A Take on Walmart Stores

[Richard the Lionheart]

If you haven't seen this JibJab cartoon...check it out:

http://www.jibjab.com click on "Big-Box Mart".

I think it's a fairly accurate and humerous depiction of Walmart's economic impacts.

[Empyrean]

Heh. Ignorance of economics is at the core of most criticisms of Wal-Mart.

But one thing they've done lately that pisses me off is their call for an increase in the minimum wage. Wal-Mart pays their employees around $8 an hour nationwide, so this wouldn't affect them. Their competitors pay less, usually. This is a move by Wal-Mart to drive their competitors out of business by using the government, and the fools of the left are too busy questioning their sincerity to figure out the consequences of their proposed policies.

[JP226]

gotta give it to them, they are clever. Whether right or wrong they are clever.

[Francisco Montana]

Well stated Empyrean.

It's too easy to bash Wal-Mart while sitting on your PC chair posting your life away.

How many jobs have you created in the US or China for that matter?

[Templedog]

Well stated Empyrean.

It's too easy to bash Wal-Mart while sitting on your PC chair posting your life away.

How many jobs have you created in the US or China for that matter?

Walmart doesn't create jobs in the US that any other store would if Walmart didn't exist. Walmart is good however at offering us cheap goods at cheap prices. (wich is good for us) but at that expense their employees in small towns suffer. If you don't work at the local Walmart in town, you don't have many other options. So, you get stuck with the **** benifits, which makes it even hard if you live in a town where the price of living is abnormally high.

I'm so happy for those chinese workers.....it is my #1 concern that some chinese people are getting a good job 3,000 miles away and in a different country.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I don't know, it seems that Wal-mart is bad for the economy. They take away jobs from Americans and instead use cheap over-sea labor. And I think Wal-mart emplyees are not allowed to form any type of labor unions either. Personally, I don't like wal-mart.

[Francisco Montana]

Wal-Mart also doesn't provide health-care or any other sorts of benefits.

Where does it state, in the constitution or any other document, that a company has to provide health-care benefits? That's not great if you work there, but that doesn't mean it's not available. I know. Both my wife and I work for ourselves and therefore have to provide our own benefits. If you don't like their benefits, or lack of, don't work there. This is America after all, we have choices.

I don't know, it seems that Wal-mart is bad for the economy. They take away jobs from Americans and instead use cheap over-sea labor. And I think Wal-mart emplyees are not allowed to form any type of labor unions either. Personally, I don't like wal-mart.

You seem reasonable, Honor. If you don't like the way they do business, don't shop there. If you think they are bad for the economy, call your local reps and demand they don't let in a Wal-Mart. But to simply say, 'they are bad for the economy' I think is unfair. There are numbers thrown around by both sides (the real numbers are usually somewhere in the middle). I've shopped there, but I don't frequent. My wife and I prefer local stores and stuff. But then we are lucky and live in the Bay Area. Some areas don't have things convienently laid out in one place with competative pricing. Thus, one of the reasons for Wal-Mart's popularity.

Cheap labour over-seas. Hmmm. Nafta, all of it, a whole other thread. But in a nutshell I will say I'm undecided completely on NAFTA and imports from countries like China that don't have the same industrial standards and notions of empoyee rights as us. The only thing keeping me from being totally against it on face is the fact that it is at least giving these countries a market and 'sharing' some of the American wealth with otherwise empoverished populations. Something that, as we've seen in eastern-europe, can sow the seeds of democracy and capitalism. In the long run, giving us a huge market of well-to-do Chinese with the power to vote in a generation or two. Maybe. I'm a dreamer though.

This is America. We don't tell companies how to run their businesss. We do keep them in line with standards and regulations. But the consumer, you and I, have the ultimate power to either approve or dissapprove of a company and it's products.

One thing you must remember (especially those who like to bash big business) is that you and I, mom and pops own these companies threw the stocks we buy in our bid to provide college educations to our children and such.

It's not as 'black n white' as many of you would like to make it. There are faces behind the numbers.

[ShangTang]

Wal-Mart also doesn't provide health-care or any other sorts of benefits.

