Why do the Wal-mart Watch people hate Wal-mart?

[suezeekay]

Maybe I'm naive or selfish, but I don't see the logic behind blaming
Wal-Mart for every economic sin immaginable, like that vitriolist organization Wal-mart Watch. I live in a rural area and without Wal-Mart we would have no retail store. It has been a god-send to rural Maine as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see jobs at Wal-mart as career jobs, unless you are in management. They are part-time jobs meant to be as a supplement to , or in addition to, other wages. Not meant to support a family or provide what a regular career job would. That's how they keep prices down. If they start providing all the benefits that we have, unfortunately, come to expect from employers, then the prices would go way up and I wouldn't like that. I'm not a Utilitarian so I don't believe in actions that result in the best good for the most people; but, one could argue that low prices are the best good for the most people. What started this was an article on Drudge: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/04/051104175027.waok0hd4.html

I'm jaded in today's world, but I suspect that Wal-Mart watch, by whipping up hate against Wal-Mart, gets a LOT of contributions and the people who run the organization can run around the country, yell about Wal-mart and have a house in the country and send their kids to private school. No way do I believe they understand the ethos of Wal-Mart and it's place in the U.S. economic scheme of things. WM is an easy target and they have latched onto a good thing (for them).

[Shagnasty]

Thet are the big kid on the block and that draws a lot of fire. They are an archetype of the good and bad of American style capitalism. Some people oppose them because it conflicts with their well thought out worldview. Others oppose them because they oppose weaknesses in everything that is successful and try to protest their way to "la-la" land based on nothing but denial and wishes.

I think Wal-Mart is great for the most part. So do most people. That is why they are the largest employer in America and control an economy bigger than many countries. Anything that high-profile is going to draw fire. You can count on that.

[RandomLetters]

Some people just have too much time on their hands, and have to hate something; Walmart is big and influenential, so they point at that. I work at a Wallyworld right now, and honestly it isn't that bad of a job. Fits my schedule very well (I am a part time college student during the day, work the night shift) and the pay is decent enough considering how easy my work is.

[even sven]

1. Wages- it doesn't matter that they weren't "meant" to be a family supporting job. The are a family supporting job. Right now, Wal-Mart actually helps it's workers figure out how to get social services (welfare, food stamps, etc.) because they don't pay enough. So they are actually asking the government to supplement it's stingy wages. Instead of paying their workers, they expect you too. Nice, huh? Wal-Mart workers top medicaid rolls in 16 states.

And no, a raise would not drive up prices. Wal-Mart is making money hand over fist. The only ones who aren't seeing that are the people who actually make Wal-Mart work- the workers. Similar companies, like Costco, pay their workers a living wage (enough that they aren't working full time and collecting food stamps) and still make big profits.

2. Unions- They are aggressively anti-union. They have enacted special laws in congress to make it harder for unions to organize. They show anti-union videos to their workers. Workers looking to form a union often find themselves fired.

No matter what you feel about unions, most people would agree that they should at least get a fair chance to present their case.

3. Predatory Business Practices- Wal-Mart will go out of it's way to put local businesses out of business. If your local town has a bookseller, they will sell their books under cost just long enough to put the bookseller out of business. If you have a grocery store, they will build themselves right across the street from them. I actually know someone who worked for Sam's Club (run by Wal-Mart) who's job was to go to local businesses and buy out their entire stock of certain popular items (Shrek DVDs were on the list) so that when people came there, they'd get upset and go to Sam's Club instead.

Wal-Mart will do everything in it's power to undermine whatever economic base there is in your town. So now instead of a town of small business owners, you have a town of Wal-Mart employees who can now only afford to shop at WalMart. It routes out the economic core of a town. It makes the American Dream of owning a small business a million times harder.

And all that money doesn't stay in your town. Most of it gets sent directly back to Wal-Mart headquarters. It doesn't offer economic revival for small towns, it offers to turn small towns into vassal states.

4. Strong-Arming Manufacturers- Wal-Mart has such a large customer base that many manufactures can't survive without selling to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart knows this, and uses it's power to dictate what gets made at what price. So instead of running one business, they have de facto control of many, many businesses. Often they will demand that companies sell products below cost. Or they will control content (most publicly of CDs and videos- some people put out a "Wal-Mart version", but most just comply to Wal-Mart's demands). They have way too much control of way too many industries.

5. They are Right Wing- Every dollar you give to Wal-Mart is a dollar for the right wing. They use their massive profits to affect political causes. They are staunchly anti-abortion. They are the ones campaigning to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraceptive.

Do you really want the largest economy in your country to be a right-wing one that has a political agenda?

6. Everything Else- They are currently dealing with a major sex-discrimination case where it came out that they regularly and systematically denied promotions to women. They have perpetuated some major labor violations like lcoking workers in the store and forcing them to work off-the-clock. All evidence points to these violations being a part of Wal-Mart policy, not freak occurances. They have a bad environmental track record. They buy from China as much as humanly possible.

Our dollar is the only way we can vote against their agenda.

[liberty3701]

Uh, what even sven said way better than I could have put it.

[Larry Borgia]

Uh, what even sven said way better than I could have put it.

What liberty3701 said about what even sven said.

[Shagnasty]

even sven, I enjoyed your points. However, I was a little confused. If I didn't know better, I would think you were implying that those are bad things.

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

Even Sven, I could kiss you. I started reading the thread, was shocked at all the "they're just big whiny babiez!" resposnes, and then you laid it out cleanly and elegantly.

[Larry Borgia]

even sven, I enjoyed your points. However, I was a little confused. If I didn't know better, I would think you were implying that those are bad things.

So you think that even sven's points are good things??

[Guinastasia]

even sven said it. That and every Wal-Mart I've ever been in sucks. The merchandise is shitty, and the one closest to is like Mullet HQ.

[Shagnasty]

So you think that even sven's points are good things??

I was kidding a little but I am pretty sure that I could spin most of them so they don't sound quite so bad.

[Larry Borgia]

I don't hate wal-mart with the fury of a thousand suns but I find it very unsettling that an unelected unaccountable entity has so much power over individuals and society, and so much political clout.

[danceswithcats]

Uh, what even sven said way better than I could have put it.

Hear, hear! :applause smiley:

[Busy Scissors]

5. They are Right Wing- Every dollar you give to Wal-Mart is a dollar for the right wing. They use their massive profits to affect political causes. They are staunchly anti-abortion. They are the ones campaigning to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraceptive.

Do you really want the largest economy in your country to be a right-wing one that has a political agenda?

Can you give some leading references to support this even sven? I'm not trying to challenge your point particularly - I'd be genuinely interested to know if this is the case. Wal-Mart has a low public profile here in the UK, but they do own Asda, a low-cost chain of supermarkets where I shop.

[soulmurk]

I was just having a discussion with my mother about this very topic. She's one of those every growing number of people who shops at Wal-mart because they have the best prices and doesn't understand how that could be bad.

I'm no expert in economics, nor do I have personal experience with Wal-mart's business practices, so I had to rely on the web to help me explain to my mother that it isn't just people reacting negatively to "big business" (though that is a part of it for some people), came up with this link (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html). It's a bit lengthy, but I think it does a good job of objectively reporting the facts. (Feel free to correct me if you have alternative knowledge, I'd hate to be spreading ignorance)

From all that I've heard and read, I think even sven is pretty much spot on, but I'd like to clarify a little on one part:

They buy from China as much as humanly possible.

Wal-mart doesn't go out of their way to buy from China, or any other country, so far as I know. What they do (and which is touched on in the link above) is place demands upon suppliers that put suppliers in a very rough predicament, i.e. do business with Wal-mart by Wal-mart's rules, or don't do business with them and lose shelf space in the largest retailer in the world.

What ends up happening is that companies will make concessions just for the right to do business with them, and, ironically, end up sacrificing profit in the long term. Which means they have to find ways to cut out production costs, which leads to closed factories and overseas outsourcing. There's an example in that article where Huffy actually had to sell its competitors plans for new bicycles so they could afford to keep doing business with Wal-mart, per the agreement they made with them.

The problem a lot of people have is that by shopping in a Wal-mart and supporting overseas production, a lot of people are actually shopping themselves out of jobs.

It's a catch-22... people can't afford to pay the little extra for locally made things, so they buy overseas made things, which hurts the local companies until they have no choice but to fold or move overseas.

[Cheesesteak]

4. Strong-Arming Manufacturers- Wal-Mart has such a large customer base that many manufactures can't survive without selling to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart knows this, and uses it's power to dictate what gets made at what price. So instead of running one business, they have de facto control of many, many businesses. Often they will demand that companies sell products below cost. Or they will control content (most publicly of CDs and videos- some people put out a "Wal-Mart version", but most just comply to Wal-Mart's demands). They have way too much control of way too many industries.This is actually something I consider a positive. I have no particular desire to give my money to a manufacturer to fatten their wallets, I'd rather keep as much of it as I can, Wal-Mart is a ferocious negotiator and passes those savings along to me.

It is the manufacturers responsibility to set a price point that is profitable, not Wal-Mart's. I know this because for the last 7 years, the job title under my name has been "Pricer". You fight the fight every day to ensure you are selling products/services at prices that make money. If you can't make money, you say no. If Vlasic (a well known case) can't demand a price that is profitable, then they have no business being in business. Let them go bankrupt and sell their production line to a company that will be more responsible with it.

[Diceman]

Every Wal-Mart I've ever been in was a total dump. Dirty, poorly stocked shelves (with merchandise often just lying on pallets in the aisles) and staffed with unhappy, unhelpful employees. I don't blame them; they don't get paid enough to be happy or helpful. Wal-Mart has a well-deserved reputation as being a very seedy, downscale establishment.

Given that, plus the unconscionable way they treat their employees, plus the way they damage the economy (as explained by soulmurk) I say that Wal-Mart needs to be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit.

[Garfield226]

1. Wages- it doesn't matter that they weren't "meant" to be a family supporting job. The are a family supporting job. Right now, Wal-Mart actually helps it's workers figure out how to get social services (welfare, food stamps, etc.) because they don't pay enough. So they are actually asking the government to supplement it's stingy wages. Instead of paying their workers, they expect you too. Nice, huh? Wal-Mart workers top medicaid rolls in 16 states.

And no, a raise would not drive up prices. Wal-Mart is making money hand over fist. The only ones who aren't seeing that are the people who actually make Wal-Mart work- the workers. Similar companies, like Costco, pay their workers a living wage (enough that they aren't working full time and collecting food stamps) and still make big profits.

2. Unions- They are aggressively anti-union. They have enacted special laws in congress to make it harder for unions to organize. They show anti-union videos to their workers. Workers looking to form a union often find themselves fired.

No matter what you feel about unions, most people would agree that they should at least get a fair chance to present their case.

3. Predatory Business Practices- Wal-Mart will go out of it's way to put local businesses out of business. If your local town has a bookseller, they will sell their books under cost just long enough to put the bookseller out of business. If you have a grocery store, they will build themselves right across the street from them. I actually know someone who worked for Sam's Club (run by Wal-Mart) who's job was to go to local businesses and buy out their entire stock of certain popular items (Shrek DVDs were on the list) so that when people came there, they'd get upset and go to Sam's Club instead.

Wal-Mart will do everything in it's power to undermine whatever economic base there is in your town. So now instead of a town of small business owners, you have a town of Wal-Mart employees who can now only afford to shop at WalMart. It routes out the economic core of a town. It makes the American Dream of owning a small business a million times harder.

And all that money doesn't stay in your town. Most of it gets sent directly back to Wal-Mart headquarters. It doesn't offer economic revival for small towns, it offers to turn small towns into vassal states.

