Walmart: A wage depressing, sprawl inducing, union busting, benefit...

[JanMichael]

...scrimping, overtime gouging, All American Champ!

Oh and a pass off our employees problems, caused by our immense avarice($420,750: Annual cost to U.S. taxpayers of a single 200-employee Wal-Mart store, because of support required for underpaid workers -- including subsidized school lunches, food stamps, housing credits, tax credits, energy assistance, and health care), creating exploiter...It's starting to challenge the old Trusts in the "pure freakin' evil" catagory.

Here's the article.

$2,200,000,000: Total dividends Wal-Mart plans to pay its shareholders this fiscal year, after a 44% dividend increase announced March 2, 2004

$23,000,000: Average annual compensation for Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, 2000-2003

$4,500,000: Average annual compensation for previous Wal-Mart CEO David Glass, 1995-2000

$8.00: Approximate nationwide average hourly wage for Wal-Mart employees

$6.25: Starting wage for a cashier at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Salina, Kansas, 2003

$12,192: Income earned by a newly hired cashier working 40-hour weeks (more than the 32-hour company-wide average) for a year, with no weekdays off, at the Salina Supercenter
===========================================

Almost forgot to add that the Walton family, only claim to fame is that they're the recipients of golden sperm, is trying like the Devil to destroy our Public Schools. And they donate almost exclusivly to Rethuglicans (and Lieberman)...

Enjoy the cheap pickles!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

1. Walmart donates almost exclusively to republicans...

...that's why I don't shop there.
(Along with the reasons mentioned in the article you linked to.)

[JanMichael]

3. Thanks. I added that.

:-)

[blurp]

113. So they paid 17,305,600,000 in wages, right?

Average pay is $8.00/hour

Average hours per week is 32

Average yearly income is $13,312

Number of employees is 1.3 million

So, total wages add up to over 17 billion.

Shareholders get about 13% of what employees get.

How much is too much?

[Libertarialoon]

6. And you're surprised by this?

The animosity displayed toward a successful company like Wal-Mart by the Left is astounding. Wal-Mart is a revolutionary company in terms of controlling costs and passing much of the savings on to the customer. They are the quintessential competitor that every successful business wants to emulate. They meet their customer's needs better than anyone else, hence their success. You might complain about Wal-Mart being non-union or not providing health insurance, but the vast majority of the public loves Wal-Mart because they give them a product at the lowest possible price.

Everyone loves to bash Wal-Mart, but everyone seems to shop there. Funny that.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

11. Oh, hell. Here we go again.

Didn't I say that I don't shop at Wal-Mart?
Are you not paying attention?

"but everyone seems to shop there."
I AM NOT EVERYONE!

Wal-Mart is what's WRONG with America today. The successes they claim today will bring disaster to the country tomorrow.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. I care that employees have a right to be in a Union

and receive a living wage as well.

[Skittles]

23. I don't shop there

so don't lump me in. And they are "successful" because THEY EXPLOIT PEOPLE AND THEY ARE SUBSIDIZED BY TAXPAYERS. THEY ARE F***ING DISGUSTING.

[Libertarialoon]

40. Actually, I don't either

It was hyperbole.

Corporate welfare for Wal-Mart is another story. I, too, as a firm believer in a free market, am opposed to corporate welfare. But that's a problem in Washington, not Bentonville. Do you honestly expect Wal-Mart to not accept handouts? C'mon it's free money. Of course they will.

[Skittles]

43. it's what the taxpayers have to pay to supplement their workers

it is sickening. THAT IS NOT A "FREE MARKET".

[redqueen]

66. It's not just about a handout to Wal Mart

Handouts to Wal Mart, as you said, is a whole other story (corporate welfare).

The aid to individuals they employ - which they're draining from our treasury due to their unimaginable avarice - is not a 'hand out to Wal Mart', that's intended to go towards helping needy families to get by in hard times - not for working families whose employers are greedy fat bastards so that we can subsidize Wal Mart's employment costs.

How people in this country have come to think that it's A-OK to pay people a wage that won't support a family let alone help to drive an economy is beyond me. Family values my a$$.

And the short-term thinking on the part of business leaders is astounding. Costco gets it - you pay your employees, they have money to buy stuff.

Wal Mart's shortsightedness as well as that of MCI, Enron, etc. will be the downfall of this country if we do not enact legislation to FORCE them to run their business with a modicum of responsibility.

[Cat Atomic]

107. This "quintessential competitor" is subsidized by the government.

They employ lots of people who have to stay on government assistance simply to make ends meet. We are all subsidizing Wal-Marts cheap labor programs with our tax money.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-07.htm

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Wal-Mart is working to turn the U.S. into Mexico.

[boobooday]

2. Hey, but I thought the poor people were just lazy!

You mean they actually work 40-hour weeks?

Those CEO salaries are a crime against humanity.

Another thing is the poverty level, which is set as ridiculously low in this country. As for education, stupidity is a requirement for the Wal-Martization of America, I'm not a bit surprised they want to ruin public education. Educated people don't form their customer base, for the most part.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[redqueen]

70. CEO salaries are fattened more than prices are cut

They try to schmooze the less insightful with claims of all the fabulous low prices when challenged on how poorly they compensate their workers -- notice how the out-of-control executive pay is NEVER presented as something on the table for reduction to cut prices. Once again, those family values come shining through. (We value the families of the RICH INVESTORS only - families of workers can get bent!)

[blurp]

114. Part of the reason is because it's still small relatively speaking

24 million is huge to you and me, but to Walmart, it's a drop in the bucket and really doesn't affect the bottom line all that much.

Suppose they fired the CEO and just gave his money to the other 1.3 million employees. How much of a raise would they get?

about 1.1 penny extra per hour.

And compared to their total revenue of $246,000,000,000, CEO pay is a mere speck.

[Libertarialoon]

4. Why do you hate capitalism?

No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart. No one is forced to shop at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has the lowest profit margins of any comparably-sized company, so I don't know how you can argue they're greedy by any stretch of the imagination.

Wal-Mart's practice of providing products at the lowest possible price effectually increases everyone's wages by allowing them to purchase the most for their money. Apparently, you have a problem with this. Why?

[Habibi]

5. Damn! And I'm all out of popcorn!

:nuke:

[frankly_fedup2]

95. HA, HA (laughing to the point of tears). I have some . . .

baked Lays. Wouldn't want to gain any weight.

[frankly_fedup2]

96. Uh oh. . .

Bought them at Wal*Mart too.

We have very few choices here. We just got a Wal*Mart about 2 years ago.

My son works there and believe me, I wish he would find another job. They pay poorly (He started around $6), and to have health insurance, out of his every 2-week's pay of around $450.00 after taxes, they expect him to pay around $180 every two weeks for family coverage.

Another little thing is you can never get overtime pay so you have to watch your hours, AND if you do go over 40 hours by mistake, you cannot write them down OR get paid for them because you were told not to work over 40 hours a week.

So what's a mother to do?

[pnb]

102. Sounds like your son should get a different job

Also BTW, healthcare insurance is not paid from after tax money but before it is taxed.

[Misinformed01]

7. "comparably-sized company"? Who might that be in retail?

EDIT: This in Jan Michael responding, missed the logout key again...

I suppose we could call Micky D's "Retail" and they've got about the same number of employees worldwide. Hmm...Not really comparable. The sad fact is that America's largest employer is a crap retail chain (Not GM anymore). Sort of like the Dollar store on steroids. But sadly there are no reasonable comparisons, sorry.

Your next question involves the "freedom" of employees to just happily take whatever job they like. That's simply not a reasonable proposition. I suppose in Libertarian Land that's what they tell you but when one company uses monopolistic, predatory, powers to depress all other similar wages, and drive local businesses out of business, it isn't a Free Market" for either the dead businesses or the low wage workers.

"Wal-Mart's practice of providing products at the lowest possible price effectually increases everyone's wages by allowing them to purchase the most for their money."

You've totally missed the boat here. For one Walmart helps to increase local and state taxes by pushing their low wage workers health issues into the public realm. They only insure some 40% of their employees and their benefits are paltry. Also they drive local businesses to decrease wages too, and local taxes to go up, so how do you figure some magical increase of prosperity? Oh and the fact that just about everything on their shelves is made with coerced, practically slave, labor should make a ethical person sick.

