quote: FRONTLINE explores the relationship between U.S. job losses and the American consumer's insatiable desire for bargains in "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" Through interviews with retail executives, product manufacturers, economists, and trade experts, correspondent Hedrick Smith examines the growing controversy over the Wal-Mart way of doing business and asks whether a single retail giant has changed the American economy.
"Wal-Mart's power and influence are awesome," Smith says. "By figuring out how to exploit two powerful forces that converged in the 1990s -- the rise of information technology and the explosion of the global economy -- Wal-Mart has dramatically changed the balance of power in the world of business. Retailers are now more powerful than manufacturers, and they are forcing the decision to move production offshore."
"Wal-Mart has reversed a hundred-year history that had the retailer dependent on the manufacturer," explains Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Now the retailer is the center, the power, and the manufacturer becomes the serf, the vassal, the underling who has to do the bidding of the retailer. That's a new thing."
You know you're getting old when you tape documentaries to watch when you get off work.
I know Walmart generates some passionate feelings with some people. Lots of Americans hate it for (allegedly) destroying small towns, not paying a living wage, keeping people part-time to avoid offering benefits, forcing workers to work overtime off the clock, forcing jobs overseas, and on and on...
While others treat it as a shopping Mecca, and shop there often, without a second thought.
Personally, I think they do more harm than good, including some of the negatives I mentioned, and try to avoid shopping there. But I just shopped there this weekend. I had planned to just get a couple of things, but I left with $51 worth, a little dazed.
So, is Walmart a net plus or minus for America?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think it's a minus, for many of the above mentioned reasons. My nieces both worked for them for a while, and had to get state medical coupons. They kept them just under full-time (30? 35? hours). Luckily, that was their college jobs, not somehting they were trying to support families on.
In the three (?) years sonce our Wal-Mart moved in, several businesses int he immediate area have closed. Now, I can't prove Wal-Mart did that- could just be the economy- but I suspect those music, clothing and book stores couldn't compete.
There are other reasons people dislike Wal-Mart, such as them not filling morning after pill scrips, (not one of my reasons), and support of conservative candidates.
I boycot them. I do my very best not to buy anything made from a sweatshop as it is. Luckily I like second hand clothes. (Not to mention that their clothes are thin and poorly made).
An excert from the 2005 Annual Report at WalMart Watch
quote:What’s the matter with Wal-Mart? Consider these facts:
Wal-Mart fails to cover 60% of their workers with any health insurance 70% of Wal-Mart merchandise is from China When Wal-Mart comes to town, for every two jobs it creates three jobs are lost The way Wal-Mart runs its business has accelerated the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas, lowered working standards at home and shifted the burden of caring for their employees to U.S. taxpayers. Wal-Mart’s low prices have come at a high cost:
Wal-Mart costs federal taxpayers over $1.5 billion a year in welfare to their employees Wal-Mart tops the list of companies with employees and their dependents on public assistance in at least 11 states Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $4.1 million in Clean Water Act violations and $50 million to settle allegations of underpaying employees
I'm torn both ways. I know why some people hate Wal-Mart, but I also know lots of people who would be out of work if it wasn't around...... because they aren't skilled enough to get many other kinds of jobs.
If Wal-Mart just suddenly "went away" it would have a huge economic impact (negative) on many communities -- people who make things in industry that are sold at Wal-Mart, people who work there, etc.
FG
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good link, romany, thanks.
I recently heard that Walmrt had contributed to a pickle manufacturers' bankruptcy, by unrealistic price pressures. I'll try to google up some details on that later. I guess that's what the professor meant in my Frontline quote, about retailers calling the shots now, not manufacturers.
One positive for Walmart: economists claim that Wlamart's low prices help keep a lid on inflation in general.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Why would a book store close because of Wal-Mart? It's books section seems to be geared toward the casual reader. I have only bought books at Wal-Mart when I was in a hurry and they *happened* to have something I was interested in. But that's rare. And their price in books is pretty much the same as other places, right?
I just wonder what kind of competition Wal-Mart offers actual bookstores. (I'm not saying they don't compete, perhaps unfairly, with other business types.)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, I could definitely see them competing more against music and clothing stores than book stores.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
This was a small, locally owned bookstore. I suspect Wal-Mart doesn't offer much competition to Borders or B&N. But a small book/magazine stand does stand to lose out to WalMart, in part because, yes, many of their books are sold at a discount, and partly due to the "one stop shopping" mentality. I think this will only get worse as more "supercenters" with grocery open.
Welcome,Morbo!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most of the sales that keep local bookstores oepn are teh best sellers...up to 60% of their overall revenue.