4. Strong-Arming Manufacturers- Wal-Mart has such a large customer base that many manufactures can't survive without selling to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart knows this, and uses it's power to dictate what gets made at what price. So instead of running one business, they have de facto control of many, many businesses. Often they will demand that companies sell products below cost. Or they will control content (most publicly of CDs and videos- some people put out a "Wal-Mart version", but most just comply to Wal-Mart's demands). They have way too much control of way too many industries.

5. They are Right Wing- Every dollar you give to Wal-Mart is a dollar for the right wing. They use their massive profits to affect political causes. They are staunchly anti-abortion. They are the ones campaigning to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraceptive.

Do you really want the largest economy in your country to be a right-wing one that has a political agenda?

6. Everything Else- They are currently dealing with a major sex-discrimination case where it came out that they regularly and systematically denied promotions to women. They have perpetuated some major labor violations like lcoking workers in the store and forcing them to work off-the-clock. All evidence points to these violations being a part of Wal-Mart policy, not freak occurances. They have a bad environmental track record. They buy from China as much as humanly possible.

Our dollar is the only way we can vote against their agenda.
All these claims and no cites. . .are we still on the SDMB?

[MsRobyn]

I'm thrilled we're getting a Target where I live, and from the looks of the building, it looks like it's going to be one of those Mega Targets. I like this because I will no longer have to shop at Wal-Mart.

Robin

[TheLoadedDog]

There are anti-monopoly laws in the US, aren't there? Surely there must come a point where the Govt. says, "okay guys, you've had your fun. Now you've gotta sell off some of your empire."

I'm sure they'd just set up their own shady companies, Standard Oil-style, but still, it'd be better than nothing.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

I can't speak for Wal*Mart Watch or any other group, but I can tell you my problems with the company.

First, their business strategy is based on destruction of competing businesses when they open a new store. even sven understated the case. A number of my favorite stores that had been small-town fixtures for a long time were killed by Wal*Marts.

Second, our economy in Montana stinks right now. If I can shop in a locally-owned business that returns 45% of what I spend right back into our economy, versus a Wal*Mart that only returns 13%, it seems like the responsible thing to do. Why finance Bentonville when I can support my own state?

Third, when a Wal*Mart opens in a town, they make a big deal out of creating new jobs. Perhaps they do "create" 200 new Wal*Mart jobs, but they'll destroy more than 200 other jobs when they do it, and many (most?) of them will be higher-paying jobs with better benefits.

Fourth, I've been an entrepreneur my whole adult life. I like seeing innovative new products from individuals with good ideas. Unless you have a pile of venture money, a good sales rep, and no desire to sell anywhere other than Wal*Mart, you'll never get in the door there. They only want to talk to the "big guys."

Finally, I like choices. I like to have several different places to buy things. As Wal*Marts come into town and kill off their competition, I have no more choices.

[Plynck]

Here's a link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/etc/script.html) to a Frontline transcript with respect to Wal-Mart. The part about their dealings with Rubbermaid is particularly interesting.

And, what MsRobyn said. Maybe it's just that the shelves are a little farther apart, but I don't get the claustrophobia in a Target that I feel in Wal-Mart. And I don't feel morally compromised by shopping at Target, either...

[lonesome loser]

This is actually something I consider a positive. I have no particular desire to give my money to a manufacturer to fatten their wallets, I'd rather keep as much of it as I can, Wal-Mart is a ferocious negotiator and passes those savings along to me.

It is the manufacturers responsibility to set a price point that is profitable, not Wal-Mart's. I know this because for the last 7 years, the job title under my name has been "Pricer". You fight the fight every day to ensure you are selling products/services at prices that make money. If you can't make money, you say no. If Vlasic (a well known case) can't demand a price that is profitable, then they have no business being in business. Let them go bankrupt and sell their production line to a company that will be more responsible with it.


You read the Vlassic story and tell me what they could have done.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

[suezeekay]

Every Wal-Mart I've ever been in was a total dump. Dirty, poorly stocked shelves (with merchandise often just lying on pallets in the aisles) and staffed with unhappy, unhelpful employees. I don't blame them; they don't get paid enough to be happy or helpful. Wal-Mart has a well-deserved reputation as being a very seedy, downscale establishment.

Given that, plus the unconscionable way they treat their employees, plus the way they damage the economy (as explained by soulmurk) I say that Wal-Mart needs to be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit.

That's absolutely ridiculous. And if that is the truth for you, then you've never been out of your town. That may be because of where you live and the kind of employees (and customers) they have. Every single Wal-mart I've been is is clean, well-stocked, and has courteous employees. That includes California and Maine where I live. I driven across the country many times and I always go to Wal-Mart if I see one. I have never seen what you describe. I did, once, see a dirty MacDonalds in Buffalo, New York and it was in a bad part of town and that was because of the employees, who apparently didn't know what clean meant. And could have cared less. I believe it had to close because no one with any work ethic would work in that part of town.

My question: they don't get paid well enough for what? doing a job that requires very little training? If you want to get paid more, go to college or get some technical training in a job that is in demand. I did it with three kids. I absolutely hate the idea that some people have that they are entitled. I worked very hard for everything I've ever had and I resent people who want to live off of my taxes because they resent the things I have that I've worked so hard for. I believe in TEMPORARY welfare if someone is down on their luck because of market forces, but to expect your employer to provide welfare just because really irks me.

If you want Macy's prices and want beautiful displays and expensive goods, go to Macy's. but stop complaining about Wal-Mart. I want lower prices and I get them there.

The absolute ONLY reason I'm glad Bush is in office is that he has mismanaged things so badly that the states are getting less and less federal subsidies, to the crisis point. And guess what is going first? The welfare programs. Subsidized housing, free and subsidized medical care, free everything because you are on disability for having panic attacks, free EVERYTHING, that I have to pay for. I'm glad about that. The free ride is shutting down. A civilized society takes care of the "real" poor and children; not my neighboor who is going on third-generation handouts and expects it.

[even sven]

Goodness guys, your making me blush!

Most everything I said can be found on Wal-Mart Watch (http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/issues).

Wages- A good summery of how Wal-Mart decreases the earning power of the poor can be found in this UC Berkeley Study (http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-126-05/). Information about how they force taxpayers to support their workers can be found here (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage/walmart.pdf). This (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/printme.php3?eid=59294) is a good rundown of how you can run a business with rock-bottom wages without paying your workers rock-bottom wages.

Unions- I can't find a comprehensive cite listing all of the ways which WalMart has fucked with unions, but here (http://www.walmartworkerslv.com/information/news.htm) are (http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_canada/) some (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/) places (http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_11/b3672108.htm) to (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_276_01.html) start (http://www.walmartfacts.com/wal-mart-union.aspx). This (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17647) article is kind of long, but interesting. Here (http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/wal-mart/) is another good article.

Predetory Business Practices- These sad stories are best viewed on a town-by-town basis. Conway, Arizona (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n5_v38/ai_17565139). Denver, Colorado (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html). Bath, Maine (http://www.inc.com/magazine/19930701/3644.html). San Juan Teotihuacán. Mexico (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-bzcov1108,0,4997055.story?coll=ny-nationworld-world-utility). Bunkie, Louisiana (http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_19010.html).

Here (http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=28) is a rundown on one of the suits they are facing for predatory pricing.

Strong Arming Manufacturers- This (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html) is a facinating article about how WalMart exerts control over dozens of industries.

Here is a bit on how they control the music industry (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/01.09.97/walmart-music-9702.html)

The Right Wing Factor- Here (http://www.progressivemajoritywashington.org/node/399) is their official stance on reproductive health. Here is some info on their political (http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/archive/june152005.htm) contributions (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-02-02-walmart_x.htm)

Everything Else- The definitive book detail WalMarts sex discrimination and various labor violations is Selling Women Short (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465023169/qid=1131233344/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1618923-9013531?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). This (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/wmchina.html) detail's WalMart's affinity for Chinese goods. Here (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/5702a09ae47131c085256e920060d460?OpenDocument) is information about how WalMart violated the Clean Water Act on a large scale multi-store basis.

There is a ton of information out there, some more trustworthy, some less. But what I've cited only scratches the surface.

[suezeekay]

You read the Vlassic story and tell me what they could have done.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Not place their product in Wal-Mart.

I have always felt a pickle is a pickle; and I never bought Vlasic because I felt they were selling the name, not the product. I bought the cheaper brand. Vlasic has been around a long time and could have continued selling in thousands of grocery stores and continued to make a profit. They wanted to reach a bigger market, but that was at the cost of giving up the niche they had developed as a "special" (and expensive) pickle. Their choice as far as I can see.

A lot of people reading this probably have lots of choices in the stores they patronize. I have Wal-Mart and one grocery store. Like a large majority of the country. Are we forgetting middle America when we think Wal-Mart should be the savior of the welfare class employees? Yes, that farmer should pay more for his pickles because after all Vlasic is the elite of pickles. That's total crap as far as I'm concerned.

[Cheesesteak]

You read the Vlassic story and tell me what they could have done.Well, here's the critical quote from the story.At some point in the late 1990s, a Wal-Mart buyer saw Vlasic's gallon jar and started talking to Pat Hunn about it. Hunn, who has also since left Vlasic, was then head of Vlasic's Wal-Mart sales team, based in Dallas. The gallon intrigued the buyer. In sales tests, priced somewhere over $3, "the gallon sold like crazy," says Hunn, "surprising us all." The Wal-Mart buyer had a brainstorm: What would happen to the gallon if they offered it nationwide and got it below $3? Hunn was skeptical, but his job was to look for ways to sell pickles at Wal-Mart. Why not?Why not? Because you're going to make pennies on each jar, and all your customers who buy high-margin quart jars will buy no-margin gallon jars instead. Duh. The right decision (using hindsight, of course) is to tell Wal-Mart "We can't sell it that cheap", let them go to a competitor.

I've always believed that if there is no margin to be had at the price desired, you shouldn't worry too much about your competitor "stealing" the business.

[suezeekay]

Goodness guys, your making me blush!

Most everything I said can be found on Wal-Mart Watch (http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/issues).

Wages- A good summery of how Wal-Mart decreases the earning power of the poor can be found in this UC Berkeley Study (http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-126-05/). Information about how they force taxpayers to support their workers can be found here (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage/walmart.pdf). This (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/printme.php3?eid=59294) is a good rundown of how you can run a business with rock-bottom wages without paying your workers rock-bottom wages.

Unions- I can't find a comprehensive cite listing all of the ways which WalMart has fucked with unions, but here (http://www.walmartworkerslv.com/information/news.htm) are (http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_canada/) some (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/) places (http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_11/b3672108.htm) to (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_276_01.html) start (http://www.walmartfacts.com/wal-mart-union.aspx). This (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17647) article is kind of long, but interesting. Here (http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/wal-mart/) is another good article.

Predetory Business Practices- These sad stories are best viewed on a town-by-town basis. Conway, Arizona (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n5_v38/ai_17565139). Denver, Colorado (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html). Bath, Maine (http://www.inc.com/magazine/19930701/3644.html). San Juan Teotihuacán. Mexico (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-bzcov1108,0,4997055.story?coll=ny-nationworld-world-utility). Bunkie, Louisiana (http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_19010.html).

Here (http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=28) is a rundown on one of the suits they are facing for predatory pricing.

Strong Arming Manufacturers- This (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html) is a facinating article about how WalMart exerts control over dozens of industries.

Here is a bit on how they control the music industry (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/01.09.97/walmart-music-9702.html)

The Right Wing Factor- Here (http://www.progressivemajoritywashington.org/node/399) is their official stance on reproductive health. Here is some info on their political (http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/archive/june152005.htm) contributions (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-02-02-walmart_x.htm)

Everything Else- The definitive book detail WalMarts sex discrimination and various labor violations is Selling Women Short (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465023169/qid=1131233344/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1618923-9013531?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). This (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/wmchina.html) detail's WalMart's affinity for Chinese goods. Here (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/5702a09ae47131c085256e920060d460?OpenDocument) is information about how WalMart violated the Clean Water Act on a large scale multi-store basis.