As too your first comment...I thought you were joking, because it's brutally obvious that they are greedy "people", but you weren't.

Later.

[Libertarialoon]

15. Why are you limiting it to retail?

Obviously, there is no retail store the size of Wal-Mart, but there are many comparably-sized companies. For instance,

"Exxon posted $213 billion in revenue and was tops in earnings with $21.5 billion. Wal-Mart had $9.05 billion in earnings."

Wal-Mart's earnings are less than half of Exxon's, the number two company. I guess in your world, Exxon is greedy too, though. Anyone successful is greedy, I suppose. That's fine. The profit motive is the economic engine of society, not fairness.

Wal-Mart is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. They do not have an absolute, or near-absolute market on any particular good or service. To you, I suppose a monopoly is a really big company you don't like.

There is nothing preventing anyone from "out-Wal-Marting" Wal-Mart. Someday, someone will and they'll be the next target of your vitriol.

As far as local businesses going out of business, that's tough. The market is a cold mistress. Apparently, the local citizenry wants to save a few bucks at the expense of years of loyal service to the community. Why don't you point your finger at those people who so quickly turned their backs on their friends and neighbors to buy a DVD player for $30 instead of $100? All Wal-Mart is doing is offering goods at low prices. No one has to buy them.

[JanMichael]

27. Size can be number of employees, industry, or revenue.

Since my concern was with employees I chose the next biggest world-wide employer. It wasn't pretty.

As to ExxonMobile?

I'd probably stick to the station numbers to make a fair comparison but the starting wages in SW Florida are over $7/hr, more than Wallymart...Don't rightly know the national numbers.

[jmowreader]

32. Wal-Mart's numbers

Wal-Mart did $229.6 billion in revenue in FY 2003. Comparing that to Exxon's shows that Exxon (or more exactly ExxonMobil) was second.

You can't compare earnings across sectors. Exxon makes what it sells. Wal-Mart makes nothing but money--vast sums of money. Is Exxon greedy? Yeah, but like Gordon Gekko said, greed is good.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

12. No it doesn't

It outsources jobs to other countries because the factories need to keep their prices low just to sell their product at Wal-Mart. That's why you can't get a pair of Levi's made in America anymore.
We don't hate capitalism. Not one bit.
We hate crony capatalism.

[Libertarialoon]

16. Outsourcing

Labor is simply another factor of production. If it can be done cheaper overseas, it will be. There's nothing you or any politician can do to stop that.

Oh I suppose you could continue to buy "Made in America" products at an artificially inflated price for a while, but eventually, your buying power will decrease as the value of the dollar adjusts to prices in the economy. You're not really doing anything to save American jobs.

The only solution to outsourcing is to bring the third-world up to American standards of living. The best way to do this is through globalization and outsourcing. Americans have been living at an artificially inflated standard of living for decades now. Only with the advent of technology that enables business to be done anywhere in the world has this discrepancy become apparent to those outside the manufacturing industries.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. That artifically inflated standard of living you talk of means

we don't have dirty water, open sewers and out door toilets like India.

[Kitsune]

44. Speak for yourself.

I DO hate capitalism. :)

[Classical_Liberal]

14. You act like workers at that wage seriously have other options

Do you live in the real world?

[Libertarialoon]

18. Yes.

Anyone can become an entrepreneur with an idea and hard work. You're the one that seems to think the poor slobs working the register at Wal-Mart can't do anything to better themselves. I guess I have more faith in the ability of someone who wants to improve their life to do so than you do.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. They can improve there lives easier with better wages and benefits

People who make 12,000 a year aren't going to be in a position to be entrepeneurs. That is just common sense. They can't afford to educate themselves, nor do they have time. I want to make it easier for people, rather than harder. Most entrepeneurs fail. It is not something you can do particularly if you have a family, and make walmart wages.

[Libertarialoon]

58. Better wages and benefits cost money...

...except in your socialist Utopia, I guess.

Guess what happens when companies pay better wages and give their employees beter benefits? That's right, the price of goods and services goes up, ultimately passed on to you and me. I suppose you think it's evil for a company to earn a profit, however. Perhaps Wal-Mart should operate at a loss so they could give employees benefits. Of course, then their jobs wouldn't last very long.

If I owned a business whose model was based on the idea of providing a given product at the lowest possible cost, the first thing I'd look at cutting were employee benefits. The second thing would probably be wages. Again, the Wal-Mart employee takes his job with the understanding of what his wages and benefits are. Apparently, you have a problem with the choice he's making.

[redqueen]

77. Better wages and benefits help the ECONOMY

Lower CEO and EXECUTIVE PAY would cut prices too!

Now, why oh why do you not seem to even CONSIDER that area? Hmmmmm?????

[Libertarialoon]

85. Visionaries cost money

Shareholders (you know, the owners of a company?) determine what CEOs should make, not you or me. Why should anyone but those who hold a vested interest in a company determine what their workers should make?

The fact is that great CEOs are rare birds that must be compensated accordingly. If one company is not willing to do so, another will. It's called competition - that thing everyone here seems to hate.

The leadership at Wal-Mart has turned the company from a successful company into the largest corporation in the world resulting in huge profits for Wal-Mart shareholders. Don't you think they should be rewarded for their vision?

[redqueen]

93. Rewarding someone for their contribution is fine

But it is the WORKERS who make those profits possible. It is the WORKERS who will go out and use that money and drive the economy.

The fat greedy executives will invest, but with a continually shrinking middle class to purchase whatever goods or services they invest in, is it really so difficult to see where this game is headed?

It's already happening ... if we aren't able to stop these companies' destructive business practices, they'll kill themselves off by bankrupting the entire middle class, and have only their rich buddies to target their wares at.

Unfortunately, that will mean the entire world will suffer, but hey, if it gets the Wal Mart clan (5) a few more billion in the interim, isn't that worth it? :puke:

[blurp]

115. Entrepeneurs use mortgaged property bought by parents

People who make 12,000 a year aren't going to be in a position to be entrepeneurs. That is just common sense. They can't afford to educate themselves, nor do they have time. I want to make it easier for people, rather than harder.

One of the biggest indicators of entrepeneurial opportunity is not education -- it's whether or not your parents left you property when they died.

If you want more entrepeneurs, encourage parents to buy a house.

Now I admit $12,000/year probably isn't enough to do that, but $20,000 is. My mother is doing right now as a dry-cleaning lady.

[bread_and_roses]

30. Why don't you address the taxpayer subsidy

through food stamps, medicaid, housing subsidies, school lunch, etc that posters here bring up? We are all subsidizing Walmart's profits. Some capitalism.

[Libertarialoon]

60. What's to address?

I'm opposed to all welfare: social or corporate. The poor would be much better served if the income tax and payroll taxes were eliminated and replaced with a small national sales tax. Charitable organizations could take the place of wasteful governmental welfare programs and would flourish with a reduced tax burden on the American worker.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. "Wasteful government welfare programs..."

Ah, yes, you don't want to be confused with facts.

I bet you don't even know what percentage of the federal budget is devoted to programs like food stamps.

Have YOU personally ever tried to live on what WalMart pays? Try it for six months before you talk so high-handedly. Minimum wage is unlivable even before taxes are taken out, at least if you insist on "luxuries" like a permanent address and regular meals.

[IrateCitizen]

69. Yup. Just like the workhouses and orphanages of 100 yrs ago.

IIRC, what you propose was pretty much the norm of the McKinley era. That humanitarian luminary Newt Gingrich has proposed bringing back orphanages.

And in case you're unclear, the reason that there were so many kids in orphanages wasn't because there were so many w/o parents -- it was more because the poor couldn't afford to keep their children.

Yeah, that's the kind of era I want to return to. :eyes: The last part of your name is pretty apt.

BTW -- I'm assuming that you're demanding to pay money to travel on publicly-financed roadways, use publicly-financed airports, or if you're ever in need of police or fire service. We wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite, after all.

[Solon]

88. Some Points.

One is that a national sales tax is one of the stupidest things I have every heard. It punishes the poor by making them pay more, proportionately, than the rich. Second, Charitable Organizations do NOT have the infrastructure to deal with all of the poor, many turn people away regularly as it is now. I guess having people starve to death on the streets is a viable alternative right? No wait, why don't we have five year olds in the coal mines again, right? What better way to deal with the poor right, either have them die of starvation or black lung. BTW those wasteful government programs you are so contemptable of, take up less than 5% of the annual budget. If you want waste, look at the Pentagon, not there.

