| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2004 02:23:35 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Yes but walmart provides WAY more jobs and provides a much cheaper product for communities that are on the poorer side especially.
I grew up in a small poor town and the best thing for the area was walmart coming to town. Boosted the economy BIG time!!! |
Have you looked around lately? I live in a small city and since WalMart came to town 5 department stores have closed, 3 drug stores, and most recently a total of 4 supermarkets.
WalMart is keeping the wages lower here, they keep a large percentage of their employees part time so they don't have to pay benefits. For the most part the clothing that most people think is relatively inexpensive, is actually way over priced for the quality as well as the working conditions and pay that the garment industry is paying in other countries to produce these cheap rags.
While you may think opening a WalMart is helping the economy start looking at a broader picture. WalMart buys imported clothing, taking away jobs from the local garment industry. They buy imported cameras from camera companies here in the US, so they can have the lower price to sell to the consumer who doesn't know the difference, as well as doing that with many of the household appliances they sell.
Yeah I do shop some at WalMart but only because it has forced other stores out of business here. Even though WalMart boasts of having created over 500 jobs here what they don't say is before them the unemployment rate was well under the national average and now since they have came to town the area is well over the national average.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 02:26:43 PM · #27 |
| Not taking sides but who is more irresponsible in your city Walmart, or the people who shop there? |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 04:47:54 PM · #28 |
| Wal-marts here in Mexico are a much different story. They are are not a discounter, in fact they are expensive. They still pay their employees next to to nothing, and the last thing that a Mexican Wal-mart employee can afford to do is buy Wal-mart products. By shopping at Wal-mart in the United States, you only promote more abuse on a global scale. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 05:23:59 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Not taking sides but who is more irresponsible in your city Walmart, or the people who shop there? |
Exactly, the other stores close because everyone is shopping at Walmart. Why? Because Walmart is cheaper and people can buy more for less.
Is offering consumers a lower price a bad thing? Who prefers higher prices?
Also, just as people chose to shop at Walmart, people chose to work there. If no one wanted to work for the slave wages, Walmart would be forced to raise their wages. Since Walmart seems to be able staff their stores adequately, I'd have to say their wages are just about right where they should be.
Simple laws of supply and demand. You can hate them if you want, but they have a brilliant business plan and if others don't figure out how to compete, Walmart is going to be the only game in town. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 05:34:35 PM · #30 |
Ours in not a typical situation we live in a small town and it is on an island. Three are any number of things that if I could not get at Wal-Mart I would have to order on the Internet. As it we have to order a lot from the Internet even with Wal-Mart. The other store we all count on is Costco.
We do have to laugh when a cruise ship comes in, they send a shuttle bus to Wal-Mart. This does bug me, that people would rather shop for souvenirs at Wal-Mart then in the very nice shops that we have right along the water. I just canĂ¢€™t see going to Wal-Mart in this case but I guess a lot of people do.
Our Wal-Mart also had a pretty fantastic view of the ocean, have not seem many on the mainland that have any kind of view.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 05:36:15 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Yes but walmart provides WAY more jobs and provides a much cheaper product for communities that are on the poorer side especially.(snip) |
Two points. 1) a local walmart is in trouble with the state fair labor practices board because they locked in their nightime cleaning staff, who were illegal aliens. making less than two dollars and hour. not that great a wage and not available to local folk if they want to earn twenty bucks for the night shift.
2) a friend of my wife's is in manufacuring, and supplies an item that Wallmart used to sell. He was told that if he wanted to continue to sell the item to the house that Sam built, he would have to move his factory out of the U.S. because his labor costs were making his product non-competitive. Try to find a product made in America in those stores, other than the hamburgers I'll bet you every item comes from the third world.
Henry Ford used to pay higher than prevailing wages to his workers, so they could buy the products that they produced. Once the Walmarts of this world move your job oveseas, where will you shop? Will you shop? |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 05:37:08 PM · #32 |
If I could, I would build my house inside Walmart. If they had a track I would run there. Walmart rocks! Of course it is the cheapest place to shop in our town of 24,000. I wish we had a super walmart here.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2004 05:42:22 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
If I could, I would build my house inside Walmart. If they had a track I would run there. Walmart rocks! Of course it is the cheapest place to shop in our town of 24,000. I wish we had a super walmart here. |
My mother lives there,lol ! |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 06:12:21 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Not taking sides but who is more irresponsible in your city Walmart, or the people who shop there? |
Exactly, the other stores close because everyone is shopping at Walmart. Why? Because Walmart is cheaper and people can buy more for less.
Is offering consumers a lower price a bad thing? Who prefers higher prices?
Also, just as people chose to shop at Walmart, people chose to work there. If no one wanted to work for the slave wages, Walmart would be forced to raise their wages. Since Walmart seems to be able staff their stores adequately, I'd have to say their wages are just about right where they should be.
Simple laws of supply and demand. You can hate them if you want, but they have a brilliant business plan and if others don't figure out how to compete, Walmart is going to be the only game in town. |
And once they are a monopoly they can jack up prices as high as they want, and you will have no alternative. It is the essence of anti-trust law. |
|
|
|
04/08/2004 06:45:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Not taking sides but who is more irresponsible in your city Walmart, or the people who shop there? |
Exactly, the other stores close because everyone is shopping at Walmart. Why? Because Walmart is cheaper and people can buy more for less.