[JP226]

I don't know, it seems that Wal-mart is bad for the economy. They take away jobs from Americans and instead use cheap over-sea labor. And I think Wal-mart emplyees are not allowed to form any type of labor unions either. Personally, I don't like wal-mart.

then what are all those things, some call them people, walking around walmart? How many things can the average person buy or buy more of now that walmart is around?

I hate the simple minded, "corporation... bad" logic.

as for crying about outsourcing with any other company...

It would be much cheaper to utilize the most productive workers in the world, americans, if the stupid ass government didn't create such a hostile business enviroment through legislation and tort extortions.

[MaximiIian]

I like walmart, but hate them at the same time. They really are cunning, conniving, manipulative little bastards. I envy wal-mart, in that respect, but I also hate for it's obvious corporation-ness.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Where does it state, in the constitution or any other document, that a company has to provide health-care benefits? That's not great if you work there, but that doesn't mean it's not available. I know. Both my wife and I work for ourselves and therefore have to provide our own benefits. If you don't like their benefits, or lack of, don't work there. This is America after all, we have choices.

It would be good if Wal-mart provided health benefits for it's employees, but it's not absolutely necessary I guess. Providing health-care for the employees would make their lives easier, considering that they do get paid minimum wage. But it's not the whole health-care thing that bothers me, it's the fact that Wal-mart employees can't form unions, which means they can't go on strike or anything, which means they can't really complain if their wages get cut down. If they complain, they'll get fired.

You seem reasonable, Honor. If you don't like the way they do business, don't shop there. If you think they are bad for the economy, call your local reps and demand they don't let in a Wal-Mart. But to simply say, 'they are bad for the economy' I think is unfair. There are numbers thrown around by both sides (the real numbers are usually somewhere in the middle). I've shopped there, but I don't frequent. My wife and I prefer local stores and stuff. But then we are lucky and live in the Bay Area. Some areas don't have things convienently laid out in one place with competative pricing. Thus, one of the reasons for Wal-Mart's popularity.

Like I said, I personally don't like Wal-Mart so I don't shop there. Where I live, Wal-mart is not allowed to build any stores, so there aren't any Wal-Marts in close proximity to my residence, but even if there were any, I still wouldn't shop there. But that's just my own personal opinion. I think anyone who wants to shop there should do so, it's definitly their right and there really is nothing wrong with it. I'm not trying to persuade people to not shop there. I personally don't like how Wal-Mart does business. They rip-off their employees, cause unemployment, and put many other stores out of business at the same time. Now that's business- stores competing and putting each other out of business, but Wal-Mart uses unfair and sneaky tactics.

Cheap labour over-seas. Hmmm. Nafta, all of it, a whole other thread. But in a nutshell I will say I'm undecided completely on NAFTA and imports from countries like China that don't have the same industrial standards and notions of empoyee rights as us. The only thing keeping me from being totally against it on face is the fact that it is at least giving these countries a market and 'sharing' some of the American wealth with otherwise empoverished populations. Something that, as we've seen in eastern-europe, can sow the seeds of democracy and capitalism. In the long run, giving us a huge market of well-to-do Chinese with the power to vote in a generation or two. Maybe. I'm a dreamer though.

Wal-Mart uses over-seas labour for a reason. Wal-Mart doesn't really provide a lot of benefits to countries such as China by providing labour. The over-seas workers, such as those in China, which Wal-Mart employs, get paid very little. They get paid less than a dollar per hour, which is not enough, even in China. Considering that minimum wage in the U.S. can be anywhere from $6-$8/hour, Wal-Mart saves a lot of money by using over-seas labour. At the same time Wal-mart causes unemployment as well. By using these over-seas labour, Walmart saves a lot of money, and therefore produces products very cheaply. Therefore it can sell products in the U.S. for prices much lower than that of other stores. This as a result causes other businesses to go banckrupt. Through this process, Wal-mart slowly eliminates the competition and starts to form a monopoly. Of course this is where the government steps in and prevents Walmart from obtaining a total monopoly, but the government doesn't really do enough to prevent jobs from going over-seas. I mean in the long run, Wal-mart screws the little guys, the consumers, the economy, and just about everyone else.