Large booksellers and retail ginats can offer very good discounts on thses books because of teh volume discounts they get from publishers.
Local bookstores don't get those discounts, so beeks cost more there than at Borders or Wal-Mart.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I've always wondered what Sam Walton would think of the corporation that Wal-Mart has become, if he were still alive..........
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I posted this over on Ornery a while back.
quote: Wal-Mart is the number 1 retailer in the world. This year’s sales will top $270 Billion in the U.S. alone. In 2002 in it had sales over $246 billion, Home Depot came in second with $58 billion. You can add up the next five companies’ sales and still not equal Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is responsible for over 3% of the GNP. The highest percentage since the steel industry in the 30’s, and will be the highest ever very soon.
They have gotten there by being the most self efficient, well organized company in the world. They only use their own trucks. Their satellite network is second in the world only to the U.S Government. They know at their headquarters in minutes every item that is sold in all of their stores. If there is a run on JIF peanut butter in Savanna GA they have more arriving on a truck the next day. They even know which items are bought by each customer. This way, they can notice trends like people who buy Tide detergent also buy Lays potato chips, causing them to put a display of Lays next to the Tide.
They don’t waste money. Their headquarters in Bentonville AR looks like an old grocery store and the CEO and CFO share a $59 hotel room when they travel.
Wal-Mart relies heavily on their vendors to do a lot of their work for them. (like all big retailers today). But if you sell to Wal-Mart they are your biggest and most profitable customer.
Even if you hate shopping there (me included) you have to admire the machine. Their efficiencies have forced all the other retailers to improve, and their low prices keep the prices down across the board.
Of course there are many complaints about Wal-Mart also. Very low pay, no benefits, driving small businesses out of business, beating up their vendors for lower pricing, poor customer service, and bad shopping experience are just a few.
I don't like shopping at Wal-Mart, and I don't do it unless I have to. But they are also responsible for lower prices, not just in their stores, but also everywhere else. They are the biggest customer for the company I work for, and even though our products are manufactured in China, If it weren't for Wal-Mart me and many of my fellow American employees wouldn't have a job, with good hours and decent benefits.
So I guess I would have to say Wally world is good for the US.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I would pay higher prices if it meant a living wage for people who work at Wal-Mart.
That said, I avoid the place at all costs.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, maybe my thoughts are colored by the fact that most everyone I know who works at Wal-Mart are teens not trained to do much else, still living at home, and not trying to use that company to support a family, or what have you. College kids, high school kids. They need the flexible hours and are willing to do the less-than-fulltime because they are still covered by their parents' insurance, etc.
FG
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Walmart is far cheaper than any other store around me. And honestly, that's the only factor I really consider.
Long term, there probably are going to be some negative results from everybody turning to Walmart. In the mean time, I don't think there's any way to stop this trend since Walmart undercuts prices by SO much. So why not enjoy the cheap prices while it lasts?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Some of the low wages issues remind me of the overall debate on minimum wages, and whether they should be raised. I think minimum wage being low is ok, but the jobs that are actually at the minimum should be the type of things highschool or college kids do, or seasonal-only work. The problem comes from the lack of better jobs sometimes forcing people who could do more taking a job at Walmart (or flipping burgers, etc). If somebody's working 30-35 hours, they want to work fulltime, and the company won't let them just because they don't want to pay benefits, I think that's fairly unethical. Ideally though, you'd just apply someplace else. If Walmart drove "someplace else" out of business, there's the problem again.
Just a few thoughts, I haven't really done much looking into Walmart or their business practices. I don't shop there often, but I don't think I intentionally avoid it, either.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think we should talk about whether Wal-Mart is good or bad for Bangladesh.
See, there are the problems associated with American workers not getting health insurance, and then there are the problems with eight-year-olds working in sweatshops for pittance because some guy in Alabama really has to have cheap flip-flops and has to have them now. They are both problems, but one may be a little more troublesome than the other.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
I'm not sure what angle you're coming from, but if you want low prices when you go to the store, WM has to have low costs to sell things at such a low price; they then make up for the small margin in sheer volume.
Is that poor worker in Bangladesh being forced to work for WM?
No, he is not, and since he is not we need to ask ourselves: Why would he work such long, hard hours for (in our minds) a pittance?
The answer is that to the worker that wage is not a pittance. Without it, he would have nothing.
It is so easy to see the small mom and pops that go out of business because of WM.
But what is more difficult to see is what other businesses would run out of business if WM was not around.
The "Always Low Prices" of WM keeps lots of cash where it belongs, in the hands of consumers where they can direct the market with their spending.