There is a ton of information out there, some more trustworthy, some less. But what I've cited only scratches the surface.


I don't like unions. I grew up, probably unlike you, when they were powerful. They almost ruined the auto industry. And, to come up to the present, my son, who is a college student, worked in a grocery store this summer, and was forced to contribute $40.00 a week to a union that, according to an article in Reader's Digest, is squandering the money on Hawaiian vacations and huge salaries for it's officers. Unions still control the waterfront to the extent that goods can't be delivered to our shores without their cooperation. those guys get paid more than a doctor, due to the union.

I like Wal-Mart. I will contine to shop there and I hope organizations like Wal-Mart Watch don't ruin a good thing. And, I hope they never get unions. I worked in a place like Wal-Mart years ago (Zayre's) and nothing has changed according to what people tell me. It's still run for the bottom line, like ALL other businesses. Corporations are businesses, not welfare organizations. Corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders. But then, those who are marching in the streets over Wal-Mart's practices probably aren't investing in the stock market. Corporations are what make this economy run. I say, those of you who think you have it so bad, take a trip and see the rest of the world. Comparativly speaking, this is paradise that you are trying to ruin, only you just don't know it. Whine, whine: well that doesn't make it right. Grow up.

I have this creepy feeling lately that the generation that starting growing up when TV and blockbuster movies became part of everyday life think that what they see depicted there is real. Maybe that is the source of all this outrage about you have material things and I don't and I'm entitled to them. Most people don't have endless material things. If they do, it's from the enormous credit card debt that Americans have. And only 9% of U.S. taxpayers make over $100,000, and these days that isn't very much if you have a couple of kids. This skewed vision of reality was showcased, when people actually expected that after hurricane Katrina that the government was this well-oiled machine that would quickly spring inito action, save everyone and make it all better with bottomless buckets of money. That is only in the movies. Scary but true.

So, Wal-Mart didn't take away your 4X4 or your new furniture, or your designer clothes or your new digital TV. Look elsewhere.

[Guinastasia]

I was kidding a little but I am pretty sure that I could spin most of them so they don't sound quite so bad.


The keyword being "spin". Spin is nothing more than a facade.

MsRobyn, I'm another fan of Target. Their stuff is a LOT nicer, and the store is much cleaner and looks better than Wal-Mart. Every time I go to the latter, I feel dirty.

[soulmurk]

Because you're going to make pennies on each jar, and all your customers who buy high-margin quart jars will buy no-margin gallon jars instead. Duh. The right decision (using hindsight, of course) is to tell Wal-Mart "We can't sell it that cheap", let them go to a competitor.

I've always believed that if there is no margin to be had at the price desired, you shouldn't worry too much about your competitor "stealing" the business.

That is the gist of the argument against Wal-mart. They have the power over their suppliers to dictate the price and profit margin because they have the power to destroy you if you do not comply.

Say Vlasic says, sorry Wal-mart, we can't do that. Wal-mart says okay, we'll find someone who can or just do it ourselves with our own brand. Now Vlasic is not being carried by the largest company in the world and is out 30% of its market. What's more, that 30% is handed directly to a competitor.

The argument against them is that they have that power to break or break a company (rather than make or break) like that. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't to a T.

Even in hindsight, they didn't have much choice. They opted for the one with the immediate gain rather than loss, and still ended up losing.

The examples of Huffy and Levi Strauss later in the article are in the same boat. These are companies that have been around for decades, growing from garage businesses into name brand institutions, that now have the unenviable choice to either play by Wal-mart's rules and be destroyed later, or be destroyed now.

If you want Macy's prices and want beautiful displays and expensive goods, go to Macy's. but stop complaining about Wal-Mart. I want lower prices and I get them there.

Until sooner or later your local production is packed up and moved to China or India or some other low wage paying country and there aren't any jobs left to pay you. Then you'll either need the temporary assistance you deride, or will have to work at the only employer in the area left, Wal-mart.

[Larry Borgia]

suzeekay do you have any substantive replies to any of the points even sven raised, or is accusing her of "whining" and spouting off trite Randian cliche's about "businesses aren't welfare states" (No one said they were, but if you actually read even's post you'll note that walmart is taking advantage of government welfare programs to keep their wages low) all you can do?

[Guinastasia]

My question: they don't get paid well enough for what? doing a job that requires very little training? If you want to get paid more, go to college or get some technical training in a job that is in demand. I did it with three kids. I absolutely hate the idea that some people have that they are entitled. I worked very hard for everything I've ever had and I resent people who want to live off of my taxes because they resent the things I have that I've worked so hard for. I believe in TEMPORARY welfare if someone is down on their luck because of market forces, but to expect your employer to provide welfare just because really irks me.



First, if someone is being paid substandard wages while working at Wal-Mart to support three kids, they're going to be hard-pressed to find the time or money to go to college at the same time. Second, expecting your EMPLOYER to pay a living wage is NOT expecting them to provide "welfare", but to pay you enough to live on. Salary and/or wages are NOT in any way, shape, or form "welfare."

And just because YOU were able to do something does not mean that everyone else can. Different situations-walk a mile in someone else's shoes sometime.

[Cheesesteak]

Say Vlasic says, sorry Wal-mart, we can't do that. Wal-mart says okay, we'll find someone who can or just do it ourselves with our own brand. Now Vlasic is not being carried by the largest company in the world and is out 30% of its market. What's more, that 30% is handed directly to a competitor.So?
Seriously, so what?
OMG, my competitor is cranking out 30% of the pickle volume while making 3% of the pickle profits? Horror of horrors, they're selling vast quantities of pickles for no profit? I'm not seeing the big problem here. Let THEM go bankrupt. Yes, Vlasic may not be getting the revenue increases they desire, but selling product for no profit is not a situation where you can make it up in volume. They still had a standing invitation with 70% of the market for shelf space, at profitable margins, with the strongest brand name in the business, why is that such a bad situation? Maybe you have to let some people go, maybe close a factory, hunker down and weather the storm, companies do it all the time.

This is why CEOs get the big bucks, to know when to tell a retailer to go pound salt. To know when a deal is bad and walk away. Any moron can get walked over by Wal-Mart, and sell product at no margin, it takes good management to know when to fold 'em and walk away.

[suezeekay]

First, if someone is being paid substandard wages while working at Wal-Mart to support three kids, they're going to be hard-pressed to find the time or money to go to college at the same time. Second, expecting your EMPLOYER to pay a living wage is NOT expecting them to provide "welfare", but to pay you enough to live on. Salary and/or wages are NOT in any way, shape, or form "welfare."

And just because YOU were able to do something does not mean that everyone else can. Different situations-walk a mile in someone else's shoes sometime.

I have walked in poor shoes all I will ever want to. And to generalize with that same old cliche about, "welllllll, just because you can go to school, doesn't mean everyone else can." An excuse for people who want to have excuses. Free childcare, pell grants, ever heard of them? The only ingredient the government can't add is motivation. You have to provide that.

I absolutely do not agree in any way, shape or form that employers are required to pay a "living wage" to their employees. They are not required to pay you enough to live on and I have no idea where that concept could have come from. I think they are required to pay you what your work, on a competitive basis, will bring you in the marketplace. If you can be replaced by any smuck off the street then your pay will be low; if you are a neurosurgeon or a popular Hollywood actor than you get more money. Please think seriously about why you believe that my son, who owns a business, should be responsible for supporting your family when all you do it stock inventory? Are you taking some kind of moral stance here? God wants him to do it? Please explain.

[Shagnasty]

First, if someone is being paid substandard wages while working at Wal-Mart to support three kids, they're going to be hard-pressed to find the time or money to go to college at the same time. Second, expecting your EMPLOYER to pay a living wage is NOT expecting them to provide "welfare", but to pay you enough to live on. Salary and/or wages are NOT in any way, shape, or form "welfare."

People try to support a family on McDonald's wages too. There is nothing wrong with an honest day's work but this isn't the place for a single mother with three kids. Wal-Mart and McDonald's just post an available position and wait for an acceptable candidate to show up. That person could be an 18 year old male that lives at home or that single mother with three kids. How would Wal-Mart know in advance who is going to get the job and why would they care?

The alternative is to institute additional minimum wage laws that increase minimum wages taking into account factors like life status, number of dependents, age (older = more money because of retirement), debt, and health status (increase factor by each health problem to offset incedental healthcare costs).

There is a socialist bill that I could really get behind (for entertainment purposes only).

[Guinastasia]

Then don't start bitching about people on welfare, if their employers don't pay them enough.

[Shagnasty]

Then don't start bitching about people on welfare, if their employers don't pay them enough.

I have been around lots of people with strong negative opinions of some types of people on welfare. However, I never heard anyone critisize near-full-time workers for taking advantage of programs that they qualify for. That situation even applies to some junior elisted military members stationed in expensive areas and almost everyone knows someone that has been in that situation. I have been destitute, wealthy and almost everything in between. My system is when things start going to hell is to start looking into doing something different. If you try enough workable ideas, something good will happen. That is just basic survival strategy and everyone should know it.

You are talking about a whole nother debate (intergenerational welfare dependence).

[soulmurk]

So?
Seriously, so what?
OMG, my competitor is cranking out 30% of the pickle volume while making 3% of the pickle profits? Horror of horrors, they're selling vast quantities of pickles for no profit? I'm not seeing the big problem here. Let THEM go bankrupt. Yes, Vlasic may not be getting the revenue increases they desire, but selling product for no profit is not a situation where you can make it up in volume. They still had a standing invitation with 70% of the market for shelf space, at profitable margins, with the strongest brand name in the business, why is that such a bad situation? Maybe you have to let some people go, maybe close a factory, hunker down and weather the storm, companies do it all the time.

This is why CEOs get the big bucks, to know when to tell a retailer to go pound salt. To know when a deal is bad and walk away. Any moron can get walked over by Wal-Mart, and sell product at no margin, it takes good management to know when to fold 'em and walk away.

Losing 30% of a multi-million dollar a year business is not as easy to fix as letting "some people go" or closing "a factory". Especially when your nearest competitor is given a huge boost like that.

The remaining 70% of Vlasic's business is from other retail outfits like supermarkets, which are also feeling the pinch from Wal-mart's underpricing. They're raising prices to compensate for the loss of business from people who justify paying the low low price of $2.97 because it's easier on their wallets, which translates to even more people passing by the supermarket on their way to buy the cheaper competitor's brand at Wal-mart. Which means reduced sales beyond the initial 30% loss. See where this is going?

Vlasic was damned no matter what they did, so they did what most businesses do, opt for the short term gain/long term loss over the immediate loss, and hope to find a way out of it in the window of time bought by that choice.

[soulmurk]

I have walked in poor shoes all I will ever want to. And to generalize with that same old cliche about, "welllllll, just because you can go to school, doesn't mean everyone else can." An excuse for people who want to have excuses. Free childcare, pell grants, ever heard of them? The only ingredient the government can't add is motivation. You have to provide that.

Wow, you've just solved the nations poverty problem! And to think the answer was that simple. I mean, motivation. It was right there in front of us the whole time. :rolleyes:

I absolutely do not agree in any way, shape or form that employers are required to pay a "living wage" to their employees. They are not required to pay you enough to live on and I have no idea where that concept could have come from. I think they are required to pay you what your work, on a competitive basis, will bring you in the marketplace. If you can be replaced by any smuck off the street then your pay will be low; if you are a neurosurgeon or a popular Hollywood actor than you get more money. Please think seriously about why you believe that my son, who owns a business, should be responsible for supporting your family when all you do it stock inventory? Are you taking some kind of moral stance here? God wants him to do it? Please explain.