[bobbieinok]

105. sales tax hits lower income families much harder than upper income ones

but since you advocate low wages and no safety net......

[Occulus]

116. Those are Republican talking points n/t

[nonconformist]

19. Oh come on

You might save yourself a buck here or there by shopping at Wal-Mart. But you DO pay. Oh yes, you pay.

Your tax dollars pay for underpaid Wal-Mart employees to have medical insurance for their children since benefits aren't provided to most employees. Your tax dollars pay for food stamps to help these minimum wage workers put food on the table. Your tax dollars pay for the free lunch programs at public school that these underpaid Wal-Mart workers have to depend on to give their kids a decent lunch.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is putting all the small Mom & Pop stores (and smaller chains) out of business and sending all those people straight to the unemployment line. AND to the government assistance lines. And while you're saving yourself a buck on a shirt, Wal-Mart is outsourcing jobs out of this country so that they can afford to sell it so cheap. It's pretty easy to do when your laborers are in countries with no (or lax) child labor laws and they pay them literally pennies for the work.

Believe me, YOU PAY. We all do.

-- Former Wal-Mart Employee

[Djinn]

26. coz we're all pinko's here on the left

didn't you get the memo - it came out sometimes in '85 as I recall :evilgrin:

[AP]

28. They don't really price compete. They don't charge much less

especially when you consider how low their input costs are.

What they do is benefit from super cheap production overseas thanks to really low wages. So they drive down wages here without REALLY the commensurate drop in retail costs for Americans (which could be interpreted as a value to society if it happened).

Did you know that clothing is about the only product which has dropped in price in the last decade or two (but we probably spend just as much now that more people are fashion conscious)? All other retail prices are up, including food, and everything else. Meanwhile average wages have stagnated or dropped, thanks to Wal Mart and others making huge profits, but not lowering the prices they charge.

Is that capitalism? Well, not really, considering they need the government to protect them from competition.

You know, when the government encourages a coup in Haiti to put in power the owners of the sweat shops, that's the sort of anti-capitalist crap that allows Wal-Mart ot make huge profits at the cost of society.

When the gov't allows capital to be mobil -- to cross borders freely -- but doesn't let labor have the same mobility (ie, when labor isn't allowed to compete on the free market, but allows capital to compete), that ain't capitalism.

When the gov't won't jack up the minimum wage, or takes dividends at 15% and income at 22-35%, that's more government shit that protects Wal-Mart from having to be competitive.

By the way, a missing stat from the OP is that each Wal-Mart costs about 500K a year in Fed benefits because Wal-Mart pays its employees so little they qualify for benefits. That means society is helping Wal-Mart make money. Their profits are subsidized by taxpayers -- and don't forget, the taxpayers who work for living are subsidizing Wal-Mart at a greater tax burden than taxpayers who get their income from stock dividends and capital gains.

Is that capitalism? Is the subsidization of Wal-Mart profits by people who work for a living capitalism? Nope. That ain't capitalism.

[Libertarialoon]

38. Your beef is with the government then

So it seems like your argument is against corporate welfare. That's a subject you and I can agree on completely.

[AP]

98. My beef is with a form of capitalism which requires so much help from the

gov't to prevent competition (and to hold back labor from being able to compete in the market for labor with capital) that the whole system is no longer capitalism, but a socialism for the largest, most powerful, most politically-connected corporations.

What WalMart does, in many respects, is incredibly far from capitalism.

[AP]

29. Incidentally, WalMarts business strategy is to lower prices

enough to force out the competition, and then to monopoly price once the competition is gone.

[Libertarialoon]

41. Again, no one is forced to shop there

If you have a cite for this, I'd like to see it. I'm not questioning your integrity, but I'd like to see evidence that this is corporate policy.

Seriously, everyone knows that Wal-Mart has a reputation of destroying small community businesses. If a Wal-Mart opened shop and nobody came, it would eventually close shop. People want low prices. That's a fact. Wal-Mart provides that. They are meeting a demand better than anyone else. They control costs obsessively. They track inventory at every step of the way. They've revolutionized the way products are delivered to the customer. They have an advantage that they have used to beat their competition. That's why they are successful.

Heck, I don't even shop at Wal-Mart. I think their stores are the antithesis of user-friendliness. I think I've set foot in a SuperCenter less than five times. I do respect their ability to be the best at what they do, though.

[Tansy_Gold]

53. I worked at the store in Avondale, AZ for 13 months

The department managers were assigned the task of "comparison shopping" on a routine basis. They went to other store in other chains -- Target, K-Mart, Walgreens, Price Club, etc. -- with a list of typical items and brand names. They did this approximately once every two weeks, depending on the volume of business.

They compared the prices in the other stores to the prices in the WalMart store where they worked, not to any standard WalMart price. Upon their return from their shopping trip -- they never bought anything, and were frequently kicked out of stores that caught them "comparison shopping" -- they marked everythign on their list down so that their (I refuse to call it "our") WalMart had lower prices than the competition. They would then find other items in their department to mark up, by a few cents.

The objective was to lure people into the store with extremely low prices on certain items, then jack the price up on a few others so that it would be just a tiny bit higher than the competition. The strategy was to sucker people into thinking that they were saving soooooo much on a bottle of Head & Shoulders shampoo -- "Look, Stanley, only $1.98! It's $3.49 at Walgreens. What a bargain!" -- that they won't notice they're paying a tiny bit more for hand lotion, a tiny bit more for toothpaste, a tiny bit more for toilet tissue. And over the long run, the loss-leader costs are more than made up for by the pennies here and there on other items.

WalMart has one of the most complex and detailed computer software for analyzing customer buying habits anywhere in the world. They know whaat people buy and they know at what price they will be induced to buy more. The Vlasic pickle story is classic WalMart strategy. Sucker the buyers in with #2.49/gal pickles, and they'll spend the savings on potato chips and soda. Even if they know they're paying more, they rationalize that it's cheaper than getting in the car and driving to another store. That's why WalMart is so intent on building these supercenters. They will have the shopper "trapped" into doing all his/her shopping in one place. The "convenience" will outweigh the slightly higher prices.

And when they are suckered into spending more money at WalMart, they will have less left over to spend anywhere else.

I used to listen to people wander through the store -- and WalMarts are always laid out so that people have to wander up and down the aisles to get to the door -- and hear them say things like, "Oh, look, we really don't need this, but it's such a good price!" They buoght things they didn't need and often didn't even want, but it was a good price.

Now, I'm sure one of our rightwing, self-discipline and self-responsiblity trolls will come up with a comment like "WEll, it's their own fault!" but the point is that in a capitalistic economy, the point of capitalism is to get people to buy buy buy buy buy. That's why we have advertising agencies, commercial, endorsements by celebrities, etc. People are only doing what the system wants them to do. If they didn't, I imagine our right-wing folks would call them communists, subversives, anti-American traitors!

(Feel free to call me all of the above. I am not a shopaholic and never will be.)

So to me it seems absurd for someone to say people ought not
to buy the things that keep the economy going. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is what the WalMart strategy is based on.

But it's also based on a culture of waste. That's the philosophy behind the gallon of Vlasic pickles and the whole Sam's Club concept. Buy more for less, but waste half of it and come back for more. In the end, the consumer pays more for what he/she actually consumed than if they had bought only what they needed. But again, that's the whole philosophy of capitalism -- you have to keep buying more. (In that sense, it's rather like some metaPonzi scheme, but don't get me started. . . . )

I can give you another example from personal experience of how WalMart screws its suppliers.

Several years ago, WalMart entered into an agreement with Kensington Publishing, a New York paperback publisher of popular fiction, mostly romance novels. Kensington would publish a line of inexpensive romance novels that would be marketed exclusively through WalMart. The authors would sell ALL RIGHTS to the books, receive no royalties, have no control over the publishing. If I remember correctly, these little novels were called "Gems." Some friends of mine signed one of these "gems" of a contract: for their books they received a grand total of $1000. Th big suckering, er, selling point was that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of copies of their books would be in WalMarts all over the country. Wonderful advertising and promotion! They would become household names!

Not.

The books were given some prominent display, then when they didn't move fast enough, they were bundled and sold 4 for $1. Readers finally started buying them, but at a price that low, they would read them and throw them away. (I know, because I found a lot of them in the trash!) EVen at the deep-discount price, WalMart made a profit. So did Kensington. Only the writers got screwed.