Is offering consumers a lower price a bad thing? Who prefers higher prices?
Also, just as people chose to shop at Walmart, people chose to work there. If no one wanted to work for the slave wages, Walmart would be forced to raise their wages. Since Walmart seems to be able staff their stores adequately, I'd have to say their wages are just about right where they should be.
Simple laws of supply and demand. You can hate them if you want, but they have a brilliant business plan and if others don't figure out how to compete, Walmart is going to be the only game in town. |
And once they are a monopoly they can jack up prices as high as they want, and you will have no alternative. It is the essence of anti-trust law. |
So it's more of a win/lose situation then. You can pay the high prices to shop elsewhere so walmart won't win or you can go to walmart and save but end up paying more later.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 12:57:25 AM · #36 |
We have 2 SuperWalmarts near here - both new inthe last year. One was advertised as being the largest in the US when it opened. It is MUCH cheaper there. I was a KMart fan, but they have are out of stock on many things i need, and i have not the time to make multiple stops for necessities.
How will the little guy survive? One grocery chain here has gone upscale. So I can buy walmart bread (not a third world product BTW) for 59 cents, or their bread for $1.29. Same bread. Candy (lg hershey bar - walmart $1.23 to 1.43 vs 1.95, penaut butter 2.44 vs 3.59, etc, etc)
I have to vote with my own wallet, be that short term thinking or not who can say. But with the money saved, i can go out to eat more, or buy a new fridge, or what have you.
As to the appliance quality question - that has been gong on for decades. YOU can call up Sony/whirlpool/magnavox whomever, and if you are buying enough of something have it spec'd and built to the design/cost/standard you want.
Walmart is the largest corporation in the world, the largest employer in the US. The largest retailer too. At one time Sears was the biggest. Times change, and someone will out do walmart one day, just wait and see. If they do monopolize and raise prices, then the competetion will have an 'in' and bye bye wally world. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 06:27:11 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Not taking sides but who is more irresponsible in your city Walmart, or the people who shop there? |
Exactly, the other stores close because everyone is shopping at Walmart. Why? Because Walmart is cheaper and people can buy more for less.
Is offering consumers a lower price a bad thing? Who prefers higher prices?
Also, just as people chose to shop at Walmart, people chose to work there. If no one wanted to work for the slave wages, Walmart would be forced to raise their wages. Since Walmart seems to be able staff their stores adequately, I'd have to say their wages are just about right where they should be.
Simple laws of supply and demand. You can hate them if you want, but they have a brilliant business plan and if others don't figure out how to compete, Walmart is going to be the only game in town. |
And once they are a monopoly they can jack up prices as high as they want, and you will have no alternative. It is the essence of anti-trust law. |
So it's more of a win/lose situation then. You can pay the high prices to shop elsewhere so walmart won't win or you can go to walmart and save but end up paying more later. |
No, if you "pay more now," you will keep numerous other people in {b]better[/b] jobs, and many other businesses in business (and therefore competitive with each other), and so keep prices lower.
Don't you listen to the Capitalists -- they say that competition and market forces are what keep prices low. That is fine, until you have a monopoly and no competition.
You never bought Girl Scout cookies or something, not because they had cheaper cookies, but because it was the right thing to do, and you were willing to pay slightly higher to support them? Choose who you want to support -- your local store owner (and possible neighbor), or the multi-billionaire Walton clan.
What people who support Wal-Mart type businesses are saying is that they don't care if American workers get paid third-world wages, as long as they themselves can save a couple of bucks. I find that attitude selfish, self-centered and short-sighted, and I suspect the "Buy American" movement would find it disloyal. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:15:44 AM · #38 |
| There are very few "mom&pop" stores as it is, where I live and the ones that do exist are going out of business fast. I fear that with the coming steep increase in gasoline prices expected with this summer, that all products will go up in price and cause more mom&pops to go out of business. The only ones that will be able to survive will be the big oligopolies/monopolies. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:17:30 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
if you "pay more now," you will keep numerous other people in {b]better[/b] jobs, and many other businesses in business |
So your basically recomending a self imposed tax?
Also: Who is to say those jobs are any better? These small businesses don't offer health care, good hours or security... I'm being realistic and I'm pretty sure I still classify as small business as well as the fact that I know many people who own other small businesses, so I have a good view point.
Also: When I buy at walmart I am not there to support walmart, I am there to support me. Maybe if I didn't pay thousands in taxes every month I wouldn't be so fruggle.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:29:06 AM · #40 |
I think in any market driven society there has to be a balance between consumer/producer/seller. When the balance tips one way or the other greatly favoring one or the other, there exists the possiblity of economic collapse. I'm not a businessman or economist, but it seems like today there is a big (and getting bigger) gap between these market forces. Especially in the Bush era.
I'm not sure what kind of business you are in, Russell, but if your customers have the same attitude that you have about buying at Walmarts, then you run the risk of going out of business...no?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
if you "pay more now," you will keep numerous other people in {b]better[/b] jobs, and many other businesses in business |
So your basically recomending a self imposed tax?