[Francisco Montana]

Well, you're not blindly bashing big business, so I have no qualm with you.

Fair enough. :original: Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of theirs either, but I can't stand the whole "Bash Big Busniess" because they are rich stuff.

[Empyrean]

I don't know, it seems that Wal-mart is bad for the economy. They take away jobs from Americans and instead use cheap over-sea labor. And I think Wal-mart emplyees are not allowed to form any type of labor unions either. Personally, I don't like wal-mart.

Wal-Mart is effectively a labor-saving device. I'm sure bulldozers cost a lot of ditch-diggers their jobs, but the important thing to remember is that people who lose their jobs because they have been made superfluous get new jobs doing something new, and the level of their productivity in their new job is a net gain for the economy. The productivity of their old job hasn't been lost, we just don't need to have them there to accomplish the same results anymore.

If it normally takes ten people to make a car in a day, and someone figures out a way so that one person can make a car in a day, we still have just as many cars. The benefit to society comes from those nine people finding something else to do. They ***** and moan in the short run, but ultimately that is how progress is made; through increases in productivity.

Wal-Mart also doesn't provide health-care or any other sorts of benefits.

Maybe that's why they can pay a higher wage than almost all of their competitors? Health-care isn't free, it's just your paycheck in a different form. Except it's a part of your paycheck that pays for a healthcare plan, whether you like it or not. That's a bad system.

Suppose your company offers health insurance. If you take care of yourself, you could get your own health insurance for a lot cheaper than it costs out of your paycheck to have it provided. If you're a smoker or something, you get it for cheaper than you otherwise would have because the healthy people are supporting your stupid-ass decisions. The only people a collective health insurance policy benefits are the ones who make poor decisions, and it only helps them because it shields them from some of the consequences of their unhealthy behavior. When some of the consequences of unhealthy behavior are shifted onto someone else, more people engage in that unhealthy behavior. Bad system.

This is America. We don't tell companies how to run their businesss. We do keep them in line with standards and regulations.

Bad move. Manipulation of the market leads to price distortion and an inaccurate picture of what is and is not efficient as a result. Businesses act in accordance with market realities, where every exchange that takes place is Pareto optimal. Government compulsion differs from that because somebody always loses. If nobody loses, it wouldn't take government compulsion to make it happen. Also, "keeping them in line with standards and regulations" is telling them how to run their businesses.

You seem reasonable, Honor. If you don't like the way they do business, don't shop there.

That is appropriate.

If you think they are bad for the economy, call your local reps and demand they don't let in a Wal-Mart.

That is not. The only way that Wal-Mart could succeed in an area is if enough people spend enough money there. If they do well, it means that people want them. If the people don't want them there, they won't be able to make it. Resorting to political restrictions is what people have to do when they know that people actually want Wal-Mart, and are afraid of what will happen if Wal-Mart gets a chance to prove whether they are wanted or not. So they go to the government instead, which weilds an awful lot of power for often not having a clue about anything.

[Francisco Montana]

This is America. We don't tell companies how to run their businesss. We do keep them in line with standards and regulations.

Bad move. Manipulation of the market leads to price distortion and an inaccurate picture of what is and is not efficient as a result. Businesses act in accordance with market realities, where every exchange that takes place is Pareto optimal. Government compulsion differs from that because somebody always loses. If nobody loses, it wouldn't take government compulsion to make it happen. Also, "keeping them in line with standards and regulations" is telling them how to run their businesses

You read more into my statment than was intended (or even there IMO). I was simply refering to basic working condition standards and anti-trust laws, etc.

If you think they are bad for the economy, call your local reps and demand they don't let in a Wal-Mart.

That is not. The only way that Wal-Mart could succeed in an area is if enough people spend enough money there. If they do well, it means that people want them. If the people don't want them there, they won't be able to make it. Resorting to political restrictions is what people have to do when they know that people actually want Wal-Mart, and are afraid of what will happen if Wal-Mart gets a chance to prove whether they are wanted or not. So they go to the government instead, which weilds an awful lot of power for often not having a clue about anything.