Without the extra cash that WM saves everyone, there is no doubt that we would see a slowdown in the economy. With less money to spend and invest in their future, consumers would begin to hoard cash and some fringe (and not so fringe), luxury businesses would certainly fail. Then we would all cry over those businesses.
But what we should do now, while we still can, is to celebrate the low prices, large workforce, efficiency and customer-based vision of one of the great American businesses of all time: Wal-Mart.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Out of curiosity, why was 'some guy in Alabama' wanting flip-flops the example you chose?
Because, in all honesty, most people who shop at Wal-Mart aren't doing so for flip-flops at 2 am or most other things equally frivilous. Mostly it's families shopping for things. And when time is precious, there's something to be said about 'one stop shopping.'
That said, you are correct in asking about the working conditions of manufacturers and possible exploitation of workers. That is a valid concern.
Oh, and I rarely go into Wal-Mart. Too many people.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
We shop at Wal-Mart for basic groceries, because it is appreciably cheaper than all our alternatives. We shop at Costco for certain bulk items.
We do not shop at Wal-Mart for anything else. The stores are crowded, messy, frustrating and disorganized, and the non-grocery merchandise is often shoddy. Instead, we shop at Target, department stores, or specialty stores.
That said, I have no moral objections to Wal-Mart as a business that don't equally apply to many other businesses. I don't get the demonizing of Wal-Mart at all.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I know it is not possible for the small Mom and Pop Shops to compete with WM's prices. But I get tired of hearing the WM kills all other businesses. A small business shouldn't be trying to compete with WM. They should focus on the things that WM can't do, like good, knowledgeable service, carrying specialty items, and generally making it pleasant to shop. I am more than willing to pay an extra few dollars to shop in a place like that.
Target is doing very well taking we're not WM approach. Kmart tried to beat them at their own game and lost.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Target, while a bit more expensive, is just so much more pleasant a place to be. Generally. There is one local Target that seems to use the same janitorial service as Wal-Mart, and it is just a dump. But it's the exception.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:You know you're getting old when you tape documentaries to watch when you get off work.
You can watch this documentary and many others online. You don't have to tape it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do you really need a gallon jar of pickles? I dislike Walmart. They sell cheap shoddy goods, cheap useless clothes and I'd rather just buy everything from the thrift store or off ebay instead. Not to mention how they won't allow their workers to unionize, and using cheap foreign labour. It's also how they censor CDs, but sell guns. How does that make sense?
Posted by BotaLadyG (Member # 7053) on :
I personally enjoy going to WM as compared to our local Meijers, Target or Kmart. Those three stores just can't compare with WM.
An example is diapers. I buy the boxes of 96 count Huggies for my son, at WM they run 19.97 I believe, and at Meijers (it's closest competitor) they are around $27. I'm sorry but the price difference is just too great to pass up.
Now if Meijers would actually try to come down in price and really compete with WM, I would probably stop going to WM (except for getting Video Games) all together. Unfortunately, they don't.
Another example is dog food. My dog is like a small horse and I get the 50 lb. bags of Dog Chow for her. Again, at WM they are like $15., whereas at Meijers they are upwards of $20.
Our local Target or Kmart stores are usually filled with more junk than our WM. And much more filthy in appearance. I cringe just to think about some of these stores.
I can find Playtex and Hanes bras and such there as well and save significant amounts of $$$.
Just my 2cents.
Nicole
{edited for speeling}
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote: Without the extra cash that WM saves everyone, there is no doubt that we would see a slowdown in the economy. With less money to spend and invest in their future, consumers would begin to hoard cash and some fringe (and not so fringe), luxury businesses would certainly fail. Then we would all cry over those businesses.
Heaven forbid that people actually start to save their money. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I used to shop at Wal-Mart quite a bit...when I was in college. It's been 2 years since then, and I honestly don't remember the last time I was in a Wal-Mart.
I remember at least one thread on Wal-Mart in the past year that contributed to my decision. I've done some researching; I've done some thinking. I made the decision to avoid Wal-Mart as much as humanly possible. I'm not boycotting, I'm just taking my business elsewhere. I try to give the local, smaller business some priority.
Ok, so Hy-Vee isn't exactly small. But they're close, and they treat me well. They also have a wider grocery selection, and higher quality foods. (When I buy fresh.)
My car repairs are done by a local business, not a chain store.
I go to the local hardware store instead of Home Depot or Lowe's.
Oh, and my town passed a city resolution last year designed to keep Wal-Mart, or any other big-box retailer, from building a brand new Super Center near all the little downtown businesses. The resolution didn't specifically say, "No Wal-Mart." It just said, "Ok, you can build here, but you've got to do A, B, C, D, and look like THIS." Wal-Mart retreated.
