taking up two parking spaces then chase their army of hellian children into the store to let them roam free while they blockade the already too narrow isles in the stores Rascall loaner. I have stood behind the woman beating her childs ass for throwing candy at her brother while the obnoxious cashier screams party plans to her coworker 3 registers down while fighting to scoop out the $.85 change with her 4" fingernails (with beach murel airbrushed on).
I think that if we hate enduring this so much that we should make it a point to shop elsewhere. I personally blame any frustrations I might have on myself for going there in the first place. I think that their prices on staple items (toiletries, cleaning goods, ETC.) are generally beter than most places and usually feel that if I can endure this B.S. I can save some money. I think that if people hate the idea of a large scale superchain then they should make it a point to shop elsewhere to ensure the existance of mom and pop places. As much as I hate going there most of the time I just dont think Wal-Mart is evil but rather a business that has taken full advantage of our societys areas of opportunity.
In the last couple of months I have seen some spectacular changes to the shopping center housing this monster that include asthetic improvments as well as a number of changes to the roads in surrounding neighborhoods as well as the addition of some much needed trafic lights to govern the flow of traffic in these residential neighborhoods which has grown tremendously. I attribute these improvments to the Wal-Mart facility and really dont understand the Anti-Corporate marketing campaigns that protesters have launched to stop these developments...
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
I am honestly not sure who is paying for the upgraded roads and Traffic lights. I do know that Wal-Mart has requirments when building a supercenter (this is a WM with a grocery store inside it for the people who arent aware). I have a strong suspision that the county (parish here) is paying for the upgrades to ensure the development. I would feel much better if the WM people were paying for this but the introduction of this store will force the other grocery store less than a mile away to lower its outrageous prices or suffer the wrath. So most people I have spoken to think that the development is wonderful. Frankly people are tired of getting their eyes gouged out on prices because the other store (WinnDixie) feels like they can get away with it. To clarify WinnDixie is one of 2 moderate size grocers in the area but the other is a real Dump.
sorry I didnt cover the second question...I am less concerned about my Tax dollers paying for improvments that were needed in the firstplace in order to allow Wal-Mart to change into SUPER Wal-Mart if I am saving $50-75 every 2 weeks when the wife and I go Grocery shopping. I feel that this is a reasonable exchange. As it stands now the roads were turning to shit the prices for grocerys at the only descent store in town were outrageously priced and I am still paying Taxes. \
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
This is a very naive way of framing this. Counties add infrastructure all the time and it isn't corporate welfare. Since the corporations many times the cost of the road in sales and corporate taxes, while also providing jobs to employees who yet again pay taxes, it seems like the minimum amount of effort necessary to justify the taxes they receive.
I suppose building roads is too much of a burden for the government. Of course what do they do to justify their taxation then?
Comments
Is there any actual proof of this, or is it just one of those things that is repeated until it is true?
In my town for example we have a Walmart coming. We also have loads of big box retailers within driving distance. The local sporting goods store was specifically mentioned and in our instance, it happens to be what a store I am very familiar with.
In many instances, I have seen the sport stores basically go in a different direction than what Walmart can handle. So Walmart brings in loads of $99 Huffys, and the local bike shop moves on to $2000-4000 mountain and road bikes that need plenty of personal customer service and care. Walmart can't compete with this at all.
Saying Walmart will kill competition is like claiming that Dell has killed white box computer makers. It just isn't true in fact white box makers continue to grow their marketshare year after year. Some people want a $400 Dell, but others want the same company, a local company who will build the boxes, string the network, put it all together with software recommendations and the quickly come out and service it for three years.
The point is that I have heard the contention about Walmart harming local business, but I have not seen true examples of it happening.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
I am also amused that the current iteration of Wal-Mart has gone so far against Sam Walton's stated vision; no stores in big cities, no involvement in politics and countless other dictums they happily ignore in the name of corporate greed.
I certainly understand the popular trend of crapping on WalMart, but I also think that it's a good thing -- it keeps other folks honest. Not the crapping on, but the store concept. Before WalMart, small shopowners were taking their precious small towns for a ride in many cases.
Besides, the only folks to blame for the success of WalMart is its customers. If WM sells junk, it's because folks will buy junk and don't want to pay for better.
Originally posted by finagain
I certainly understand the popular trend of crapping on WalMart, but I also think that it's a good thing -- it keeps other folks honest. Not the crapping on, but the store concept. Before WalMart, small shopowners were taking their precious small towns for a ride in many cases.
Besides, the only folks to blame for the success of WalMart is its customers. If WM sells junk, it's because folks will buy junk and don't want to pay for better.
Indeed. It is the system itself that is the problem. Walmart is just a symptom of its evils.