(Authors generally get screwed big-time when their books are purchased at huge discounts by the pseudo-wholesale chains like Price Club, Costco, etc. But don't get me started. . . )

WalMart's low pricing policies do NOT benefit shoppers. They do NOT benefit workers. They only benefit the stockholders and the Walton family parasites.

Tansy Gold, who hates WalMart with a purple passion so intense she isn't even going to proofread this post

[Solon]

67. I did that personally for L&G

Went to places like Lowe's and Home Depot. My department manager's "Trained" me in it. I hated it, felt dirty afterward.

[AP]

101. It's important to note that price/quality/knowlege/service competition

is the cornerstone of capitalism and it's the way capitalism delivers social wealth.

However, it's also important to note that WalMart isn't really price competing. There are many political and structural reasons that they can lower their prices very far--as noted above, every WalMart store that opens costs a half million a year in taxpayer subsidized federal benefits. Also, the change in gov't in Haiti is a subsidy for WalMart too. Then there's the countless federal and state laws and regulations which prevent labor from competing fairly in the marketplace for labor with employers like WalMart.

WalMart uses all these subsidies to maximize their profits and minimize socially valuable competion. They just drive competion out of business and it's absurd to think that once the competition is gone, they'll continue to price things where they do now.

[JanMichael]

109. Libertoonians rarely *get* that influence destroys the ignorant concept...

...of the "Free market". They worship it like a god.

They'd never conceed that companies like WalMart tilt the business table in their favor and there isn't a gawddamned thing their competitors can do about it.

"Free" my ass.

[AP]

110. The biggest competition WalMart worries about is the competition between

labor and capital over wages, and that's the table that is tipped in their favor with a big assist from the gov't, which helps privatize all the profits and socialize all the costs of WalMart's existence.

Forget about Target, KMart and Costco. They aren't WalMart's competitors.

WalMart's competitors are their own damn employees, and people like Aristide. And, with the help of the gov't, WalMart is winning the competition to keep wages low and profits high.

[SEpatriot]

56. Actually, some people kinda are...

I don't know much about Arizona, but I do know a lot about Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee and the communities that are now almost wholly Wal-Mart dependent. Wal-Mart comes in, usually with some sort of backroom sweetheart political deal with the local city council and goes to work lowballing all of the local retailers with a clearly defined strategy to put them out of business. This usually happens - and its usually long-established community-based mom and pop stores that go first and are hit hardest. So the little stores that cared about their customers and their employees are gone - poof!

Now, if you live in a place like Centre, Alabama or Cedartown, Georgia - you still have to buy the necessities of life and other things. Seeing as the job market and opportunities for the folks that live in these places is pretty abysmal and the government keeps there wages low and their taxes high, low prices do indeed mean alot to these people -so they go to Wal-Mart. Gas prices (for those who have vehicles - here's a real shocker in 2004 - there are a lot of people who do not live in the big city who don't have cars because they can't afford them) are outrageously high, so driving down the road to the outskirts of Atlanta or Chattanooga or Birmingham is just cost-prohibitive. So what do you do - you go to Wal-Mart. And why not, your brother or cousin probably works there anyway - and you've been socialized to accept that Wal-Mart is the big, yellow happy face of American benevolence and freedom.

Meantime, Wal-Mart has found some neat ways to not pay taxes in your community or maybe pull the great land-switch scam (where they initially sign a long-term lease with a local landowner, then welch out after buying their own property in yet another sweetheart deal) to maximize their profits and minimize their dependency and interrelation to the community. They're treating their workers like dogs - especially if they're injured. True story - I represented a woman who was CLEARLY injured at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's own worker's comp doctor recommended surgery and Wal-Mart had the audacity to hand-pick yet another doctor (read, whore) to say she shouldn't have the surgery. Luckily, the local judge balked at that and slammed Wal-Mart for their foolishness. Later, Wal-Mart's attorney begged me in private to settle the case - mainly because Wal-Mart paid his firm in flat fees (rather than the customary hourly rate) and they were loosing their shirts defending this case.

I could go on and on - like how the Wal-Mart cashier refused to accept a Canadian penny from me because her supervisors had raked her over the coals for this, and granted, that is a little off topic.
The point is, Wal-Mart (like a lot of other big box retailers) hates true capitalism and competition - they seek only monopoly and domination. Now, we the people have been to complicit, but sometimes its hard for the below-average Joe and Jane (who do most of the living and the dying and the buying in these communities)to see beyond trying to keep their heads above water.

[AP]

64. You'll be forced to buy there after the push everyone else out of business

You've answered your first question in your second paragraph.

By the way, what do you think of my other post.

You know why WalMart is destroying the competion? Because their competion isn't politically powerful, as walmart is, and can't get the US gov't to act and legislate in their favor (eg, do the equivalent of invading Iraq, or look the other way when every new store they build requires a half million dollars in federal subsidies).

Of course WalMart is going to be able to unfairly destroy the competition.

[camero]

111. Why?

It does the following things:

Destoys the environment
Creates a permanent underclass(can you say serfdom?)
Creates a class a noveau rich that don't do anything for society except push paper.
Creates wars to seize natural resources that are not theirs. See Iraq.
Amongst others too numerous to list.

So how do you like your roads, police and fire departments, clean water, air, and safe food? My god. They're all socialist(gasp).

And lets not forget that these corporations are actually creations of the government itself as well as property since you have to file papers with the gov't to call youself a corp or to hold a deed.

We created them and we certainly can regulate or get rid of them if they are not serving the public interest. Thomas Jefferson said so.

Well, if the shoe fits.

[jmowreader]

112. I LOVE Capitalism!

I just don't admire Wal-Mart's version of it.

[SoCalDem]

8. I was born in Salina Kansas.. housing costs are up...wages down

nothing new..

That 12,192 a yr translates into $234.46 per week (based on 52 wks)BEFORE payroll taxes..

It's no wonder that walmart employees often must use welfare services.. There's barely room in that income to even rent a lousy place to live..no room for a car payment..no room for much in the way of groceries.. or utilities (it gets very cold in winter there and extremely hot in summer)..

a glance at the newspaper shows this as a representative cost for a 2 bedroom

COUNTRY OAKS
2 bedrooms, 3 year old units, laundry hookups, plenty of closet space $490

Subtract that rent, and there's very little left over..

[JanMichael]

9. No one is forced to work there!

Or so says our newest libertarialoon:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

10. Low wages are the scourge of our times..

Society "blames" people for being "poor" and yet offers them no colution for their "problem"..

It always tickles me when I hear rich people saying that "money isn't everything", and that their life didn't really change when they got their money..HAH!!

Low wages destroys families, it makes people sick, and it fuels hatred and jealousy..

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

20. But of COURSE no one is forced to work there...

They can work at Sam's Club.
Or McDonalds.
Or any other McJob out there.

I think I should step away before I post something regrettable.

[Skittles]

25. I am so tired of them

so freaking tired

[Libertarialoon]

62. I guess I missed

the news reports where people were herded into Wal-Mart at gunpoint and shackled to their registers. Could you point me to that?

[G_j]

17. I am so disgusted

after fighting to keep a WM supercenter from bulldozing it's way into our town for four years and then watching them finally getting their way when they bought our city council. I can't even discuss it anymore, bad for the blood pressure ya know..
one word for WM: evil :argh:

[Tansy_Gold]

48. Sad thing is, they didn't even have to "buy"

the Goodyear, AZ, city council. You'd have thought the council, advised by the Planning and Zoning board and hundreds of local residents not to permit the construction, would at least have held out for SOMETHING. But no, they caved immediately. Walmart will build a new supercenter three miles down the road from an existing supercenter, despite protests from residents.

I'm sure the next stop on Interstate 10 for the Walton behemoth will be Miller Road, in Buckeye. . . . . . . . . . . .


Tansy Gold, screaming silently.

[G_j]

97. I believe you

responded on a few of my threads a few years ago, in which I described various phases of our battle. Through tireless efforts on the parts of some committed community members we were able to influence our city council to turn away WM super-centers 2x. Then came the election in which certain interested parties formed a PAC that donated only to candidates who agreed to approve the WM. All of these candidates won and what do you know? The super-center was approved.
Even then we filed a lawsuit but lost and were counter-sued by the developers. The super-center which will be twice as big as the one outside our city limits, will be completed this summer. The location is right on the banks of a recovering river in a flood plane!