(I say, "town" when I mean, "suburb of Kansas City.") Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
A buisness that won't allow its workers to unionize and near litterally forces them to work, and are without adecquate <sp benefits sounds pretty bad.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
I would rather shop at Walmart than Target.
When my husband and I got married we registered at Target. We registered for a phone and answering machine. By the time we got married we had already bought. We also received them as a gift. When we tried to return them to Target they wanted a receit. We didn't have one they were a gift. They asked for the gift receit. We didn't have one. They then told us that we should have gotten one. They told us that we should go ask the people how they paid for it because they can track credit cards so they could find the receit that way. We don't go to Target anymore.
I shop at Walmart. They are cheaper and they have what I need.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Damn, I forgot towatch that show!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My main issues with Walmart are how they treat their workers. There is no excuse for not paying women as much as men (although lots of people do it), not paying workers for hours worked, violating laws regarding scheduling of high school students, etc.
I only ever buy things there when there is absolutely no other alternative and I really feel I can't do without whatever it is I need. But usually, Target has better selection cheaper, so it doesn't become an issue. We live literally right across the street from a Walmart, but we drive 12 minutes to get to Target instead because I am unwilling to shop there except in an emergency.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Morbo,
I think some questions underlying your headliner are worth exploring, and that the exploration can be conducted in a pretty reasonable logic-bound manner (a statement I can't abide for all the discussions that take place here)
I salute you.
*substitute "walmart" with the variable "X"*
("not being facetious") alluvion
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, considering I work for Walmart, and the particular town I live in is 50% college population, I'd say the affect of the company is different depending on the region. In Idaho, the cost of living is extremely low, and Walmart's wages (especially in this town) are extremely good in comparison with what else is available.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I find it hard to believe Target is cheaper on most things than Wal-Mart. They may have a few things, but working for a manufacturer who sells to both. Target expects to make 50%-60% margin on the average non-clothing/grocery item in their store while WM only expects 35% and often makes for less than that. So if you find something cheaper at Target you better read the fine print. It probably doesn’t have as many features or the same level of quality. If Target must hit a price, manufacturers will often remove some features to give them the margin they need. So a $50 camera at WM will usually have more features than a $50 at Target.
I am not saying WM doesn't sell some cheap junk, they do, it just cost less.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh Target is definitely more expensive than WM on basic things. I do like a lot of Target's linens and other home items better.
I shop at WalMart probably every other week. For basic groceries, I go to Winn Dixie (haven't found a dog in the produce section yet) But if I'm buying a fair amount of non-food grocery items like paper products, OTC meds, etc. I go to either WM or Sams because of the pricing.
I also don't see the demonizing of WM, no more so than any other large corporation. My Mom is the HR director for a small chain of grocery stores, family owned, and operated and the CEO really cares about his people - when one store had to be closed because the strip center owner wouldn't renew their lease, he refused to lay off anyone and kept them all until he could open another store. Great people.
And yet, they do everything you seem to hate WM for. They do keep many people less than full time because benefits cost money, and if they paid for everyone's health insurance they'd have to lay off half the work force. Most of their entry level jobs are minimum wage. Why? Because they're entry level jobs. And if they paid people $30K a year to sack groceries no one could afford to shop there.
I just don't see how WM is so evil when what they do is pretty much similar to every other retail business.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow --
I was surfing Google to see if I could find any stories of manufacturers whose survival depends on Wal-Mart (like the success stories they promote in their commercials, etc.) To try to find something positive.
And all I can say after many pages of surfing -- is that there is a LOT of stuff on the web that is anti-Wal-Mart! I was amazed and the number of negative stories, blogs, etc. etc. and people who really seem to hate this company.
FG (I just had no idea that many people felt that strongly about it)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I just don't see how WM is so evil when what they do is pretty much similar to every other retail business.
Just 'cuz everyone's doing it don't make it right.
(I know you know.)
WM's a big target (HAH!); slow and easy to hit.
If Wal-mart can afford to give people better wages, and can afford to offer more benefits for all its employees, they have a moral obligation to do so.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: So if you find something cheaper at Target you better read the fine print. It probably doesn’t have as many features or the same level of quality.
quote: I am not saying WM doesn't sell some cheap junk, they do, it just cost less.
I'm sure this might be true in some cases, but it can be said for any retail establishment. Some retailers sign merchandise agreements with distributers where the retailer is the sole distributor of a special "version" of the product. Think of computers. The versions you see in Circuit City and Best Buy are usually slightly different models from what Wal-Mart carries.
