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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless my wife was a Uber-shopper like romany. Then I could feed and clothe the family, while maintaining my outrage.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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"
Posts: 62 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I'll proudly say that I've been a Wal-Mart hater since 1994.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