You're focusing far to narrowly on one aspect of Wal-mart's shittiness, and that you're completely insane if you truly believe a Hollywood actor is as irreplacable as a neurosurgeon.

Out of curiosity, how easy does your son, who owns a business, make it for his poorly paid employees to, once having motivated themselves, go to school so they're not just some "smuck off the street" deserving of low pay?

[alice_in_wonderland]

Hmm - I suppose it's because the culture here in Canada is a bit different, but Walmarts are just not the same as they are in the US. For one thing, they're not as big in size - the stores are sort of normal sized, as opposed to being 5 football-field sized.

I assume that the Canadian stores are covered under a branch of the US parent company, but I'm not sure they're the biggest game in town around these parts (although they could be). Also, Canada doesn't have those wacky employment rules like down in the states, so workers aren't necessarily paid a boat load of $$, but at least they get over time, double-time and a half for stat holidays, maximum working hours, etc. etc.

Personally, for my cheap stuff, I tend to be a Zellers girl, but I did buy my carpet shampooer at Walmart.

[treis]

So?
Seriously, so what?
OMG, my competitor is cranking out 30% of the pickle volume while making 3% of the pickle profits? Horror of horrors, they're selling vast quantities of pickles for no profit? I'm not seeing the big problem here. Let THEM go bankrupt. Yes, Vlasic may not be getting the revenue increases they desire, but selling product for no profit is not a situation where you can make it up in volume. They still had a standing invitation with 70% of the market for shelf space, at profitable margins, with the strongest brand name in the business, why is that such a bad situation? Maybe you have to let some people go, maybe close a factory, hunker down and weather the storm, companies do it all the time.

This is why CEOs get the big bucks, to know when to tell a retailer to go pound salt. To know when a deal is bad and walk away. Any moron can get walked over by Wal-Mart, and sell product at no margin, it takes good management to know when to fold 'em and walk away.

Whats it going to do to your stock price if you close 30% of your production?

[saoirse]

Unions still control the waterfront to the extent that goods can't be delivered to our shores without their cooperation. those guys get paid more than a doctor, due to the union.

Nephew of a stevedore, NYC. Try $65K after 20 years, c. 1994. Can't tell you where they start now, but unless that Doctor is Without Borders, you're wrong.

[elelle]

I think that Sam Walton, founder of WalMart, must be spinning in his grave. He did build an immense empire from a five and dime, and deserved that success. When WalMart was up and coming under his watch, he made a big deal about "Made in America", and that WalMart was all about supporting US companies. Took about three years after his death for that to fall by the wayside.

[Shagnasty]

I would like an actual well thought out answer from people that support a "living wage".

What is that living wage based on? You have both high school kids and parents that support multiple people doing the exact same job (e.g. cashier). Almost every position at Wal-Mart and every other large employer of commonly skilled workers is like that.

Does the high school kid get a raise so that he could potentially support a family of four? Sweet. Or, do we just have different wage levels depending on life circumstances for the same job? I think the problem with that is more than obvious.

[Cheesesteak]

Losing 30% of a multi-million dollar a year business is not as easy to fix as letting "some people go" or closing "a factory". Especially when your nearest competitor is given a huge boost like that.Boost? You mean the "boost" that bankrupted Vlasic? That boost? Vlasic was damned no matter what they did, so they did what most businesses do, opt for the short term gain/long term loss over the immediate loss, and hope to find a way out of it in the window of time bought by that choice.I'm not going to say that Vlasic was going to be dancing through fields of wildflowers after rebuffing Wal-Mart. They're going to take a hit, lose sales, lose stock price, lay off a big slice of their workforce, all that really lousy stuff that happens to business in trouble. However, there is nothing to indicate that bankruptcy was the only possible outcome of Wal-Mart's proposal. For the record, losing 30% of your revenue is going to be a lot better for your stock price than going bankrupt.

[Shagnasty]

I heard someone say when I was near Wal-Mart's headquaters that they now require that suppliers have a maximum of 20% of their business with Wal-Mart. This was to counteract those types of problems and a responsible way to deal with a real potential to bankrupt other companies.

Does anyone know if that 20% rule is accuate now?

[Little Nemo]

Have any of you WalMart fans ever heard of a thing called capitalism? The free market? Listen to talk radio and you'll hear these are good things.

But instead of capitalism, companies like WalMart and Microsoft are setting up a form of pseudo-socialism - one centrally planned organization controlling the economy and deciding what gets sold and how much you pay for it. It makes little difference to the average citizen whether the decisions are being made by one big government or one big corporation. Either way they're deciding what's good for the organization not the citizen.

The amazing thing is that as these companies close down the free market, people are praising it as a triumph of capitalism.

[soulmurk]

Boost? You mean the "boost" that bankrupted Vlasic? That boost?

That boost isn't what bankrupted Vlasic actually, they were in trouble to begin with. That it's a temporary boost is the issue. Sales jump up and product turnover increases, but over a period of variable time the supplier is unable to keep up with the demand and the lower selling price, and has to cannibalize their other operations just to maintain the relationship.

Giving that up to a competitor sounds like the wisest move of all, but you still have to contend with the dropoff of 30% of your business and all that that entails as far as overhead and production costs. Then there's the continued dropoff of sales in your remaining 70% to the competitor who is now cannibalizing themselves to keep up with the demand. It's a no-win situation, and not one most businesses can just weather, especially the smaller ones.

I'm not going to say that Vlasic was going to be dancing through fields of wildflowers after rebuffing Wal-Mart. They're going to take a hit, lose sales, lose stock price, lay off a big slice of their workforce, all that really lousy stuff that happens to business in trouble. However, there is nothing to indicate that bankruptcy was the only possible outcome of Wal-Mart's proposal. For the record, losing 30% of your revenue is going to be a lot better for your stock price than going bankrupt.

There is precedent that either option could result in bankruptcy, but you're right that it wasn't the only outcome. They were in trouble to begin with and it was likely that their ship was going to sink regardless of their relationship with Wal-mart. It just so happened that their decision to stay with them expedited it.

[Shagnasty]

But instead of capitalism, companies like WalMart and Microsoft are setting up a form of pseudo-socialism - one centrally planned organization controlling the economy and deciding what gets sold and how much you pay for it. It makes little difference to the average citizen whether the decisions are being made by one big government or one big corporation. Either way they're deciding what's good for the organization not the citizen.

They are just big. They aren't the only source around. Plenty of people choose never to set foot in Wal-Mart and they get by just fine. However, they may benefit indirectly from competitive pricing at other stores. I can't be pseudo-socialism if it is pure capitalism and it can't be a monopoly if everyone has other sources available for everything.

[Mona Lott]

Forty dollars a week "contribution" to a union for a college age person?

Color me skeptical.

[even sven]

I would like an actual well thought out answer from people that support a "living wage".

Here (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwagefaq) is a good rundown of the living wage.

Most workers are working to support themselves. Few people join WalMart for fun. The idea behind a living wage is that workers will make enough money to not qualify for government assistance- which few can argue isn't a reasonable stance.

[astorian]

I can't speak for Wal*Mart Watch or any other group, but I can tell you my problems with the company.

First, their business strategy is based on destruction of competing businesses when they open a new store. even sven understated the case. A number of my favorite stores that had been small-town fixtures for a long time were killed by Wal*Marts.

Finally, I like choices. I like to have several different places to buy things. As Wal*Marts come into town and kill off their competition, I have no more choices.

Well, if all the good folks of small town America CHOSE to buy at Wal-Mart instead of at Sam Drucker's General Store or at Mom & Pop's shops, why don't you curse those disloyal consumers?

Sam Walton gave people a choice, and they chose to abandon the small shops you idealize.

So, why waste your venom on Wal-Mart when you should be ripping the people who choose to shop there?

[Little Nemo]

They aren't the only source around. Plenty of people choose never to set foot in Wal-Mart and they get by just fine. However, they may benefit indirectly from competitive pricing at other stores. I can't be pseudo-socialism if it is pure capitalism and it can't be a monopoly if everyone has other sources available for everything.
Here, Shag, have a cup of koolaid and reread the OP:
I live in a rural area and without Wal-Mart we would have no retail store.
And that's from somebody who's a WalMart fan.

[Shagnasty]

Here, Shag, have a cup of koolaid and reread the OP:

And that's from somebody who's a WalMart fan.

Every area offers mail order and internet shopping as an alternative to Wal-Mart. The OP mentioned Maine as the location. Now there are parts of Maine that are rural as you will find but they usually don't plop down Wal-Marts in the middle of nowhere. There has to be some other stores around even if the price and selection aren't as good as Wal-Mart's. I come from a town in Louisiana so small that it doesn't even have a McDonald's let alone a Wal-Mart. I am sure people there would love one too.

There is a Wal-Mart 5 miles from my house. However, my town looks like you just stepped into a Norman Rockwell painting. You can go to the hardware store and get advice on anything you want, the local general store sells stuff I have never seen anywhere else and does a huge business and it seems that everyone has found their niche. Nobody bitches about what other business are doing to them. They just adjust and it works out well for everyone.

[Guinastasia]

You can't exactly buy grocceries via mail order, Shagnasty. And I'd be willing to bet that not everyone has a goddamned computer to shop online, or can afford to buy even from the J.C. Penny's catalog (which is a shame-I've gotten some nice stuff there). That and some of us like to try stuff on before we buy it.

[Shagnasty]

You can't exactly buy grocceries via mail order, Shagnasty. And I'd be willing to bet that not everyone has a goddamned computer to shop online, or can afford to buy even from the J.C. Penny's catalog (which is a shame-I've gotten some nice stuff there). That and some of us like to try stuff on before we buy it.

You can by groceries all day long on the web here through 3 or 4 competing services that are both cheap and not Wal-Mart. Granted that option isn't available everywhere. Just saying.

If you are so poor that you can't afford a car and gas to drive elsewhere or a computer (or phone) to shop remotely then you have much bigger problems than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is a boon to people at the lowest end of the spectrum because it lets them buy things affordably and even gives them a shot a some employment.

It is the people a couple of notches up from the poorest that I could see running into a problem if they choose not to adapt to changing economies.

[soulmurk]

Wal-Mart is a boon to people at the lowest end of the spectrum because it lets them buy things affordably and even gives them a shot a some employment.

It is the poorest that have little choice but shop at Wal-mart that are the most affected by outsourcing of production because those are typically the unskilled laborers who are the first victims of their own shopping habits.

Wal-mart is an unsterilized, undersized band-aid on too large a wound when it comes to helping the poor.

[Little Nemo]

There is a Wal-Mart 5 miles from my house. However, my town looks like you just stepped into a Norman Rockwell painting. You can go to the hardware store and get advice on anything you want, the local general store sells stuff I have never seen anywhere else and does a huge business and it seems that everyone has found their niche. Nobody bitches about what other business are doing to them. They just adjust and it works out well for everyone.
No offense, Shag, but cite? Because you seem to be living in the only town in the United States where the local businesses haven't had a problem since the Big W moved in.

[Cheesesteak]

There is precedent that either option could result in bankruptcy, but you're right that it wasn't the only outcome. They were in trouble to begin with and it was likely that their ship was going to sink regardless of their relationship with Wal-mart. It just so happened that their decision to stay with them expedited it.If this is the case, then I think it is unfair to blame their demise on Wal-Mart. I thought about this last night, and there are a bunch of pickle makers supplying the market. Assume that Wal-Mart didn't enter into a more profitable relationship with these other manufacturers, that would set Vlasic's problem clearly on their management's shoulders. There are two choices remaining for each of these competitors:
The same relationship with Wal-Mart
No relationship with Wal-Mart

Both of these have been described as bad for the company, yet I have not heard anything about other pickle companies going under, just Vlasic. These companies survived where Vlasic died, that is a normal consequence of competition and the free market, not anything special, or anything to be mad about.