Look at the model number. Chances are, if the features are different, the model is different. Most electronics retailers will match prices of competitors, IF it's the same model. If it's not the same model, sorry, it's a different product. No comparison.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yeah, adam -- you guys have an entire coalition working fulltime to keep them out of New York City.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I have worked for many places that work people at only 35-37 hours a week to avoid full time pay. So have most of the people I know around here. This seems to be pretty much standard business practice.
When I worked at Best Buy, we had to stay longer than our shifts and not get paid for it, just as in the "horror" stories of Wal-Mart. But hey, if you need the job then you do what you have to do.
I read a couple months back that this was supposed to be the worst summer in 40 years for finding entry-level, minimum wage work. Due to many factors, such as the increasing number of college students who only work during the summers and other things. So if you can find a job at Wal-Mart, you may find yourself better off than a good number of people out there.
Here in SC, I can assure you there are not a lot of open jobs to be found. My roommate has been unable to find a job for a year now, and he has not been picky in the least over the places he applies to. He is willing to do any work. The situation is so difficult, however, that he has even applied for volunteer positions. There are so few jobs he can't even work for free.
I think for people like this Wal-Mart is a very good thing. For those of us who live on low wages and need to buy our food and plates and underwear cheaply, Wal-Mart is often the best option.
They are demonized because they are the biggest, the best at what they do. They do all the same things, pursue the same shades of ethical reality as other big businesses, but they do it louder and larger. So I think that is why we have a tendency to blame them.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Wow -- And all I can say after many pages of surfing -- is that there is a LOT of stuff on the web that is anti-Wal-Mart! I was amazed and the number of negative stories, blogs, etc. etc. and people who really seem to hate this company.
I'll have to agree with Parsimony on this one. When you’re #1 everyone is going to take shots at you. Most of the things WM is accused of are somewhat common practice, but you hear about it because it's big news story to trash the #1 company in the world. No one cares if a 100 store chain is doing the same thing.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Wal-Mart will be the first evil corporation to gets its own planet, closely followed by McDonalds.
Posted by poselito (Member # 8228) on :
Wal-Mart does affect change. Both good and bad. I remember Ayn Rand's protagonist's frustration at the governing body refusing the electric light because the candle makers would be put out of business. Some will adapt, some will not.
Thomas Edison was a great businessman, but I wouldn't have wanted to work for him.
What will society do with the change? That is what matters, in my opinion. Will it reject the new? Will it show some consideration or accept the changes unconditionally?
I don't run a website preaching the evil infulence of automatic checkout lines putting good cashiers out of a job.
I shop at Wal-Mart all the time.
I cant stand Ayn Rand.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Some very interesting comments, pro- and anti-Walmart.
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: I find it hard to believe Target is cheaper on most things than Wal-Mart. They may have a few things, but working for a manufacturer who sells to both. Target expects to make 50%-60% margin on the average non-clothing/grocery item in their store while WM only expects 35% and often makes for less than that. So if you find something cheaper at Target you better read the fine print. It probably doesn’t have as many features or the same level of quality. If Target must hit a price, manufacturers will often remove some features to give them the margin they need. So a $50 camera at WM will usually have more features than a $50 at Target.
I am not saying WM doesn't sell some cheap junk, they do, it just cost less.
One thing I learned from the documentary is that Walmart has "opening price points", which is the cheapest model of (for example) microwaves, which probably will be the cheapest in town. These prices are usually posted with big signs in the middle of aisles and on the endcaps.
BUT other models in that dept are NOT necessarily the cheapest in the area, often they are not. The opening price points create a perception of cheapness and great value in consumers, which is not true for the more expensive models. This perception lures the shopper into that department and shapes the way they view the prices (often higher than competitors) of the more expensive models. An effective sales tactic.
So, from now on, I might buy the cheapest models there, but will shop around for more expensive stuff.
[ June 16, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Another thing I learned from Frontline is that Walmart actively encourages their suppliers to relocate to China from the US.
This and the fact that 70% or more of their suppliers are in China shows up their "Made In America" ad campaigns as a cruel hoax.
I wonder how much of Target or Kmart product comes from China? Roughly similar?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm sorry I don't see where WalMart has a moral obligation to pay their people more.
If WalMart pays their people more and gives them all health benefits, where do you think the increase in cost will be made up? By raising prices. That means that things that I depend on for feeding and caring for my family will cost more. And that will affect millions of families in addition to mine.
WalMart pays its people the legal, lawful minimum wage. They have no moral obligation to pay people more than the job is worth. In our economy, cashier and stockboy are minimum wage jobs. They are usually held by students and other people who either aren't qualified to do much else, or they need a flexible schedule and don't mind the low wages because they're in school or something else.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:I couldn't shop at Wal-Mart if I wanted to. There isn't one in the entire city of New York.