Again, I think you are putting words into my statments that aren't there, mate. I was simply eluding to his option to take his greivences to the democratic process. Everyone in a town has a right to be heard in their town's meetings. I was refering to new walmarts coming in, rather than complain and shop there anyway and then complain some more, why not do something about it before it's there. I've got to get off the puter, I'm really getting long winded.

BTW, great input Empyrean, I just think you read more into what I said.

[Empyrean]

You read more into my statment than was intended (or even there IMO). I was simply refering to basic working condition standards and anti-trust laws, etc.

We do a lot more than that. But even if we didn't, anti-trust laws and "working condition standards" are telling companies how to do run their business.

I was simply eluding to his option to take his greivences to the democratic process.

That is an option that ought not to exist. "Mind your own business" is a wonderful phrase, but it's too bad that so many people fail to do exactly that.

Everyone in a town has a right to be heard in their town's meetings.

But the town's meetings should not prevent someone who wants to sell their land to Wal-Mart from doing so, because only the owner of that land has the right to decide to whom he will sell it. Likewise if Wal-Mart wants to build a store on property they own, nobody else should have a say in that. Using a city government to prevent Wal-Mart from showing up amounts to government seizure and control over property that does not belong to them.

I was refering to new walmarts coming in, rather than complain and shop there anyway and then complain some more, why not do something about it before it's there.

Yeah, I know. Using the government to interfere in voluntary transactions is the only meaningful form of "restraint of trade" I can imagine. How ironic that the government, which takes it upon itself to make sure that companies don't do that, engage in the practice themselves almost without even thinking about it.

[Mack Daddy]

Wouldnt it be hilarious to be employed by wal-mart to make shoe cuff marks on the floor. I think some of the employees are. That and getting shoe prints on their t-shirts. :laughing:

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

But the town's meetings should not prevent someone who wants to sell their land to Wal-Mart from doing so, because only the owner of that land has the right to decide to whom he will sell it. Likewise if Wal-Mart wants to build a store on property they own, nobody else should have a say in that. Using a city government to prevent Wal-Mart from showing up amounts to government seizure and control over property that does not belong to them.

I agree with most of what you've said, Empyrean, but here I have to disagree. I see your scenario here as not simply a transaction of land between two parties. When the buyer in question is an organization like Walmart, then I think it is entirely justified for the local government and population to be a part of the decision. This new buyer is not looking to construct a private home, or something that will have little public effect on the community. They are building a Walmart, and if even one business in that community is threatened by the presence of a Walmart, then they have every right to question its arrival. Do not misunderstand me, if the community decides it would rather have that Walmart than the Mom&Pop store, then so be it. But I see no reason why the community should not be involved in making that decision with an organization like Walmart that will have telling effects on the community's economic status.

[Peachy Carnehan]

I don't really think there is anything wrong with having a walmart come in and threatening businesses. After all, it will only threaten Mom&Pop stores if people like walmart better. If not, they will continue going to the smaller store, and the store will see no threat from walmart. No matter what happens, the people are going to determine if a small store is going to be threatened by walmart, whether or not they make the decision in a public decree or not.

[Francisco Montana]

But the town's meetings should not prevent someone who wants to sell their land to Wal-Mart from doing so, because only the owner of that land has the right to decide to whom he will sell it. Likewise if Wal-Mart wants to build a store on property they own, nobody else should have a say in that. Using a city government to prevent Wal-Mart from showing up amounts to government seizure and control over property that does not belong to them.

So am I to assume you disprove of zoning laws also? Again, you've put words into my mouth. Using the appropriate channel for greivences in a democracy, is threw the democratic process. Suggesting someone use that channel does not in any way suggest anything about the outcome of his actions.

What they decide in the meeting is what you seemed to be addressing, not my advice he seek recourse.

For the most part you and I agree, I would just appreciate if you stop putting words into my statements that simply are not there.

[Empyrean]

So am I to assume you disprove of zoning laws also?

Absolutely and without question. That doesn't mean that somewhat similar structures cannot arise through homeowners' associations, but because those are non-compulsory private bodies (as opposed to governments, which force compliance under threat of fines/imprisonment) they are incapable of violating people's natural rights through their actions. They simply lack the power to do so. Homeowner's associations are fine, but government zoning boards are not.