[Odesio]

Every area offers mail order and internet shopping as an alternative to Wal-Mart. The OP mentioned Maine as the location. Now there are parts of Maine that are rural as you will find but they usually don't plop down Wal-Marts in the middle of nowhere.


Uh, that's how Wal-Mart really became the power house it is. They did plop down Wal-Marts in areas that had very few shopping options in rural areas and they continue to do so today. I live in a town of 4,000 and they're building a Super Wal-Mart to replace the Wal-Mart Express and I have no doubt it will be well supported. While it might not seem at first glance that a small population could support a Super Wal-Mart they will get business from throughout the county.

Marc

[Hello Again]

No offense, Shag, but cite? Because you seem to be living in the only town in the United States where the local businesses haven't had a problem since the Big W moved in.

Well, I have to agree with Shag, I live in a rural farming community that has both a Super Wal-Mart, 2 other grocery chains doing fine, and a decently lively downtown area.

The difference is the downtown stores are very high-end and cater to an upscale clientele (primarily horse people that show at a local high-end showgrounds). Wal-Mart caters to the low-end of the market.

Wal-Mart didn't kill the "everyman" downtown shops. They died on their own -- about 10 years ago the same downtown area was essentially shuttered. Wal-Mart arrived after that, very much to the delight of all concerned.

[Hello Again]

That said I'm not a fan of Wal-Mart's business practices so I choose to limit my shopping there as much as possible. But there are times when my choice is to drive 30 minutes to the nearest larger town or stop in at Wal-Mart. My gas budget just doesn't stretch to jaunting 60 miles for every errand, so I shop at Wal-Mart maybe a couple of times a year.

I do think that it is disingenuous to say the Wal-Mart "killed" america's downtowns across the board. In many of the areas where Wal-Mart got its start (the South) the downtowns were dead already and Wal-mart came in and developed where no one else would. I believe this continues to be their philosophy overall as I heard recently they are proposing some Superstores in inner city Chicago.

[Little Nemo]

I will agree that WalMarts didn't kill most downtowns - those areas had generally already died. But most WalMarts aren't being built in downtown areas. They're being built in suburbs and rural areas - which did have active shopping centers and where WalMart did drive other stores out of business.

I'm not saying WalMart is evil. It's a decent store and I shop there frequently. But it's unhealthy for the economy when there's only one business choice with no competition. This is true even if you have a few token alternatives that have no real impact on the market (internet grocery shopping - right). And that's the direction WalMart is taking this country.

There's a difference between being a real capitalist and being an apologist for big companies.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I don't like unions. I grew up, probably unlike you, when they were powerful.

So does this make you some kind of expert?

They almost ruined the auto industry.

Yeah, bad business decisions from the top had nothing to do with that, huh?

And, to come up to the present, my son, who is a college student, worked in a grocery store this summer, and was forced to contribute $40.00 a week to a union that,

So now you're resorting to exageration for effect? I think you just lost some credibility points, sister. Ain't no union grocery store employee in the world that pays $160 per month in dues. Hell, I'd wager very few, if any, auto workers pay $160 per month in dues. I seriously doubt your son was even paying $40 per month.

according to an article in Reader's Digest, is squandering the money on Hawaiian vacations and huge salaries for it's officers.

If there's dishonesty in the leadership of the union, the workers have the ability (and duty) to get rid of it. File a complaint with the International Union, file charges with the NLRB, sue, or decertify. What was his union, by the way?

Unions still control the waterfront to the extent that goods can't be delivered to our shores without their cooperation.

Ah, sweeping damnations. You do realize there are probably 100 different unions in the US, and thousands of locals? This is like trying to blame the federal government, or people in Ohio, for things enacted by the San Diego city council.

those guys get paid more than a doctor, due to the union.

Who? What? What does this even mean?

I like Wal-Mart. I will contine to shop there and I hope organizations like Wal-Mart Watch don't ruin a good thing. And, I hope they never get unions. I worked in a place like Wal-Mart years ago (Zayre's) and nothing has changed according to what people tell me. It's still run for the bottom line, like ALL other businesses.

So do you think that workers shouldn't even have the right to decide if they want to organize a union? Without illegal corproate interference?

Corporations are businesses, not welfare organizations.

How is offering health care to employees "welfare?" Maybe if WalMArt paid a little more, and/or offered health benefits, so many of their employees wouldn't need to be on public assistance. You do know where "public assistance" comes from, right? Taxes. So that means that this specific corporation might not be a welfare organization, but they sure are enabling our public welfare system.

Corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders. But then, those who are marching in the streets over Wal-Mart's practices probably aren't investing in the stock market.

Making assumptions for effect do nothing for your arguement.

Corporations are what make this economy run.

No, spending money makes the economy run.

I say, those of you who think you have it so bad, take a trip and see the rest of the world. Comparativly speaking, this is paradise that you are trying to ruin, only you just don't know it.

Paradise? I agree that there are plenty of worse-off countries than we have here, but I think you need to take a trip to Detroit or southside Chicago or Mississippi sometime. Millions of people would probably argue with your comapison to paradise. And no one's trying to ruin anything. The activists are only trying to help the working poor, who are becoming increasingly prevelant in our country, thanks in part to WalMart.


Whine, whine: well that doesn't make it right. Grow up.

What doesn't make what right? Ad hominem attacks on the opposition's maturity level sure doesn't make you right.

I have this creepy feeling lately that the generation that starting growing up when TV and blockbuster movies became part of everyday life think that what they see depicted there is real. Maybe that is the source of all this outrage about you have material things and I don't and I'm entitled to them.

Alright chew on this: Who put those images of material things so heavily into our homes? You mention tv (consisting of networks) and Blockbuster. These are examples of the almighty corporations you are so willing and happy to defend as just trying to make a buck for their stockholders. And all these material things (4x4s, furniture and designer clothes for example)-- who makes them and promotes them to us consumers so heavily? Again, the very corporations you love to defend.

So, I just want to get this right: You say, "Corporations are businesses, not welfare organizations," "Corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders," , and "Corporations are what make this economy run." But then you demonize them for making people too materialistic.

Therefore, may I conclude that you think corporations are okay for the people that they make rich, but they're bad for the working poor who can't afford the material goods the corporations promote? Then, I think we agree on something.

But the reason so many people are fighting corporations like WalMart isn't to damage the corporation itself; it's to hold the corporation accountable to the workers and consumers that the corporation so often hurts in its race to the top.

Most people don't have endless material things. If they do, it's from the enormous credit card debt that Americans have. And only 9% of U.S. taxpayers make over $100,000, and these days that isn't very much if you have a couple of kids.

No kidding. Try raising a couple of kids on an $18,000 per year, or less, salary from WalMart.

This skewed vision of reality was showcased, when people actually expected that after hurricane Katrina that the government was this well-oiled machine that would quickly spring inito action, save everyone and make it all better with bottomless buckets of money.

What does this have to do with WalMart? And God help us when we start to think that the government should actually try and protect its citizens effectively. Is it really so much to ask that a FEMA director actually does his job? I mean, Lord knows our federal government is no well-oiled machine right now, but this country will really go shitward the day we don't expect it to be, and hold it accountable when it isn't.

That is only in the movies. Scary but true.

Ah, yes, I love those movies which showcase our federal government as the well-oiled machine it isn't.

So, Wal-Mart didn't take away your 4X4 or your new furniture, or your designer clothes or your new digital TV. Look elsewhere.

Alright. I blame you. Hey, it makes as much sense as many of your arguements.

[soulmurk]

If this is the case, then I think it is unfair to blame their demise on Wal-Mart. I thought about this last night, and there are a bunch of pickle makers supplying the market. Assume that Wal-Mart didn't enter into a more profitable relationship with these other manufacturers, that would set Vlasic's problem clearly on their management's shoulders. There are two choices remaining for each of these competitors:
The same relationship with Wal-Mart
No relationship with Wal-Mart

Both of these have been described as bad for the company, yet I have not heard anything about other pickle companies going under, just Vlasic. These companies survived where Vlasic died, that is a normal consequence of competition and the free market, not anything special, or anything to be mad about.

Try as I might, I can't locate a single site talking about other pickle companies' dealings with Wal-mart. In fact, I can't even find out what brand or brands Wal-mart is currently carrying in their stores.

I don't think anyone is blaming Wal-mart for the demise of Vlasic, per se. They certainly didn't help their situation, but as you say, that was Vlasic management's responsibility to avoid. However, it does bring up the question of whether or not Wal-mart singled out Vlasic at the time specifically because they were in trouble and knew they had them by the shorthairs. We'll probably never know either way.

Personally, I don't like Wal-mart's practices, or what they do to communities and employees. I don't shop there by choice, but I don't blame them for all the world's ills. What they do do to suppliers (Vlasic being the most famous, but not the best example of) is wrong, but they'll continue to do it so long as people continue to support them by spending money there.

I think the reason some people get so angry about Wal-mart is that there are so many people blindly feeding the behemoth who are ignorant to what effects their support might have in the long term. It's frustrating watching the proverbial lemmings running off the cliffs with their communities in a Wal-mart bag, defending their choice to shop there by reason of affordability.

[Stranger On A Train]

Forty dollars a week "contribution" to a union for a college age person?

Color me skeptical.Okay. When I was in college, backaways (11 years) I applied for a job at the local Kroeger to supplement my on-campus work-study and my lumberyard job. Come to find out, I was paying $28/wk in (mandatory) union dues. The way it worked out, I'd have been working the first 8-10 hours for the union and Uncle Sam before I ever saw a dime, and since they were only willing to schedule me ofr less than 16 hours, it wasn't even close to worthwhile. Instead, I took a weekend roofing job working with a bunch of speed-freaks and ex-cons.

But I understand at the montly union meeting they gave out "free" beer. I dunno--$112 will buy you a lot of Bud Light. Not that I'd care to drink it...

Stranger

[Wesley Clark]

Sven laid it out pretty well. To add onto the idea that raising wages would lead to 'high prices' that is faceous. Walmart has a budget of about $250 billion a year and about 1 million low wage employees. Giving them all a $3/hr raise would only increase prices by 2% or so.


http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

Wal-Mart can afford wage increases

Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee. [Analysis of Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]



However wal-mart does have some good sides that aren't getting aired.

Wal-mart requires its Chinese suppliers meet certain workers rights.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/20/wmt-environment-ceos-cx_gl_1020autofacescan08.html

They offer some healthcare. They get alot of flak for paying and average of $8/hr and only offering mediocre healthcare. But when I worked at village pantry (a subsidiary of Marsh supermarket) I only made $5.45 an hour and go no healthcare. Walmart is probably one of the better low wage jobs out there, most don't even offer any healthcare and it pays $2-4 above the minimum wage. Alot of jobs pay the minimum and offer no healthcare.

[Wesley Clark]

I would like an actual well thought out answer from people that support a "living wage".

What is that living wage based on? You have both high school kids and parents that support multiple people doing the exact same job (e.g. cashier). Almost every position at Wal-Mart and every other large employer of commonly skilled workers is like that.

Does the high school kid get a raise so that he could potentially support a family of four? Sweet. Or, do we just have different wage levels depending on life circumstances for the same job? I think the problem with that is more than obvious.