WM plays dirty and they have plenty of money to do it with.

My perception of someone who tries to defend Walmart is not much better that of someone who attempts to defend Bush at this point.
There is no excuse.

BTW, I'm very sorry to hear that your getting stuck with another super-center. They are without a doubt distructive to any community.

[lapislzi]

21. You can be employed as a "full-time" employee at Wal-Mart

and still qualify for food stamps. Wal-Mart considers anything over 27 hours "full-time."

Don't that beat all.

[whistle]

31. In 1898 Andrew Carnegie was the richest man in the world...

...and he owned U.S. Steel. If compared to Bill Gates today, Carnegie's net worth would be twice what Bill Gates is in today's dollars. Andrew Carnegie found a way to produce better steel, cheaper that anywhere else on earth. Carnegie had his workers (pre-unions) working 12 hour days, seven days a week. They received only one holiday a year. No paid vacations. The time they got off was based on factory production cycles. If you became ill and failed to show up for work when you were expected, you lost your job. If you asked for better conditions or wages, you were fired and there were ten people waiting for your position. The pay for workers varied, but the typical skilled steel worker made $5.00 a day which works out to be $1,825.00 per year or 41.7 cents an hour, if the worker could work non-stop. In their day steel workers were considered among the top wage earners among working class Americans. Foremen and supervisors enjoyed slightly higher pay scales and some perks mostly having to do with not having to work as hard as labor. they got to sit down at a desk. But top management and owners were the chief beneficiaries of the production profits and many became very rich. Andrew Carnegie did give over 90% of his accumulated wealth away before his death around 1915, including the contruction and funding of over 300 public libraries in the U.S. and around the world and the funding of the Carnegie Foundation.

Most other American workers were lucky if they made 50 cents a day for a full day's work (12 hours) at that time. Many workers were just children and working conditions were dangerous and unhealthy. If you were not injured or killed on the job, you might be lucky to work until you were 50. Few laborers ever retired. They usually worked till they died. If they became too old to work, hopefully they had a little plot of ground away from the city where they could garden or raise some livestock to feed themselves. Social security was not to come until the 1930's. The neo-conservatives of today long for the return of this country to that time and era of the robber Baron and business tycoons. There were social welfare programs, no medicare, no income taxes and corporations in order to maximize profits paid graft to the corrupt politicians in America so that they could bias free-markets to their particular interests.

I don't know if any economists out there have ever calculated what the U.S. inflation has been during the past 107 years. I'm sure there is an actual set of figures someplace. But if the average inflation rate has been 3.5% per year during the last century, by today's standards a steel worker would have to be making 38 times what a worker made during Carnegie's time to break-even. No doubt productivity has increased from those abysmal days when most of the work was manual, muscle and sweat. I think steel workers have had a productivity gain of at least 2.0% a year. So, the average steel worker in America with the benefit of productivity takes only 12% of the time today to produce the same amount of steel output they did 107 years ago. That means that what took a worker 84 hours a week back in 1898 can be done in just 10 hours today, perhaps that time might even be shorter. Consumers also benefit from these production gains by enjoying lower prices for things using steel and/or have a wider variety of choices and products, in other words, we all enjoy an increased standard of living. And this pattern has been repeated for countless other products and services in the U.S. economy.

Yet nearly all of our steel industry has disappeared in the United States. That which is left is being subsidized by a Bush tax break that can only lead to the total extinction of the steel industry here in just a few years.

Now the U.S. is in a service economy which has no comparable output measures such as a ton of steel, tinsel strength or quality of finish. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, profits. The people who share in profits are still primarily management and owners. Where companies have tried to involve worker participation in profits, the long term results have been for the most part unsuccessful (Eastern Airlines, 401K's, ENRON, etc.) If workers for these companies try to buy stock in them without a voice on the board, their investments languish and could even disappear. Does it come as a surprise that Wal-Mart and the Walton family operate in the manner that they do? Capitalists always attend to their own needs first, to the exclusion of the needs of those who serve them and the needs of the society in which they operate. Has it ever been different? Let's hope that the Walton family along with the Bill Gates and the other wealthiest citizens find a generous conscience before their souls are forgotten.

JV 04/21/2004

[G_j]

34. not sure about the inflation factor

but I found this telling as far the pay ratio of the average worker to the average CEO from 1990 to 2003.


Average CEO $155,769 a Week , Average Worker Takes Home $517


http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0414-10.htm

CEO Pay/Worker Pay Ratio Reaches 301-to-1
Average Worker Takes Home $517 a Week; Average CEO $155,769 a Week

BOSTON - April 14 - After declining for the last two years, the gap in pay between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed 300-to-1 in 2003. In 2002, the ratio stood at 282-to-1. In 1982, it was just 42-to-1.
According to Business Week's 54th Annual Executive Compensation Survey, published this week, the average large company CEO received compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003, up 9.1% from the previous year. Business Week's survey covers the 365 largest companies that have reported their executive pay to date.

From 1990 to 2003:
CEO pay rose 313%
The S&P 500 rose 242%
Corporate profits rose 128%
Average worker pay rose 49%
Inflation rose 41%

The average production worker fared less well in 2003. Their annual pay was $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average worker took home $517 in their weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took home $155,769 in their weekly pay.

If the minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.

..more..

[jmowreader]

33. Wal-Mart is Not a Business, it's an Economic Disease

This one from Lyndon LaRouche...who is crazier than a shithouse rat, but in this case he's also right.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3044wal-mart.html

[liquidstealth]

35. What exactly is the problem?

Amazing....

Lets see.

Walmart offers some of the...if not the lowest prices out there for many essential commodaties.

Millions of people shop there every day....
and save money.

Yet many people on these boards would have places like walmart go away.
That of course means you are advocating that the millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck should pay more?

walmart offers millions of people the chance to save money. You advocate they should pay more?

Many people on these boards also indicate that walmart drives out small business, etc.

How many of those small business paid benefits? Your typical mom and pop shop never paid benefits either...

I am sorry. I am still stuck on the fact that so many people have a problem with an enterprise that charges less on its products than most competitors....thereby saving millions of people money....

Are you advocating charging higher prices to those who can least afford it?

[G_j]

36. and are you advocating

products made by sweatshop and child labor?

[Libertarialoon]

42. A sweatshop to you and me...

...is an opportunity to those in the third world.

Seriously, you need to wake up. What you see as slavery is better than almost any other job these people can get places like China or India. It's easy for you in your ivory tower to criticize the fact that Wal-Mart is paying pennies to our dollar to those employees overseas, but these jobs are the difference between people starving or eating to many in the world.

[Solon]

46. Here's the typical conditions for you...

...The idea was to slip under the radar of U.S. quotas and duties, which would cost the manufacturers millions more if the garments were made outside U.S. territory. Garments from Saipan are made from foreign cloth, assembled by foreign workers on U.S. soil and labeled "Made in the USA."

And they are made cheaply. Wages in the factories average about $3 per hour -- more than $2 less than the U.S. minimum wage of $5.15. No overtime is paid for a 70-hour work week. But that's hardly the worst of it. Far away from the swank beachside hotels, luxurious golf courses and the thousands of Japanese tourists snorkling around sunken U.S. Navy landing craft in the clear waters, some 31,000 textile workers live penned up like cattle by armed soldiers and barbed wire, and squeezed head to toe into filthy sleeping barracks, all of which was documented on film by U.S. investigators last year.

The unhappy workers cannot just walk away, either: Like Appalachian coal miners a generation ago, they owe their souls to the company store, starting with factory recruiters, who charge Chinese peasants as much as $4,000 to get them out of China and into a "good job" in "America." Their low salaries make it nearly impossible to buy back their freedom. And so they stay. The small print in their contracts forbids sex, drinking -- and dissent.

Enter Tom DeLay and his Texas Republican sidekick, Dick Armey. When the Clinton administration sought to yank Saipan's factories into the 20th century in 1994, requiring the workers be paid a minimum wage, overtime and their living conditions improved, the island government hired a platoon of well-connected Washington lobbyists, headed by former DeLay aide Jack Abramoff, to block the plan. Abramoff, in turn, personally or through his family, contributed $18,000 to DeLay's campaign coffers. So far, the island government has paid the firm of Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds $4 million for their efforts, records show. They also treated DeLay and Armey to trips to the island, where they played golf, snorkled and made whirlwind visits to factories especially spiffed up for the occasion, according to several accounts.