Also: Who is to say those jobs are any better? These small businesses don't offer health care, good hours or security... I'm being realistic and I'm pretty sure I still classify as small business as well as the fact that I know many people who own other small businesses, so I have a good view point.
Also: When I buy at walmart I am not there to support walmart, I am there to support me. Maybe if I didn't pay thousands in taxes every month I wouldn't be so fruggle. |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:59:00 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...there is a big (and getting bigger) gap between these market forces. Especially in the Bush era. |
I'm not sure how to let you down easily, but absolutly nothing has changed in relation to this topic since Bush has been in Office. Not only does a president not really have control over this, but to infer that in 3 years this type of change occured or grew is incorrect.
This is a change that started taking place a long time ago and has been gradual, but I know there is a great quest to blame all thing wrong on Bush!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:59:42 AM · #42 |
i have a friend that used to work for the local superWalMart. she said that every morning the store managers would hold a sort of "pep rally" to name the specific locally owned stores they were going to run out of business. and they succeeded.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:01:24 AM · #43 |
It is not bad to make money. We all work to make money. I go to work every day so I can make money, and my company makes money, too. If WalMart manages to make money, good for them.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:23:24 AM · #44 |
I agree with you Russell, it did start long ago, maybe about the time of Reagan and all through Clinton and now with Bush. They all pushed for deregulation of industries that have led to market manipulation and price gouging and other sordid matters. Witness all of the most recent scandals with Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Martha Stewart, etc etc etc. While Clinton had Whitewater, and GHW Bush had an S&L scandal, Dubya has many ties, it seems to me, to these unethical companies. It even happened with his very own company about 10 years ago, called Harken Energy. You can read all about his business friends and adventures HERE.
We need regulated industries!
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...there is a big (and getting bigger) gap between these market forces. Especially in the Bush era. |
I'm not sure how to let you down easily, but absolutly nothing has changed in relation to this topic since Bush has been in Office. Not only does a president not really have control over this, but to infer that in 3 years this type of change occured or grew is incorrect.
This is a change that started taking place a long time ago and has been gradual, but I know there is a great quest to blame all thing wrong on Bush! |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:25:11 AM · #45 |
Yes, making money is a good thing...but if a thief steals the money that you made honestly, is that such a good thing? For the thief, I guess it is.
Originally posted by StevePax:
It is not bad to make money. We all work to make money. I go to work every day so I can make money, and my company makes money, too. If WalMart manages to make money, good for them. |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:31:57 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
if you "pay more now," you will keep numerous other people in {b]better[/b] jobs, and many other businesses in business |
So your basically recomending a self imposed tax?
Also: Who is to say those jobs are any better? These small businesses don't offer health care, good hours or security... |
In this country, all taxes are self-imposed -- that's what we fought the Revolutionary War for, remember? In the private sector, it's called tithes, alms, charity, or good business.
Wal-Mart doesn't offer any of those things either, and even resorts to ripping-off their workers of some of the paltry wages they do pay (it's called time-shaving).
Why is it when someone rips off $50 from a liquor store we want them to go to jail, but if you can manipulate your way to $50 million you're a hero? Why are prison sentences in (apparent) inverse relationship to the size of the crime? |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:18:40 AM · #47 |
| imo taxes are a key solution to the Walmart superstore issue. I see absolutely no problem with communities requiring a sales tax surcharge for retail stores over 'x' square feet in size. Many of the arguments given in this discussion give ample justification. A 2-3 percent surcharge should help to overcome the burden that such a business places upon the community. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 11:56:38 AM · #48 |
In our community of 24,000, of course Wal-Mart is king. It was probably instrumental in the closure of our local KMart store, regardless of KMart's woes as a company. I'd rather have gone to KMart, but it was frequently out of stock or higher priced on certain items. Anyway, around here, we still have Brookshires, Save-A-Lot, Super One, Eckerd, and some mom-and-pop stores. Most folks I know go to the other grocery stores rather than Wal-Mart simply for convenience (Super Wal-Marts are notoriously crowded and have long lines). The only thing I am really thrilled about when it comes to Wal-Mart here is the fact that when my child wakes up at 2 am with a raging fever or terrible cough, I can get in the car and go buy some medicine. Whether the medicine was imported from third world countries, bought cheap and sold high, or whether the guy who stocked it the night before had some time shaved off from his time card due to bad management practices becomes pretty irrelevant to me as the parent of that sick child at that moment. In the light of day, we know all of that is horrible and shouldn't happen, but the reality is that it does and we still keep shopping because we all have needs that, good or bad, Wal-Mart meets.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 02:53:31 PM · #49 |
yes, please - can we think of the children!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 03:22:35 PM · #50 |
I have been thinking, and reading, about the children.
HERE's an article about young women between the ages of 13 and 15 who worked in sweat shops in Honduras producing clothing for the Kathie Lee Gifford line that sold in Walmart stores. Read all the way through so that you see just how horrible these women were treated. Granted, this article is a bit dated, but it's an example. |
|