That's awesome. I can't imagine where they'd even put one in the city. Lucky!
I think the only thing worse than seeing a new Wal-Mart being built is seeing the perfectly good building that Wal-Mart moved out of down the block...abandoned.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They get all manners of government funding. They make billions of dollars a year. They are not some small mom and pop organization with a handful of teenagers working to stock shelves, but a multi-billion dollar corporation that made their money with questionable business policies. Why is it unreasonable to expect them to pay thei workers, many of which are not just low skilled teenagers but people trying to support a family a reasonable living wage? If they make so much money because they keep their prices low, then paying good wages and providing benefits would not make much of a dent in their profits.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If they paid all their employees $3.50 more an hour, it would eat up about 65% of their pre-tax profit. That's a pretty significant chunk, there.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Their employees should organize. There needs to be a global labor movement.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Remember, that profits aren't just going into the evil CEO's pocket either--the vast majority of profits are reinvested into the firm so it can STAY a profitable firm.
If Walmart raises the wages of its employees, then it will (a)have to fire some of the employees (b)raise prices in the store, or (c) some combination of the two
If Walmart raises prices in the store, then it loses its competative edge, and its millions of customers will have to pay more for their goods.
If Walmart fires some of its employees so that others can have a higher wage it will face a media storm (headline: "Walmart axes thousands of jobs") and it will have poorer service in its stores, again leading to an alienation of its customers.
This is why we economists say "there's no such thing as a free lunch."
If you want to put money into someone's pocket, you're going to have to take it from someone else.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That's true, Dag. But many of their Chinese suppliers pay their workers 0.25 - 0.50 an hour, according to Frontline. If they paid more, would it affect Walmart that much?
One of the themes of the documentary is how Walmart dictates terms to manufacturers, so they have a big say in those pittance wages.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Unless you enlarge the pot.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: WalMart pays its people the legal, lawful minimum wage. They have no moral obligation to pay people more than the job is worth. In our economy, cashier and stockboy are minimum wage jobs. They are usually held by students and other people who either aren't qualified to do much else, or they need a flexible schedule and don't mind the low wages because they're in school or something else.
Because if instead of a Wal-Mart in a medium sized town there were 10 various businesses, there would be a certain proportion of managemente jobs whereas Wal-Mart only has a few management jobs. Yes, having more people work makes for higher prices, but it also creates more consumers to buy your crap.
And in a community where there is pretty much only Wal-mart, they effectively charge higher prices once everyone else is closed because everyone is on their depressed wages. This is an infrequent nightmare scenario, I'm sure. But you can't make me apologize for hating Wal-mart. They are the opposite of the Ford company, which was hell to work for but at least had the aim of raising wages. I have no idea to what degree Walmart is hell to work for. I imagine it is just a little less hellish than it takes to keep people from quitting in costly numbers.
P.S. and I'll add my frustration that they got a low interest municipal bond to build a store near here because they buldozed a historical site (which was seeking state protection but lost- what a shock) and rebuilt some cutesy little monument. It was historical enough for them to get the low interest bond to build over it, but not historical enough to be protected I'll proudly say that I've been a Wal-Mart hater since 1994.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: WalMart pays its people the legal, lawful minimum wage. They have no moral obligation to pay people more than the job is worth.
I haven't researched it, but I would bet that Walmart has lobbied hard to keep the minimum wage from being raised by Congress. And given that they are largest employer in the US, they have plenty of lobbyists to broadcast their POV. Legal, of course--but does it benefit anyone but Walmart stockholders?
The real questions here are, just how much are those "low, low prices" worth to America? Is the trade-offs we pay for those prices worth it? Is cheapness the ultimate virtue, with everything and everyone to be sacrificed to accomplish it?
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Another thing I learned from Frontline is that Walmart actively encourages their suppliers to relocate to China from the US.
This and the fact that 70% or more of their suppliers are in China shows up their "Made In America" ad campaigns as a cruel hoax.
I wonder how much of Target or Kmart product comes from China? Roughly similar?
WM hasn't run the "Made in America" theme in about ten years.
As far as moving companies over to China, I doubt they are encouraging people to move over there. They are just getting better prices from people over there, so everyone else is moving to match the pricing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's sad, what sort of site was it?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: As far as moving companies over to China, I doubt they are encouraging people to move over there. They are just getting better prices from people over there, so everyone else is moving to match the pricing.
The documentary made it clear through several interviews that Walmart actively encouraged suppliers to move overseas, effectively China for the low-end products Walmart sells.
The whole Chinese trade issue is a joke. So what if they have a huge market? If they're earning $0.25 an hour, how much American goods can the average Chinese worker afford?