Many jobs can be done with a little training, even the ones that pay more than $10/hr which is around the cutoff for a living wage. I can't find the poll right now but I remember one being taken in Boston showing about 90% of people felt if you worked a 40 hour week you deserve better than to live in poverty. These are people that pay taxes and purchase supplies from providers, so their opinions count.

http://www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/LivingWage.xml

The public strongly supports the living wage.
Americans overwhelmingly support the living wage in public opinion polls. Seventy percent of Los Angeles voters surveyed, for example, said they favored that city’s living wage law. Moreover, according to a Lake Snell Perry & Associates poll, 84 percent of Americans support the idea that anyone who works full-time should not have to live in poverty.


The real question is how many people want to live in a world where many of the jobs aren't paying enough to purchase transportation, healthcare, shelter and food? Even if it does make sense not to have a living wage under the 'corporations have no responsibility except to their stockholders' meme that is popular in the US, the vast majority of people don't want to live in a world like that. A liveable world is more important than a world of idealogy.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm

[Shagnasty]

Many jobs can be done with a little training, even the ones that pay more than $10/hr which is around the cutoff for a living wage. I can't find the poll right now but I remember one being taken in Boston showing about 90% of people felt if you worked a 40 hour week you deserve better than to live in poverty. These are people that pay taxes and purchase supplies from providers, so their opinions count.

http://www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/LivingWage.xml

The public strongly supports the living wage.
Americans overwhelmingly support the living wage in public opinion polls. Seventy percent of Los Angeles voters surveyed, for example, said they favored that city’s living wage law. Moreover, according to a Lake Snell Perry & Associates poll, 84 percent of Americans support the idea that anyone who works full-time should not have to live in poverty.


The real question is how many people want to live in a world where many of the jobs aren't paying enough to purchase transportation, healthcare, shelter and food? Even if it does make sense not to have a living wage under the 'corporations have no responsibility except to their stockholders' meme that is popular in the US, the vast majority of people don't want to live in a world like that. A liveable world is more important than a world of idealogy.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm

Thanks for the response. That doesn't answer the question though. You have high school and college students as well as single people in general who don't own a house or need to support a family that are perfectly happy to take an $8 hour job. Does their wage get increased so that they could potentially support a family of four or do we just give people raises based on life circumstances?

A "living wage" in the Boston area is much higher than $10 hour. Should the Wal-Mart's here pay everyone $15 an hour or more so that all employess can start a family safely while continuing to work there?

Should these rules also apply to fast food and mall jobs? There are people trying to support a family with those too.

[whiterabbit]

I have to say, while I won't dispute that Walmart is a bastion of corporate evil, they really don't seem that bad to us employees. I'm on part time (my choice) and my pay, while low, is comparable to other retail jobs around here. And they offer SOME sort of insurance, even to part-timers (though not until after two years for us). An awful lot of retail jobs offer virtually no full-time hours or insurance whatsoever.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be getting more, only that they don't seem any worse than anybody else, at least where I am. Raising a family on the money I'd get full-time on my salary would be horrible. But I'm not planning on making a career out of this, either. Those who are might well have a different viewpoint.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Well, if all the good folks of small town America CHOSE to buy at Wal-Mart instead of at Sam Drucker's General Store or at Mom & Pop's shops, why don't you curse those disloyal consumers?
I know that, and I *do* curse many of those people. I shopped at a few Wal*Marts before I understood what they're really like. Most of the people who work there know little or nothing about what they're selling. The job requires little or no training, and Wal*Mart has incredibly high turnover. Unlike the small business they destroy, Wal*Mart doesn't provide trained staff that spend decades working in the same department getting to know the products.

Now I see people go into their beleaguered local bookstore or electronics store and talk to the knowledgeable people there, only to make their purchases at Wal*Mart later. The independent business can only survive by providing outstanding service from well-trained employees that know what they sell, and I have nothing but scorn for the customers who take advantage of those indy businesses and then rip their money from the local economy and ship it off to Bentonville.

I've always been the type that believes in supporting the community I live in. I volunteer for local organizations and schools, and shop local whenever I can. Sometimes people just don't understand that every dollar they spend at Wal*Mart is hurting the community they live in. Shopping there is short-sighted, and it's a terrible thing to do to your friends and neighbors.

[Updike]

Wal-mart is an unsterilized, undersized band-aid on too large a wound when it comes to helping the poor.

Where did you get the idea that it's Wal-Mart's job to help the poor???

[saoirse]

I will agree that WalMarts didn't kill most downtowns - those areas had generally already died. But most WalMarts aren't being built in downtown areas. They're being built in suburbs and rural areas - which did have active shopping centers and where WalMart did drive other stores out of business.

I think "downtown" is being used here to mean "the corner of Main Street and State Route ___" Of course urban downtowns are still in bad shape, too, but Wal-Mart really doesn't enter in to that discussion.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Where did you get the idea that it's Wal-Mart's job to help the poor???


A retailer offering really inexpensive products? Some might argue that a store like WalMart that offers such low prices is a blessing for lower income people because it helps them save money on staple items, clothing, home furnishings, food, etc.

But on the contrary, WalMart is lowering community standards of employment. Therefore the above arguement is the equivalent to an unsterilized, undersized bandaid covering the economic blight of the working poor.

[Updike]

A retailer offering really inexpensive products? Some might argue that a store like WalMart that offers such low prices is a blessing for lower income people because it helps them save money on staple items, clothing, home furnishings, food, etc.

But on the contrary, WalMart is lowering community standards of employment. Therefore the above arguement is the equivalent to an unsterilized, undersized bandaid covering the economic blight of the working poor.

And exactly how is any of that WalMart's responsibility?

[soulmurk]

Where did you get the idea that it's Wal-Mart's job to help the poor???

That was in response to a poster suggesting that Wal-mart was a boon to the poorest members of society. It isn't their responsibility beyond being a business that contributes so society. However, they sure as hell aren't a boon.

[Wesley Clark]

Thanks for the response. That doesn't answer the question though. You have high school and college students as well as single people in general who don't own a house or need to support a family that are perfectly happy to take an $8 hour job. Does their wage get increased so that they could potentially support a family of four or do we just give people raises based on life circumstances?

A "living wage" in the Boston area is much higher than $10 hour. Should the Wal-Mart's here pay everyone $15 an hour or more so that all employess can start a family safely while continuing to work there?

Should these rules also apply to fast food and mall jobs? There are people trying to support a family with those too.

Well programs like food stamps and medicaid usually do not provide themselves to individuals who do not have children. I think I see your point. However we already have a minimum wage, but this wage isn't enough to provide many people with medical problems or families the resources needed to get by, therefore it isn't technically a 'minimum' wage, it is more sub-minimum.

the problem is is that you can't eliminate all low wage jobs so that people who need to raise families can avoid taking them, and there will always be people who have families working low wage jobs. Roughly 1/4-1/3th of jobs in the US pay less than $10/hr and I think the average/median wage in the US is around 28k, which is $14/hr. You can't avoid the fact that some people will have to raise families on those salaries, they can't all find higher paying jobs as better jobs may be too hard to come by. A minimum wage increase to $7-9/hr combined with better social programs would provide those who have families with the resources needed to get by.

The idea of a living wage isn't uncommon, most european countries provide higher base wages and better social programs than the US and they seem to have the public's support.

[ouryL]

Not place their product in Wal-Mart.

I have always felt a pickle is a pickle; and I never bought Vlasic because I felt they were selling the name, not the product. I bought the cheaper brand. Vlasic has been around a long time and could have continued selling in thousands of grocery stores and continued to make a profit. They wanted to reach a bigger market, but that was at the cost of giving up the niche they had developed as a "special" (and expensive) pickle. Their choice as far as I can see.

A lot of people reading this probably have lots of choices in the stores they patronize. I have Wal-Mart and one grocery store. Like a large majority of the country. Are we forgetting middle America when we think Wal-Mart should be the savior of the welfare class employees? Yes, that farmer should pay more for his pickles because after all Vlasic is the elite of pickles. That's total crap as far as I'm concerned.

Although they imply it, Walmart did not cause Vlassic to go bankrupt.

[Who_me?]

Well, Wal*Mart is one of those entities that many people hate. I don't hate them, but anyone who argues against the Wal*Mart = dirty cannot be speaking from experience. I've been in Wal*Marts is 6 states, and while they aren't slum filthy, they certainly aren't as clean as most comparable stores.

I occasionally go to Wal*Mart, I prefer Target though.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Well, if all the good folks of small town America CHOSE to buy at Wal-Mart instead of at Sam Drucker's General Store or at Mom & Pop's shops, why don't you curse those disloyal consumers?...

So, why waste your venom on Wal-Mart when you should be ripping the people who choose to shop there?

I have always assumed that the overall effort, in Wal-mart bashing, is to encourage people to shop elsewhere if they can afford to. There are people with no choice (because of geography or income). No use ripping on them. But there are many others who could readily eschew Wal-mart, and this bad PR is aimed at them.

I suppose the ultimate goal of Wal-Mart detractors is to let Wal-mart enjoy the natural end to its business practices--put enough people out of work (indirectly through suppliers, etc) that their own customer base cannot spend as much. It's the only thing that could really force a change in business practices. However, that only works if they're not luring in new and additional customers with deep pockets and few ties to the lower-end job market.

That's also the only salvation of companies like Vlasic and Rubbermaid--having a core group of consumers who will look for and purchase their products at other retailers, and be willing to pay a somewhat higher price.

As for Suezeekay, maybe one day we'll live in a society where everyone who needs to support a family will go to college and get a non-union, degree-requiring, well-paying service sector job with adequate benefits. They won't be stuck as a "smuck." However, that's not going to be cheap, either. We do not have enough higher education in this country to support that kind of demand, and I suspect those government dollars you resent will have to play a role in paying for infrastructure as well as direct costs. We also don't have an economy that could support that many educated people, but that's another issue.

[Shodan]

As for Suezeekay, maybe one day we'll live in a society where everyone who needs to support a family will go to college and get a non-union, degree-requiring, well-paying service sector job with adequate benefits. They won't be stuck as a "smuck." However, that's not going to be cheap, either. We've done the "living wage" argument on the SDMB more than once.

It amounts either to a raise in the minimum wage, for everybody, in which case jobs will flow to China even faster, or different people getting paid differently based on their needs.

In which case, if I ran a Wal-mart, and I had a choice between the single guy living with his parents who only costs me $10 an hour, and the deserving single mom with two kids who will cost me $18, I'm hiring the single guy.

I have never seen how it benefits the poor to price them out of the job market. Nor the argument that "we are losing manufacturing jobs to the Third World, therefore let's make it more expensive to keep them in the US".

And FWIW, the answer to the question in the OP is "because they aren't unionized".

Regards,
Shodan

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

We've done the "living wage" argument on the SDMB more than once.



FWIW, I wasn't trying to enter into the "living wage" argument. I missed previous SDMB debates and am not sure where I'd fall on.

What I was addressing was suezeekay's contention that (damn near) everyone should go to college or take personal blame for the dire economic consequences due them because of their lack of education. I'm not seeing how that's a realistic stance, at least not with our current capacity and funding structure for postsecondary education.

[Shodan]

FWIW, I wasn't trying to enter into the "living wage" argument. I missed previous SDMB debates and am not sure where I'd fall on.

What I was addressing was suezeekay's contention that (damn near) everyone should go to college or take personal blame for the dire economic consequences due them because of their lack of education. I'm not seeing how that's a realistic stance, at least not with our current capacity and funding structure for postsecondary education.
Probably not everybody has the ability to go to college, or work at a high-tech job. Half the population is below average, after all.

But then Wal-mart can be considere to be benefitting those folks as well - it provides low-cost goods, and low-skill employment.