"Even though I have only been here for 24 hours, I have witnessed the economic success of the Marianas," DeLay told a banquet crowd. As for the critics of the plantation system, DeLay told the dinner crowd darkly, "You are up against the forces of big labor and the radical left."

[redqueen]

92. I love how these posts are never responded to

Workers fought and died to enact the laws which created the robust middle class in this country, which was the root of our success.

Now these cheap-labor conservatives (and cheap-labor libertarians as well, it seems) want to back to the bad old days, when there was just the rich and the (mostly uneducated) poor. Unsurprisingly, things were much easier for the rich then.

Starting in the 80's, the rich managed to convince some of the upper middle class (and even average middle class) that they were actually rich, so they helped the rich along in their nefarious plans to strip the wealth away from the people in order to line their own pockets. Now here we are and the middle class are slowly realizing they've been had.

Sadly, it seems many who know full-well they're not rich still defend the actions of the greedy, either not remembering how they got a weekend to enjoy and things like the ability to have their children attend school rather than work 12-hour days in a factory and all those lovely benefits those brave souls fought and died for - or beliveing that soon they, too, will be one of the rich, so they don't have to worry how the 'other half' lives.

You reap what you sow.

[lapislzi]

47. Oh, so it's OK

for kids to work in factories, or unpaid prison labor? What about unpaid overtime, NO days off, hazardous working conditions. Would you tolerate such conditions in a U.S. factory? Is it OK to exploit workers elsewhere in the world? If so, why?

In the name of "cheap stuff?" Human rights are human rights. You don't give them a buy because the factory is in China, or Indonesia, or wherever.

Your argument veers dangerously close to racism.

[Libertarialoon]

55. Where did I say anything of the sort?

I don't advocate slave labor or child labor, but I am a realist. If you had the choice between sending your four kids to work in a factory, or having the family starve to death, what would you do? That's an unfortunate fact in most of the third world. Of course, every parent wants their children to be able to attend school instead of working 70 hour workweeks, but first people need to eat and have a place to live.

The ironic thing is that the very same people who decry the outsourcing of American jobs are denying the opportunity for people in the third world to better thenselves economically.

In the name of "cheap stuff?" Human rights are human rights. You don't give them a buy because the factory is in China, or Indonesia, or wherever.

Our demand for cheap stuff is what employs workers all over the world. Without "cheap stuff" many of these people would die. Human rights take a back seat to the ability to put food on the table. I'd guarantee that nearly every employee of the sweat shops you're decrying would support my position over yours. Good to see you're so concerned about the welfare of the truly poor.

Your argument veers dangerously close to racism.

Of course. Play the racism card. As soon as your position becomes untenable, you can always end the debate by calling someone a racist. As an ardent supporter of free trade, I am much more concerned about the plight of the poverty-stricken around the world than you seem to be. It's easier to say "think of the poor children" than it is to address the realities that these people have no choice in the matter. The only way to improve their conditions is for businesses to continue to invest in their countries and make more opportunities available to them instead of worrying about the miniscule number of American jobs being exported overseas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Alternatives to sweatshops

Ah, yes, libertarianism, the perfect philosophy for the nineteenth century.

People made arguments like that when "do gooders" in the nineteenth century proposed banning child labor in the U.S. and Europe. "Think of all the families that will starve!" they moaned, in the fake sympathy that greedheads always trot out when their pocketbooks are threatened. (When I get a few free moments, I'm going to write a DU article on the falsely compassionate excuses that right wingers give for protecting their own interests.)

But here's what really happened. The work was still there to be done, and with child labor now unavailable, the employers were forced to hire the children's parents and older siblings--for higher wages. Better yet, the children went to school, a choice unavailable to them when they were working fulltime in a factory. This led to upward mobility, sometimes even in the same generation, as the educated children could qualify for better jobs when they grew up, but definitely by the next generation.

You also need to look at real-world examples of development. The greatest examples, the Asian tigers, may have provided foreign contractors with cheap labor, but they always remained firmly in charge of their own economies, insisted on technology transfers, AND invested heavily in education, social services, and infrastructure.

Exhibit A for sweatshops, China, is indeed growing economically, but the growth is tremendously uneven, and availability of education and social services for the non-affluent has actually decreased since the introduction of laissez-faire capitalism.

[redqueen]

94. Well said, Leftcoast!

It's absolutely sickening that not only is sky-high executive pay NEVER addressed as something that could be brought to more sane levels in order to combat rising prices -- but also the ability of these countries to have their standard of living rise is DEMOLISHED by making these practices acceptable.

Until we, as Americans, realize that the rights our workers fought and died for in the 19th century are not just for us, but should be for workers everywhere, nothing will change. In order to seriously help those workers and their families (as opposed to the lip service type of concern for the poor that cheap-labor libertarians and conservatives like to spew), we must use the only real power we have - our power as the world's largest consumer market - to force companies that are now corrupting our government with their insane profits to obey workers' rights laws no matter WHERE they do business, if they wish to sell to us.

If we don't do this, these multinationals are going to spread their disease to the entire world, forcing those who have not yet had workers' movements to continue sending their children to work in sweatshops, thereby all but guaranteeing that corporate pirates will continue to rape the worker to line their own pockets.

[G_j]

100. exactly! n/t

[lapislzi]

71. What about FAIR trade?

Free trade does not trump all other considerations. It absolutely, positively (imo) should not trump the rights of human beings.

And why should human rights and "putting food on the table" be incompatible? Putting food on the table IS a human right. The point is that Wal-Mart can well afford to pay its workers a decent, living wage...so that the children in these countries do not have to work. It chooses not to. It chooses to put profit above people.

And what exactly would you call it when you the consumer turn a blind eye to working conditions of people in other countries? Would you tolerate such conditions in American factories? Again, I ask you, why is it OK to exploit Brazilian workers? Why? You have no answer.

Nor will you find any post of mine decrying outsourcing out of hand. That's actually a different discussion. There are many factors in play, and to truly embrace "globalism" one must address the needs of everyone on the planet.

[Solon]

76. They only have no choice because...

their government get these "sweet deals" where the local economy and whatever jobs they could provide are destroyed. This opens up a market for exploitation for whoever moves into these countries. Then they set up shop, using either hired goons or local "law" enforcement they make sure the locals don't violate "company policy" which can include among other things, not leaving the factory before "clock out time", no bathroom breaks, no sex, and absolutely no dissent. They are forbidden from forming unions, they cannot complain to authorities, because they are bought and paid for by these companies. They work anywhere from 12-16 hours a day for pennies an hour. In the worse cases some are even chained to their machines. You call that progress, I call it slavery by proxy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Back in the 1970s

some of the governments in Central America were actually putting ads in the New York Times urging investors to come in, with guarantees of no unions, no environmental or health and safety laws, and little or no financial regulation. From what I heard from Americans who worked down there, the only catch was a modest stream of kickbacks to the local elites.

This "we're building sweatshops to help out the oppressed of the earth" is another line on my list of self-serving, cynical conservative lies.

[lapislzi]

39. Where to start...

1. Labor practices. A typical employee in a "mom and pop" operation didn't need the power of organized labor. Wal-Mart steadfastly refuses to unionize. Anyone trying to organize the workforce (through perfectly legal means) is fired.

2. Labor practices. Wal-Mart's pressure on its overseas vendors lowers the standard for workers all over the world. There are well-documented cases of Wal-Mart running domestic manufacturers out of business as well, as in the Vlasic Pickle Company (I would dig up the link, but I am lazy).

3. There is no choice for the consumer, or the worker. If Wal-Mart shows up in your town, you can kiss competition goodbye. There IS nowhere else to buy, or to work.

4. Labor practices. Dead peasants' insurance. 'Nuff said.

[whosinpower]

50. Saving peoples money????

Can't see the entire picture because you are so utterly fixed on how fat your wallet is....
sorry for the sarcasm - I am a fully fledged, utterly dedicated "anti Wal-Mart person"

And my reasons stem in part from being a small business owner for over 15 years. I've watched as Walmarts moved into an area and slowly but surely saw a less diverse retail environment as retailer after retailer had to close up shop. I've watched clothing manufacturers here have to close up shop as they could not compete with cheap imports brought in. It doesn't stop there of course - as Walmart has everything - every single retailermanufacturer is affected by Walmart.
I've watched decent paying jobs evaporate within our own community, which by the way afforded "Joe Public" with LESS purchasing power. And of course, with less money - they will go where they can get the most for their dollars - right into Walmarts outstretched arms.