We are shipping raw materials to China, and buying the finished goods back from them. "Like we're a 3rd world country," was one comment in the documentary.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Because if instead of a Wal-Mart in a medium sized town there were 10 various businesses, there would be a certain proportion of managemente jobs whereas Wal-Mart only has a few management jobs.
I seriously, seriously doubt this.
WalMart does have many supervisory and management type positions, plus if you think WalMart is bad for paying for health benefits, then try working for a Mom and Pop. Without the huge bargaining power a WalMart has, Mom and Pop usually can't afford to offer their employees ANY insurance at all. Plus, the "management" jobs you think would be so plentiful are usually held by the business owners themselves, few mom and pops hire a lot of management positions.
When WalMart built a store near one of the stores in the chain my mother works for, my mom lost dozens of employees to WalMart. Why? Because...(get ready this is probably going to be shocking)...WalMart could PAY THEM MORE.
Many of her deli managers and produce managers stepped into WalMart as department managers making more than my mother's company could afford to match.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
One thing to keep in mind with wal-Mart and other big box stores with their low low prices encourage people to buy cheap, shoddy things they don't even need, or that would last longer if they were high quality. A $10 pair of shoes is NOT a bargain if they only last a year or two. How many people go to Wal-Mart for "neccessities" and come out with plastic, consumable kitcsh they don't need? (Of course, I think people don't need paper towels or plastic cups, so I tend to view almost anything disposable as unnecessary).Which is not what I'm talking about, I mean things like, "Look, two gallons of Kool-Aid for only $2.88, I'll get me some!" This all has ecological impact, not to mention that if people are buying this stuff on credit cards they are going inot debt for it.
I think a large portion of the "necessities" could be gotten second hand, replaced with a sustainable alternative or done without.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:A $10 pair of shoes is NOT a bargain if they only last a year or two.
This depends on the type of shoes. Stylish summer sandals that only need to last a season? Ten dollars is perfect. Not everything needs to be of ultra-expensive, high quality.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Absolutely! What about kids' shoes? They rarely last a season because the kid is growing so fast. Ten dollars is an excellent price for kids shoes. And, yes, I get many of my kids' casual shoes at WalMart.
Not everyone who shops at WalMart buying things that are inexpensive and in large quantities is doing it on a whim. Some of us actually do need 4-5 pairs of shoes per year for our growing children, and we really would rather not have to pay $30-$50 per pair for them in a high price department store or specialty kids shoe store.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
What about second hand? I buy Doc Martens for Matthew at the resale store for $10-$20, then all three kids wear them, and they are still in good enough shape for me to resell after Andrew outgrows them. For sneakers, I can get them for $2-4 at Deseret or Goodwill or yard sales.(if not less).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I buy two or three pairs of cheap shoes a summer, and I get them because they are fun and stylish. Getting them at a second-hand store is, by nature, impossible.
My birthday shoes Cheap, not high quality, but perfect with jeans, a silky top, and a blue pearl necklace. I found a similar style at Dillards for $85, but I simply can't pay that much for shoes I won't wear every day. I can't pay that much for shoes I will wear every day.
Not that all shoes need to be cheap, but there is a legitimate place for them.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Not everyone who shops at WalMart buying things that are inexpensive and in large quantities is doing it on a whim. Some of us actually do need 4-5 pairs of shoes per year for our growing children, and we really would rather not have to pay $30-$50 per pair for them in a high price department store or specialty kids shoe store.
I suspect if I had a wife and several kids, I would analyze Walmart's tactics less, and just be grateful for the bargains. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Unless my wife was a Uber-shopper like romany. Then I could feed and clothe the family, while maintaining my outrage.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dollar values aren't the only issue at stake there is also quality of time spent with my family.
My nearest Goodwill store is more than 30 miles away. There is no guarantee they will ever have the type of shoe I want in the right size. I can spend a bunch of gas money driving over there and hours of sifting through bins trying to find a pair of used shoes that fit my kid or I can pick them up at WalMart for $10.
To each his own, I suppose, but I'd rather not go through the hassle of driving 30 miles and spending hours just to save a couple of dollars, that time and effort is better spent having fun with the kids.
WalMart is close, convenient, they are more than likely going to have what I need in stock and at a good price. I don't need to resell the shoes afterward because my husband always takes outgrown shoes on a mission trip to Honduras each year. So, in my case, I think my family is better off for me shopping at WalMart for many things.
Which is not to say I'm always against second hand. There are some things that I hate paying full retail price for. Take leotards, for instance. My daughter in gymnastics needs several, and she is active and they do so much I really need a good quality that will hold up to multiple washings and not ride up or anything. I buy almost exclusively GK Elite leotards for her, but they are over $40 new. Ebay is my friend for leotards. I usually get them for less than $10 even when you include shipping.