I am sure some people use this as a stepping stone to higher things. Others don't, for a variety of reasons. I imagine most of those reasons are not Wal-mart's fault.

Regards,
Shodan

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

One beef I have with WalMart is that their guiding principle seems to be "to get cheap things as cheaply as possible". For the most part they don't offer higher end or midrange merchandise at all. As a consumer, I think I should have the choice to spend more on something of higher quality--or not. It should be up to me, not up to a merchant who caters only to the lowest common denominator.

I live nowhere near a WalMart, so this is purely academic for me.

[Critical Mass]

I live nowhere near a WalMart, so this is purely academic for me.

I think you've gone beyond academic and arrived at esoteric.

[Daithi Lacha]

This doesn't really add to the discussion, per se, but if you go to www.jibjab.com and click on "Big Box Mart," there's a nice bit of satire there that is germane to this thread. You have to sit through a commercial first, but hey -- money makes the world go 'round ...

[Little Nemo]

In which case, if I ran a Wal-mart, and I had a choice between the single guy living with his parents who only costs me $10 an hour, and the deserving single mom with two kids who will cost me $18, I'm hiring the single guy.
No, if you ran a WalMart, you'd hire an illegal immigrant at $5 an hour and the CEO would pocket the rest.

[mazinger_z]

1. Wages- it doesn't matter that they weren't "meant" to be a family supporting job. The are a family supporting job. Right now, Wal-Mart actually helps it's workers figure out how to get social services (welfare, food stamps, etc.) because they don't pay enough. So they are actually asking the government to supplement it's stingy wages.While they can afford to pay even higher wages, from what I understand (from a Time mag article), they actually pay more than min wage (http://www.youareworthmore.org/node/8444) (this is my first hit off my google search, all other on-topic results are around that price point, which is ~$4 more than the min wage). How will Wall Street react to announcements that Wal-mart is unnecessarily raising wages? However, that's not my point. My point also isn't that the work of the avg Walmart worker is less harrowing and less demanding than your avg McDonald's worker (I've worked at both), and Mickey D's pays super-close to min wage (when I was working there [So where's the gripe against McD's?]) No, my point is that regardless of how many hours one is working, the worker will be paid the value for those services of the worker that the market commands. Isn't that fair?

Similar companies, like Costco, pay their workers a living wage (enough that they aren't working full time and collecting food stamps) and still make big profits. [My google search also showed an avg comparrison b/t Costo and Walmart: $10/hr vs. $9.64, wow, huge shift! [/sarcasm]] People in this country have to stop "Keeping up with the Jones" and actually have some humility. As posted before, if one actually qualifies for social welfare assistance, they should take it, even if they are working. There is no shame in that (perhaps it is an internal reminder that they've made poor choices in their life, but I digress...). Likewise, if one's job can only command $X/hr, that should be a signal to change something and get another job, train for a better position. Obviously, this statement seems harshly critical of those people who have suffered misfortune, but you can't blame the government for that. I am all in favor for subsidized social/temporary welfare for the poor and those in dire need.

2. Unions- They are aggressively anti-union. They have enacted special laws in congress to make it harder for unions to organize. They show anti-union videos to their workers. Workers looking to form a union often find themselves fired. Unions also raise prices, both for labor (which the corporation must buy) and consumers (where the corporation will transport its costs). Anyway, since you can't provide illegal anti-union practices (and I can't, and I don't recall any from the Time article), I won't argue this topic.

3. Predatory Business Practices- Wal-Mart will go out of it's way to put local businesses out of business. If your local town has a bookseller, they will sell their books under cost just long enough to put the bookseller out of business. If you have a grocery store, they will build themselves right across the street from them. I actually know someone who worked for Sam's Club (run by Wal-Mart) who's job was to go to local businesses and buy out their entire stock of certain popular items (Shrek DVDs were on the list) so that when people came there, they'd get upset and go to Sam's Club instead. I'm starting to think that this is an urban legend, but let's agree for this instance that it is true. So what. Isn't the local business profiting from selling out its Shrek inventory? Won't they just buy more from their supplier (unless you want to argue that Wal-Mart is restraining trade, in which case, that it is actually illegal)? Won't that signal an increase to the suppliers of DVDs that more DVDs are needed, causing a ripple effect in the economy (more materials, more labor, etc.)? Even if such a ripple is temporary, it's still boosting the economy. I suppose you can argue that taking away Shrek DVDs are causing people to do their additional shopping at Wal-Mart, but I argue that: (1) people are going to shop at Wal-Mart anyway, if nothing but the fact that they a huge selection; and (2) buying Shrek DVDs is economically equivalent to listing them as a loss leader, anyway -- to prevent this technique is simply ridiculous, and stifles competition.

Wal-Mart will do everything in it's power to undermine whatever economic base there is in your town. So now instead of a town of small business owners, you have a town of Wal-Mart employees who can now only afford to shop at WalMart. It routes out the economic core of a town. It makes the American Dream of owning a small business a million times harder. Wal-Mart is exploiting economic cycles, which every business does. If the town is in such a condition where Wal-Mart is the only alternative, for good or for bad, it is that way before Wal-Mart even got there. If Wal-Mart is crushing local competition, it is because those business cannot compete or adapt and deserve to be out of business.

4. Strong-Arming Manufacturers- Wal-Mart has such a large customer base that many manufactures can't survive without selling to Wal-Mart. Every company does this. McDonald's does this with local producers, Starbucks does this with their global coffee suppliers, K-Mart did this (and look how they turned out), Sears, even in the hi-tech (non-retail areas): Motorola (suffered greatly, but they had other contributing factors), IBM, EDS. This is called competition. If the market doesn't want a fat, gluttonous corporation, it will crush it.
5. They are Right Wing- Every dollar you give to Wal-Mart is a dollar for the right wing. While I am staunch pro-choice, half of the country might actually agree. If you want to stop this, you have to severely limit PACs. For good or for bad, lobbying is one of the most effective ways to get a voice to be heard. Unfortunately, even Congress cannot think through a viable solution. The best method (to satisfy all parties/players) is to take little steps and use a wait-and-see approach.

They buy from China as much as humanly possible. Someone else already pointed out the subtlety of this argument. Anyay, I am a big believer of efficient markets and a global economy. If China can produce it easier (as demonstrated by the market), then so be it.

[CalMeacham]

mazinger_z, your examples contradict figures given elsewhere and attempt tro trivialize others. Regarding Wal-Mart vs. Costco wages, see this result from Forbes, that bastion of marxism:

http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/newswire/2003/11/23/rtr1157966.html

Costco says the lowest-paid worker in its 312-store U.S. chain earns $10 per hour. A cashier makes $40,000 a year with 4-1/2 years of experience, including bonuses.

At Wal-Mart, wages vary by location, but the average starting hourly salary for a cashier is about $7. After five years, a cashier would make roughly $12 an hour. Based on a 40-hour week, that would be $24,960.



You can find similar stories elsewhere.


Walmart's strong-arming has become legendary. I don't know if they forced Vlasic out of business or not, but the implication from the Frontline program is that they certainly did Rubbermaid in. Other chains do certainly try to get the best price; I've never heard that any of them effectively forced suppliers out of business. That's not "business as usual".


As for Wal-mart's buying up popular DVDs -- we're not talking hundreds of DVDs here, in most cases. On-hand stock isn't huge, and it takes time for replacements to come in. If your business depends on satisfying instant gratification having things on-hand is priceless. You can't blithely argue that peopl were going to Wal-Mart anyway". The only rational reason for Wal-Mart to do this in the first place is to bring them in to the store because otherwise they wouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart, but to their usual store instead. Certainly ther can legally do so, but it indicates that they're gunning for the other businesses.

[LionelHutz405]

Unlike the small business they destroy, Wal*Mart doesn't provide trained staff that spend decades working in the same department getting to know the products.

What training should they give them?
What exactly are you buying at Walmart that requires assistance from ‘trained staff’?
Walmart’s stuff is pretty basic.

[Daithi Lacha]

As for Wal-mart's buying up popular DVDs -- we're not talking hundreds of DVDs here, in most cases. On-hand stock isn't huge, and it takes time for replacements to come in. If your business depends on satisfying instant gratification having things on-hand is priceless. You can't blithely argue that peopl were going to Wal-Mart anyway". The only rational reason for Wal-Mart to do this in the first place is to bring them in to the store because otherwise they wouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart, but to their usual store instead. Certainly ther can legally do so, but it indicates that they're gunning for the other businesses.
Well, it's not only that, but the argument that:
Won't that signal an increase to the suppliers of DVDs that more DVDs are needed, causing a ripple effect in the economy (more materials, more labor, etc.)? Even if such a ripple is temporary, it's still boosting the economy.This is based on the assumption that all these DVDs (and CDs) & their packaging are produced in America, and that increased consumption will feed directly into America's economy. I'm at work, but does anyone have a DVD & case onhand to check where it was made?

[LionelHutz405]

I actually know someone who worked for Sam's Club (run by Wal-Mart) who's job was to go to local businesses and buy out their entire stock of certain popular items (Shrek DVDs were on the list) so that when people came there, they'd get upset and go to Sam's Club instead.

I also think that smacks of an urban legend. But, assuming it’s true, it’s really easy for the target store to prevent this by limiting purchases to reasonable quantities. Many stores already do that. Of course the ones that will gladly sell every copy of Shrek they have, knowing it will hurt them in the long run, are just the kind of mismanaged businesses that are vulnerable to getting put out of business by better managed competitors.

[mazinger_z]

mazinger_z, your examples contradict figures given elsewhere and attempt tro trivialize others. Regarding Wal-Mart vs. Costco wages, see this result from Forbes, that bastion of marxism:

http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/newswire/2003/11/23/rtr1157966.html

Thanks for the link, it shows exactly the results I had predicted (though, not in this thread, just in discussions I have with friends IRL). The most important part is that it shows a real-world example of value: Costco is paying its managers more.

No, my point is that regardless of how many hours one is working, the worker will be paid the value for those services of the worker that the market commands. Perhaps I should have better illustrated my point, however. The difference in salaries between Costco and Wal-Mart is competition. What Forbes is reporting is the essence of competition in mid-stream. It looks like Costco is losing for now -- As cited in the article, Costco trailing the leader, but the comparrisons aren't exactly similar: net income (Costco -3%) vs. operating revenue (Wal-Mart +12%). Costco may eventually outpace Wal-Mart if all things stayed equal, because Wal-Mart will not have the adequate talent and manpower to operate additional stores efficiently (Wall Street hates stagnation). Wal-Mart will have to adjust and pay more. On the other hand, if Costco doesn't move quickly enough, it will be saddled with higher labor costs because of union pricing (which may not be true if union lock-step pay raises end qucikly). Let's see how long it will last. Personally, I do all my shopping at Costco, except for propane (cheapest by $4 anywhere I've seen, and I shop around!) and Kellog's Raisin Bran (cheaper by $1 than most stores' reg price).

Anyway, my googling's first hit was some Wal-Mart employee talking about her pay rate vs. others, the fourth hit was comparing wages in the local economy. Hardly scientific, which is why for the second time, I'm not listing my results.

Walmart's strong-arming has become legendary. I don't know if they forced Vlasic out of business or not, but the implication from the Frontline program is that they certainly did Rubbermaid in. Other chains do certainly try to get the best price; I've never heard that any of them effectively forced suppliers out of business. That's not "business as usual". Rubbermaid is a bunch of bastards, I know from personal experience dealing with them at the corporate level. They deserve what they got. (I haven't dealt much with their latest entity, but they seem ok so far). If the supplier cannot meet Wal-Mart's demands, it has no business doing business with Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart can't find anyone to do business the way they want business to be done, then it will have to change. Wal-Mart doesn't want its suppliers to go out of business, it needs more and more suppliers to capture more and more market. When companies accede to Wal-Mart demands -- and fails -- it is either through bad leadership and/or poor knowledge of its products and services. If a company knows that they cannot perform at those conditions, then it either has to change or don't do business with Wal-Mart (or at all).