They are very good at what they do, and for that I do give them credit. But they are sapping the very strength out of the economy - all the while spouting that they are saving people money. If you lose your job because your place of business had to shut down, and then you have to get a different job paying far less, or not even a full time job, but part time (which by the way - up here, Walmart ONLY hires part-time, so they do not have to pay source deductions, holiday pay etc) you are faced with a dilemma...shop at Walmart and support the very institution that perhaps led to you losing your job - or go without the product you wanted to buy.

I will not support Walmart. If they change their hiring practices, stop supporting third world sweatshops - or better yet, pay those workers producing their products fair US/Canadian minimum wages at the very least - then perhaps I will change my assessment. Until then - they, as those businesses that outsource their labor needs, will be OFF my list.

[jmowreader]

57. I have always advocated a "living wage"

Do NOT tell me you cannot pay a living wage and still have good prices. Home Depot does it. I believe Target does it too.

We do it for the most mundane and underhanded reasons: by paying people enough to live on, we don't have to worry about giving half the staff Monday off so they can stand in line at Social Services, and it's completely eliminated the problem of people stealing from the company to feed their kids. Wal-Mart has both of those problems. Oh yeah, our turnover is far less too.

(Disclaimer for new DUers: I work for Home Depot.)

About benefits: Most mom-and-pop shops can't afford to pay benefits. Wal-Mart doesn't have that problem. Because of Wal-Mart's size, they can afford to pay their employees a living wage, to offer affordable benefits, and still make a killing--without raising their prices much if any. Perhaps less of a killing than they make now, but a killing nonetheless. And ya know something? If they did it, we'd be sitting here praising them for their social responsibility.

A little-known fact: there are products in Wal-Mart's line that they are not the largest retailer of. Oh...let's say lighting, where Home Depot is the biggest and Wal-Mart is number two. You can well understand that they're not happy about that. As a result, they sell lighting below cost chainwide. We don't sell anything below cost and fight Wal-Mart's tactics with super-sneaky counteraction: we sell a wider range of lighting products than they do (our light bulb aisle alone has more products on it than their whole lighting department--try buying a 400-watt metal halide bulb at Wal-Mart), we have larger quantities of every SKU than they do, and our fixtures are better made and better looking than theirs. Oh, and we have the wire and ceiling boxes you need to install the light; if you buy a fixture from W-M, you have to come to me to get the rough electrical anyway. The worst part of Wal-Mart's below-cost lighting sales, from Wal-Mart's perspective, is that even though they lose money on every sale (and they're not making it up in volume either!) we still sell lighting cheaper than they do.

The libertarian guy said "anyone" could out-Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. It's possible, but you need a few advantages that a new retailer won't have, like sixteen hundred Wal-Mart-sized stores, an existing supply chain, a name that people already trust, and a niche Wal-Mart can't readily exploit. Wal-Mart doesn't have the room to display 35 toilet models like I do, unless they expand their building or convert the censored-movie department. They don't have the room to display 200 ceiling fans unless they took out the hairspray department, or 50 different sheet goods unless they eliminated their garden center. Could they build lumberyards? Of course, but would they? I don't know; we have a whole staff dedicated to studying this one competitor, and they don't know either.

Try this informative little experiment: Go to Wal-Mart at a slow time and pick something up at random. Walk up to any associate and ask her how to use it. Then find another associate and ask him for a product Wal-Mart doesn't have. You won't be told how to use it and you won't be told where to get the thing you need. Now walk into either Home Depot or Lowe's and do the same thing. See, it's not a Wal-Mart associate's job to know anything more about the stuff on the shelves than where to put it. And it's a Wal-Mart employee's responsibility to sell you something Wal-Mart has. I take my guys on tours of other lumberyards so they can see what they have; this way, when someone walks in asking for a toilet with four seats on it because they have three families living in a trailer with one bathroom (unfortunately, I have been asked for this), my guys will know where to send them. No one will ever call a Wal-Mart to tell them they're carrying a new product, but lumberyards call me to tell me that.

Wal-Mart's size precludes it from making anything less than a killing. They could go two ways: treat workers, suppliers and the community fairly, and make Killing A; or treat everyone around them like shit and make Killing B. Because Killing B is three cents higher than Killing A, they naturally choose Killing B.

[Libertarialoon]

63. The people on this board hate success.

It's the only possible explanation. Either that or they have no understanding of economics.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. No, we just hate exploitation

Read the post from the Home Depot guy. We don't hate Home Depot, Target, or CostCo, three wildly successful chains that treat their workers decently.

If WalMart is so wonderful, why don't you go work on the sales floor?

[Libertarialoon]

72. Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder.

Read the post from the Home Depot guy. We don't hate Home Depot, Target, or CostCo, three wildly successful chains that treat their workers decently.

I guarantee that Wal-Mart charges less on the average for their products than any of the above. They can do so because they pay their workers less and are not as generous with benefits. That's a business decision they made, and it has proven to be wildly successful. That you don't like it is your problem. You are free to protest, boycott, and vent your outrage about it, but you are clearly in the minority.

Apparently, the critics of Wal-Mart on this board are more concerned with the plight of a few workers who have made a voluntary decision to work at Wal-Mart than they are for the countless consumers who benefit from Wal-Mart's success.

If WalMart is so wonderful, why don't you go work on the sales floor?

Because I choose not to. I don't shop there either. Many do. That's a decision they make for themselves.

[IrateCitizen]

74. Ha ha ha ha ha!

I guarantee that Wal-Mart charges less on the average for their products than any of the above. They can do so because they pay their workers less and are not as generous with benefits.

WRONG!

They are able to charge less because they artificially lower their prices on specific "high-visibility" items to sell them at a loss, while actually RAISING prices on other items, knowing that people will buy them anyway once they're in the store.

If you had read the first-hand accounts on this thread, you'd know that. But it's obvious that you'd rather instead engage in the same obfuscation and disingenuity that is the hallmark of those who seek to sweep the worst excesses of corporate-driven capitalism under the rug and close their ears to any calls to actually address or acknowledge the injustices that result from them.

100 years ago you would be criticizing those calling for an end to child labor as looking to prevent poor people from putting food on their table. Bank on it.

[Occulus]

118. I think there was an issue

involving Vlasic and gallon-size jars of pickles. It was posted here at DU some time ago.

This would be an object lesson for the libertarian here.

[Solon]

78. Wal*Mart has been guilty in the past of illegal price fixing before.

They still do it, often and with impunity, they write any fines they get slammed for from the government as a loss. Hell its tax deductable so why worry right? They are sexist in pay and promotion practices. They use slave labor to keep prices low, and cause communities standard of living to drop. In many small towns, they are literally the only choice. They cost taxpayers Millions of dollars by denying employees from getting good benefits. They are a parasite.

[G_j]

90. :-(

:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:
:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[IrateCitizen]

73. Ahhh.... we have another "Econ 101" graduate among us!

Either that or they have no understanding of economics.

That's the classic response from the people who pop up that have only a most rudimentary understanding of economic systems, but like to present themselves as the standard-bearers while denouncing everyone else's comparative ignorance.

"A society will be judged by how it treats the least among it." I'll give you three guesses, economics-man, as to what left-wing luminary made this statement.

Where in the hell is Professor GAC when you need him?

[Solon]

81. No we don't.

I am happy to shop at Costco and other companies that have honest business practices. I do hate Wal-Mart for the blatantly illegal business practices that they practice. I would figure you as a law and order type, myself, but I guess I was wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. All your points have been covered in other posts

Read them if you actually want to learn something that the corporate media didn't teach you.

[nonconformist]

104. I addressed this above

You PAY in other ways.

Of course, the Wal-Mart supporters have not addressed my post above.

[IrateCitizen]

106. Nor will they, because they've been tombstoned...

I'm surprised the libertarialoon lasted as long as he did.