But in the case of something like shoes - WalMart all the way.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I find this argument amusing: "Shopping at walmart doesn't make economic sense. You can buy used clothes for cheap as well!"
Is there no intrinsic value to something being new anymore? Given the option between my 10 dollar new WalMart sandals and 10 dollar used thrift store sandals, I will choose WalMart.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dink (Member # 1185) on :
Wal Mart supports slave labor The sweat shops these things are made from in China are called sweat shops because that sounds politically correct compared to slave labor and the illegalities of it. Things from Wal-Mart break easily because they are made by slaves who would hope they break easily. (actually, they break easily so Wal Mart can "benefit from return buisness"
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
My birthday shoes match my birthday suit.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Why would having the products that you buy from a store break often encourage you to return and shop at that store?
Why would you accept a job in a company that will treat you as a slave and practically robs you they are paying you so little?
Think about that and then come back to me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No way I'd want to buy shoes from a company that only pays its overseas workers (indentured servants) 100 bucks a month, if not less. It makes no real economic sense. China is not exporting our goods. We are sending raw material into China to be used so they can get the manufacturing jobs. Not only is this terrible for American workers who will lose their good paying manufacturing jobs and will have to take a low paying job (Ahem, like Walmart, various supermarkets, ect) which will NOT have the benefits they need, but Chinese workers will be reduced to virtual slaves, never able to do more than sit in some stuffy factory sewing cheap goods that will break in a matter of months. Slowly, we're digging our own graves. People think they are getting such good deals, but at what cost?
Besides, I can get something at my local thrift store like a set of glasses worth 30 dollars for 3 dollars. There's no way Walmart can beat that, and it's an actual mom and pop thrift store. People are nuts paying $50 dollars for a shirt, though, I admit I buy a pair of shoes about every 5 years and usually pay over $50 dollars so they last me a bit.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wal-Mart performs really well in a capitalist society. They do everything you're supposed to do. If they put other stores out of business, isn't it just because they have lower prices?
I dislike the whole Wal-Mart experience, so I very rarely shop there. But they definitely have significantly lower prices. Consumers are choosing to shop there, suppliers are choosing to do business with them, and employees are choosing to go to work for them. Does anyone accuse them of coercion?
I think all US companies and consumers have a lot of soul searching to do regarding the treatment of workers in their overseas plants. It matters to us; I don't think anyone wants little Chinese girls to work long hours with bleeding fingers so that Barbie can be a dollar cheaper. So we should figure out how to make that right, don't you think? That's true all across our economy.
But show me where Wal-Mart is doing anything but giving people what they want? Do they raise prices once the other retailers in the area are gone? That doesn't seem to be true. It seems to me that Wal-Mart is just capitalism at work, and that ratcheting up the competitive pressure only improves everone's efficiency.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why would having the products that you buy from a store break often encourage you to return and shop at that store?
Because I don't blame the retailer for manufacturing problems? If the store is prompt about refunding my money should there be a problem with anything I bought, then I don't see why I wouldn't continue to patronize the store. Any time I've needed to return something to WalMart, even without a receipt, it's been no problem.
quote:Why would you accept a job in a company that will treat you as a slave and practically robs you they are paying you so little?
Anyone who works as a cashier at WalMart is probably not going to be able to storm out of WalMart and make 3 or 4 dollars an hour more at the store down the street. They make minimum wages as cashiers because cashier is usually a minimum wage job, and it's going to be a minimum wage job at places other than WalMart.
If you have a problem with minimum wage, that's one thing - but WalMart doesn't set the minimum wage. They may have lobbied to keep it low, but I'm sure they weren't the only retailer to do so. Keep in mind that a huge corporate WalMart can absorb a wage increase a lot better than can a small business - if minimum wage goes up, WalMart will probably barely miss a beat, prices may go up a little to help offset it, but they certainly won't go under. The small, mom and pop type store will have a much harder time recovering, and many small businesses will probably go out of business if you raise minimum wages. Our company was profitable all six years it was in business and yet an increase in liability and workman's comp taxes in one year was enough to shut us down. What do you think raising the minimum wage would do to a small business that's barely afloat as it is?
Remember most of the people in the country don't work for WalMart, they work for small businesses.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'm just anti big-box stuff in general. It leads to urban sprawl which I hate too because it means you have to rely on a car and people who use some other means of transportation are out of luck. It makes it very hard to buy large things or more than just a few bags of anything. Yea suburbia...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I'll proudly say that I've been a Wal-Mart hater since 1994.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)