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. It is the system itself that is the problem. Walmart is just a symptom of its evils.
quite true. this is why liberals can't help the disgusting state of America, only radicals can.
So Wal-Mart punishes the employees that organize, and this is passed off as a sign of good treatment of workers by Wal-Mart. Pretty damned funny when you think about it.
Why the most successful business in the history of the world cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage AND provide them good health coverage is beyond me if they really care about their workers.
It is valid for labor folks to be concerned with Wal-Mart, it is the largest private employer in the nation.
Much has already been said about how Wal-Mart treats its workers. I do not believe that anyone yet has mentioned anything about the suppiers of the products that Wal-Mart sells. Have you ever wondered just exactly how Wal-Mart's prices are so low?
Wal-Mart has essentially formed a monopoly on low-priced goods in this country. Take any random product. You have vendor A and vendor B. Wal-Mart comes along and takes bids from both vendors for the product. Let's say that vendor A has the lower price. Wal-Mart goes with A, and B goes out of business because there is no-one else to sell the product to. One year elapses. Wal-Mart comes back to vendor A and demands that vendor A lower the price of the product, however unreasonable lowering the price of production might be. Vendor A must comply or else Wal-Mart will go to another vendor. If vendor doesn't comply, then Wal-Mart goes to vendor C and puts vendor A out of business.
It is a cycle that Wal-Mart has been through thousands of times over the course of its modern lifespan. Many suppliers have gone out of business because of Wal-Mart, and suppliers have been forced to make things for ridiculously low prices, many times at great losses to the suppliers, because if they don't they'll simply die.
The vast majority of people who don't care about Wal-Mart's business practices and only care about how the Doritos at Wal-Mart are $.15 less than at Safeway just happens to be the same majority of people who I don't want to be around on account of their disgusting physical appearance and limited intellectual capacity. Have you ever been to a Wal-Mart? My God, they are UNDESIRABLE PEOPLE MAGNETS! Ughh . . . Wherever there is a Wal-Mart there are hordes and hordes of them. And they never quit, hence why Wal-Mart never quits.
Yes, yes . . . Wal-Mart is evil. In fact, Wal-Mart is far more evil than Microsoft, if Microsoft is even evil at all.
Thanks for playing!
Mac OS X
The company went out of business.
I think that if we hate enduring this so much that we should make it a point to shop elsewhere. I personally blame any frustrations I might have on myself for going there in the first place. I think that their prices on staple items (toiletries, cleaning goods, ETC.) are generally beter than most places and usually feel that if I can endure this B.S. I can save some money. I think that if people hate the idea of a large scale superchain then they should make it a point to shop elsewhere to ensure the existance of mom and pop places. As much as I hate going there most of the time I just dont think Wal-Mart is evil but rather a business that has taken full advantage of our societys areas of opportunity.
Originally posted by Playmaker
In the last couple of months I have seen some spectacular changes to the shopping center housing this monster that include asthetic improvments as well as a number of changes to the roads in surrounding neighborhoods as well as the addition of some much needed trafic lights to govern the flow of traffic in these residential neighborhoods which has grown tremendously. I attribute these improvments to the Wal-Mart facility and really dont understand the Anti-Corporate marketing campaigns that protesters have launched to stop these developments...
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
I am honestly not sure who is paying for the upgraded roads and Traffic lights. I do know that Wal-Mart has requirments when building a supercenter (this is a WM with a grocery store inside it for the people who arent aware). I have a strong suspision that the county (parish here) is paying for the upgrades to ensure the development. I would feel much better if the WM people were paying for this but the introduction of this store will force the other grocery store less than a mile away to lower its outrageous prices or suffer the wrath. So most people I have spoken to think that the development is wonderful. Frankly people are tired of getting their eyes gouged out on prices because the other store (WinnDixie) feels like they can get away with it. To clarify WinnDixie is one of 2 moderate size grocers in the area but the other is a real Dump.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Is Walmart the type of big business that Bush is supposedly in bed with?
No. Bush is in bed (via Cheney) with Haliburton and Bechtel.
Originally posted by midwinter
No. Bush is in bed (via Cheney) with Haliburton and Bechtel.
name one AMERICAN company who could do what Haliburton is doing, for the same price...Good luck.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Is Wal-Mart paying for these improvements? Or are they corporate welfare projects billed to the taxpaying citizens? And if it's the latter, would that mean you are happy that a corporation like Wal-Mart was the only way to get such infrastructure improvements expedited?
This is a very naive way of framing this. Counties add infrastructure all the time and it isn't corporate welfare. Since the corporations many times the cost of the road in sales and corporate taxes, while also providing jobs to employees who yet again pay taxes, it seems like the minimum amount of effort necessary to justify the taxes they receive.
I suppose building roads is too much of a burden for the government. Of course what do they do to justify their taxation then?
Nick