[DianeG5385]

37. Add to that, vacation stealing

My sister works for Walmart and takes Easter vacation every year. She's a department manager who doesn't work weekends. This year she put in for vacation 2 days before the weekend and 2 days after. She has 10 days and she was saving the other five days for when our dad comes out from Florida. Lo and behold, they credited the two weekend days to her vacation, so she lost two days!!! She is waiting for her paycheck to see if she gets paid for those days, would be overtime which is verboten at Walmart. If she loses the days but is not paid for it, there will be heck to pay!!

[Solon]

45. Wal*Mart also does not increase pay with seniority...

I remember at our store, after I was there a year and a half, that new cashiers, most of them high-school students, were getting paid at least 50 cents more an hour than those of us who been their for a year or more. We complained about it so much, then, months later they "equalized" our pay. It was a joke, only some of us were getting the pay increase, others were excluded for "making too much", 3 associates quit over it. Even after this, the new part-time cashiers were still making more, it pissed me off royaly, glad I got out of that shit hole. Oh, BTW: all the associates that didn't get the raise were female.

Not to mention the illegal price fixing, and gouging that is rampant at all stores. I hate Wal-F*ck!!!

[MISSDem]

51. WalMart - what a bad word

they have moved in on my sleepy little town of Hernando MS and are planning a store here. Some are fighting it but you know it is a loosing battle because the city leaders are jubilant that they are coming. Shopping at Walmart is, to me, like buying stolen goods. If people didn't buy them they wouldn't be there.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

49. i heard a Wal-Mart commercial yesterday saying all employees have stock

in the company, that they are all "owners". is this even remotely true? i heard it in on AM radio.

oh and the commercial also added that their employees are not called "employees", they are called "associates" because that means walmart is doubleplus good or something.

[jmowreader]

59. There seems to be a stigma against the word "employee"

HD and Lowe's both use "associate," Target and Kmart call them "team members."

Lori used to work for Wal-Mart, I believe she had some stock at the time but the company offers to buy it from you when you leave. I would almost assume the company just buys it without asking you if you're terminated.

[nonconformist]

103. When I worked at Wal-Mart

Back in 1994-1995, stock was only offered to "full time" employees that also qualified for benefits.

Anyone who has ever worked retail knows that most employees do NOT fall under that description, because they will drop your hours every few weeks to keep you from being considered full time. It was almost like a running (bad) joke, when you would get that schedule with only 20 hours on it every few weeks.

[Neshanic]

52. 3 miles from each other here in developer paradise AZ.

One city sold it's soul, Avondale, and gave it everything it wanted. Four years later, they want a new one, three miles away in Goodyear. Goodyear said yes. It will be tastefully designed of course, tile roof front and all, one tree per billon square feet of parking lot...to be chopped down after two months.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. "No one is forced..."

yadda yadda yadda.

Libertarialoon's screen name says it all.

The comfortably affluent always come up with that callous, smug, self-serving, evil (yes, I literally mean "evil!") libertarian sophistry when confronted with an example of exploitation.

I first heard that excuse when the clerical employees of Yale University were trying to organize in the 1970s. The lowest paid clerical employees were paid so poorly that they qualified for food stamps, and the president of Yale made some remark about how secretaries who didn't like their wages should just go to school and qualify for better jobs.

It's obvious that Libertarialoon has never thought about the downward spiral. WalMart buys cheap goods from the Third World, which drives U.S. manufacturers out of business, sells them at rock-bottom prices, which drives local independent merchants out of business, which reduces employment alternatives in both the manufacturing and retail sectors and choices for shoppers, which eventually forces large numbers of people to both buy and work at WalMart.

Hating WalMart isn't "hating capitalism." I am a small-business owner myself, fortunately in a service industry, not retail.

When I was younger, the "American Dream" was about building up a successful business in which you made a comfortable living while providing products and services that people needed and good jobs for the local population. It wasn't about becoming richer than several Third World countries combined and still thinking up new predatory ways to screw workers and communities.

WalMart actually epitomizes the kind of capitalism that Marx wrote about.

[DancingBear]

84. re: Yale organizing

Lydia L, were you a part of that? I worked for Yale in the early 80's, and had (puts on modest hat) a fairly good sized role in getting Local 35 certified and in place.

My mom works at another university, and she came and spoke at a couple of organizing meetings. Mom pulls NO punches, BTW... :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. I was a graduate student, a member of

another exploited class. :-)

I left in 1981, and I really don't remember whether the union was certified by that time or not. I do recall, however, that the museum guards, whose job was to stand around and make sure that no one touched the paintings, were unionized already in the 1970s, and were paid more than a friend of mine who was a lecturer at the gallery and who was required to have an M.A.

So much for "going to school and getting a better paying job."

[Libertarialoon]

80. I'm done.

It's been fun debating you all on this subject, but it's clear neither of us are going to sway the other. While I understand the opinions of many here, I believe they are misguided. Nowhere is it written in stone that a business must provide benefits or "living wages" (whatever your definition of living is) to their employees. Wal-Mart is successful because they meet a specific demand in the marketplace: cheap goods and services. A person that can buy the same good for 10% less at Wal-Mart than somewhere else has 10% more money to spend on something else. When someone figures out how to do that better than Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will cease to be as dominant as it is.

Someone mentioned Costco as a "good" company. Costco is the perfect example of a company that has beaten Wal-Mart through visionary leadership and providing the customer with a good product at a given price.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,538834,00.html

Costco demonstrates that Wal-Mart is not some monopolistic, unstoppable behemoth that is going to take over the world. Wal-Mart has flourished because they know how to do the kind of business that succeeds in the marketplace. That sticks in the craw of many people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Yeah, you're done all right

Because you haven't addressed --and can't address--the question of what happens when WalMart comes into a town without any existing big box stores.

In fact, it doesn't look as if you've even read most of the opposing posts. But even if you have, well, that probably doesn't matter to you, because libertarians don't have to care. What a convenient ideology.

[Solon]

91. They have a Utopian Ideology.

Which is one that could never work. They have faith in the "Free Market" that it can solve all social ills, at least this country hasn't fallen for that, yet. Talk about economic crash and burn.

[IrateCitizen]

83. What Wal Mart exemplifies is the way in which our economy...

... encourages companies and corporations to violate the most basic societal norms by which the majority of people live. It's not just true of Wal Mart. It's also true of ExxonMobil with regard to global warming issues and pollution. It's true of timber companies with regard to clearcutting old growth forests. It's true of companies that seek to boost share price solely through squeezing every last drop of life out of fewer and fewer workers.

A company like Costco simply proves that it is possible to turn a profit while operating in accordance with, rather than in violation of, basic societal norms that are expected of individuals.

I would suggest that you read The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy by William Greider. You might just be astonished at what you read inside, and find that your highly dogmatic and ideological approach is really quite flawed.

Then again, you might not.... :shrug:

[Pithlet]

87. I'm glad

Because you keep repeating over and over that it is the success we hate, when about a hundred posts here say otherwise.

[G_j]

99. just give this a try

Google "Walmart" with some of these words and terms:


environment
lawsuit
river
storm runoff
overtime
union busting
sweatshop
China
child labor
discrimination
time clock
benefits
burial ground
illegal

[Cat Atomic]

108. You got your ass smacked down on every single point you

brought up. You ignored these rhetorical beatings and moved onto new points, which were similarly knocked down. Rinse, lather, repeat.

This is what libertarians always do. They've got an almost religious faith in the free market, and will not be swayed from it, no matter what the facts are.

You're done, alright.

[phoebe]

86. Props to the beautiful people of Inglewood, California who know

a scam when they see one..

[Malva Zebrina]

117. Walmart is bad, but, it has outpaced others

wherever there is a Walmart there are numerous others hanging on to the same mall.

And they all pay the same to their workers

I think that the problem lies mainly with the lack of worker organsisations and the succesful obliteration of any ability of workers to unite and have a voice

That is the real problem

It is, I think, inevitable that large stores such as WM and others that hang on it's draw by opening their stores in the same location as WAlmart, will stock merchandise from all over the world and pay their workers, their salespeople, bubkus.

We are not living in the time when that practice of using foreign labor at it's patehtically low wages, will even itself out

But it is inevitable that it will, sooner or later

Having said that, I think the loss of worker unions, or effective worker lobbies and organisations, is a part of the problem

No ONE is going to give workers what they need and deserve untill those workers can unite as a force and demand it.

That is how, after all, we got for workers what we have today and what we have lost today also