As for Wal-mart's buying up popular DVDs -- we're not talking hundreds of DVDs here, in most cases. On-hand stock isn't huge, and it takes time for replacements to come in. If your business depends on satisfying instant gratification having things on-hand is priceless. You can't blithely argue that peopl were going to Wal-Mart anyway". The only rational reason for Wal-Mart to do this in the first place is to bring them in to the store because otherwise they wouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart, but to their usual store instead. Certainly ther can legally do so, but it indicates that they're gunning for the other businesses. How is this any different than running loss leaders? Why should we as a society stifle competition? Hasn't the local store made its profit already by having their inventory bought out? I'm sorry, I'm not buying your argument, give me a real world example, even if a thought experiment, that shows that this is nothing different from running a loss leader, and that such a solution isn't mandating how a company runs its business.

[Nonsuch]

Isn't the local business profiting from selling out its Shrek inventory? Won't they just buy more from their supplier (unless you want to argue that Wal-Mart is restraining trade, in which case, that it is actually illegal)? Won't that signal an increase to the suppliers of DVDs that more DVDs are needed, causing a ripple effect in the economy (more materials, more labor, etc.)?
By constantly denuding its competitors of key product, Wal-Mart not only earns a sale of that product, but gradually "teaches" shoppers that no store other than Wal-Mart can be counted on to stock new releases, eventually driving them under. Wal-Mart can do this with impunity because they know the studios will simply buy back the unsold stock:

Even many of the biggest-selling DVDs have substantial returns. Indeed, it is built into the business model. Since the manufacturing cost of a DVD is relatively low ($1.85), studios often "channel-stuff" by shipping as many DVDs to retailers as they can while setting up reserves in their accounting—usually between 20 percent and 30 percent of sales—for returns. [Link (http://www.slate.com/id/2123286/)]
You can defend Wal-Mart's practice as legal, but since its only benefit is to eliminate competition (and therefore consumer choice), I feel to see how I as a consumer should be thankful.

[CalMeacham]

Interesting mazinger_z. I give a cite that contradicts your bizarre assertion that Walmart's wages aren't significantly lower than Costco's, and you try to spin it by saying it confirms predictions you made someplace else besides here. That's a stretch.

Rubbermaid may or may nor be a bunch of bastards -- that's beside the point. The Frontline documentary cited above seems to suggest that Wal-Mart is being a bunch of bastards by demanding pretty extreme changes in Rubbermaid's pricing after they were accommodated into a relationship. It may be legal and it may be pure capitalism, but clearly they weren't expecting a cuthroat move like that from a big customer. People know better now about WalMart, but Rubbermaid clearly had no warning that Walmart would play ball that hard.


And your use of "loss leader" is clearly different from everyone else's. Selling products at a loss to lure in business is different altogether from denuding a competitor's shelves, as Nonsuch points out.

[yellowval]

What training should they give them?
What exactly are you buying at Walmart that requires assistance from ‘trained staff’?
Walmart’s stuff is pretty basic.

Well, I can easily think of an example: fish. The only place to buy fish within a 50 mile radius or so is Wal-Mart. The pet department is staffed by people who know nothing about fish. Chances are, if you own fish, you know more about them than the people in the pet department do. We also have a terrible time keeping fish from Wal-Mart alive. They often die within a few weeks and we end up having to buy more. But, as I said, it's the only place to buy them in this area. The other pet shop we did have, which had decent fish and people who knew about them, closed a few years ago.
I personally do not shop at Wal-Mart, but can't prevent my husband from doing so. Though I think he would stop if he had somewhere else to buy our fish. That's about all he goes there for.

[Long Time First Time]

Well, I can easily think of an example: fish. The only place to buy fish within a 50 mile radius or so is Wal-Mart. .

You can always tell him to buy his fish on ebay.
http://home.listings.ebay.com/Fish_Tropical-Fish_W0QQfclZ3QQfromZR11QQsacatZ66795QQsocmdZListingItemList

[JohnT]

even sven said it. That and every Wal-Mart I've ever been in sucks. The merchandise is shitty, and the one closest to is like Mullet HQ.

There's also a lot of good old fashioned snobbery and hatred of "the lower orders" involved in Wal Mart vitriol as well...

[JohnT]

1. Wages- it doesn't matter that they weren't "meant" to be a family supporting job. The are a family supporting job. Right now, Wal-Mart actually helps it's workers figure out how to get social services (welfare, food stamps, etc.) because they don't pay enough. So they are actually asking the government to supplement it's stingy wages. Instead of paying their workers, they expect you too. Nice, huh? Wal-Mart workers top medicaid rolls in 16 states.

And no, a raise would not drive up prices. Wal-Mart is making money hand over fist. The only ones who aren't seeing that are the people who actually make Wal-Mart work- the workers. Similar companies, like Costco, pay their workers a living wage (enough that they aren't working full time and collecting food stamps) and still make big profits.

In post after post, I take apart 10K's, explaining to you this "THEY COULD BE PAYING VASTLY HIGHER WAGES IF THEY WEREN'T GREEDY PROFITEERS" fallacy... looks as if I have to do it again.

In FY2004 WMT had sales of $285 billion ($191b WM, $37b Sams Club, $56b International). COGS+Overhead was $271 billion, leaving operating income of $17 billion. WMT had $1 billion in debt and capital lease obligations, $5.5 billion in income taxes for Net Income of $10 billion.

Of that profit of $10 billion, WMT had retained earnings of $8 billion and paid out $2 billion in dividends.

Oh, and they have 1,700,000 employees worldwide.

Assuming that you want to take 1/2 of their NI and pay the employees higher wages, we're talking about a salary increase of less than $3,000/year. If you confiscate it all, you can now give everybody $5,800 a year! Of course, you would demolish the value of the stock (why own stock in a company that will never make any money) and destroy any hope of WMT being able to compete effectively (no retained earnings = no savings = no investment = no growth).

So they'll have $6,000 raises... for a few years at least. But as the competitors are allowed to plow their obscene profits, the WMT employees are doomed. At least as WMT employess, anyway.

And reports of Costco's wage superiority are vastly over-reported, but I just redid the WMT research. Last thing I care to do is try to substantiate or refute your claim about the other company.

2. Unions- They are aggressively anti-union. They have enacted special laws in congress to make it harder for unions to organize. They show anti-union videos to their workers. Workers looking to form a union often find themselves fired.

No matter what you feel about unions, most people would agree that they should at least get a fair chance to present their case.

Given how unions have done so well for the US industrial worker, perhaps WMT is doing their workers a favor.

3. Predatory Business Practices- Wal-Mart will go out of it's way to put local businesses out of business. If your local town has a bookseller, they will sell their books under cost just long enough to put the bookseller out of business. If you have a grocery store, they will build themselves right across the street from them. I actually know someone who worked for Sam's Club (run by Wal-Mart) who's job was to go to local businesses and buy out their entire stock of certain popular items (Shrek DVDs were on the list) so that when people came there, they'd get upset and go to Sam's Club instead.

Wal-Mart will do everything in it's power to undermine whatever economic base there is in your town. So now instead of a town of small business owners, you have a town of Wal-Mart employees who can now only afford to shop at WalMart. It routes out the economic core of a town. It makes the American Dream of owning a small business a million times harder.

Your friends job is stupid. Buying out inventory stocks as a means to put people out of business? How, exactly, does that work? "DAD! I just sold 40 copies of Shreck at $22.99 each to the Wal Mart guy, giving us two weeks of cash flow, income, and profit in one fell swoop!" "Damn them! They're going to put us out of business if they keep on buying out our stuff!!!" :dubious:

Of course, the faulty assumption is that a towns "economic base" always resides in the retailers. Trust me, it does not. Just go to a college town like Athens GA or State College PA, or a industry town like Hershey PA or Corning NY (to name two obvious examples - there's hundreds of others) and tell me that the retailers are driving the city. :rolleyes:

And all that money doesn't stay in your town. Most of it gets sent directly back to Wal-Mart headquarters. It doesn't offer economic revival for small towns, it offers to turn small towns into vassal states.

You have a bizarre view of money, one that has WMT placing stores in places that are increasingly poverished because they keep shipping "the towns" declining stores of dollars "away", with no means of getting new dollars. But in believing that every town in America has no employment or "American Dream" opportunities other than retail, I guess this idea is easier to swallow.

4. Strong-Arming Manufacturers- Wal-Mart has such a large customer base that many manufactures can't survive without selling to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart knows this, and uses it's power to dictate what gets made at what price. So instead of running one business, they have de facto control of many, many businesses. Often they will demand that companies sell products below cost. Or they will control content (most publicly of CDs and videos- some people put out a "Wal-Mart version", but most just comply to Wal-Mart's demands). They have way too much control of way too many industries.

Wal Mart, regardless of it's vast size, does not have the sort of control of the market that you seem to think. While it is true that they have exacted effeciencies from their suppliers, the idea that vast numbers of manufacturers are running at a loss or at break-even just for Wal Mart is to laugh. Not to say it doesn't happen - poorly run manufacturers are just as common as, say, poorly run local retailers.

As far as the CD thing is concerned, so what? K-Tel has been offering and selling sanitized versions of songs for decades and nobody batted an eye. Those compilation disks - "Wow 18" and the like - are heavily edited as well regardless of whether you buy them.

Again, so what? If you want the version of "Hollaback Girl" that has Stefani singing "shit" 34 times, download it. Or buy it off the internet. Or go to the library and buy it off the internet. Or get your friend with a credit card to go to the library to buy it off the internet.

5. They are Right Wing- Every dollar you give to Wal-Mart is a dollar for the right wing. They use their massive profits to affect political causes. They are staunchly anti-abortion. They are the ones campaigning to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraceptive.

Do you really want the largest economy in your country to be a right-wing one that has a political agenda?

This is a political complaint, obviously not debatable with facts, just opinion and tastes. But don't think that Left leaning capitalists don't take on governments - check out how George Soros almost brought down the British banking system back in the 1990s by making such a large play for a downward spiral on the pound that he was the triggering event on, yes, a downward spiral on the pounds value.

6. Everything Else- They are currently dealing with a major sex-discrimination case where it came out that they regularly and systematically denied promotions to women. They have perpetuated some major labor violations like lcoking workers in the store and forcing them to work off-the-clock. All evidence points to these violations being a part of Wal-Mart policy, not freak occurances. They have a bad environmental track record. They buy from China as much as humanly possible.

Our dollar is the only way we can vote against their agenda.

And all these complaints and problems are being handled at the appropriate levels, nor are they limited to Wal Mart. One would be hard pressed to find any corporation of over 200,000 people that doesn't have ongoing sexual harassment and labor disputes. Not dismissing them, but the fact of their existence isn't anything surprising nor does it prove that WMT is "worse" than others.

[JohnT]

... in regards to WMT and Costco...

Some quick calculations, comparing figures from 10k's and making assumptions:

Wal Mart

# of employees: 1,700,000
Avg Hourly wage (estimate derived from data in Forbes article) all employees: $16
# workhours year, per person (assuming full-time employment for all employees): 2000
Total yearly cost: $54,400,000,000

Costco:

# of employees: 113,000 (10-k)
Avg hourly wage per employee (again, derived from data in Forbes article): $25
# work hours a year, per person: 2,000
Total yearly cost: $5,650,000,000

I would like to note that the article is comparing apples to oranges by the way. They are comparing a membership warehouse (Costco) to a discount department store (Wal Mart), akin to comparing Coca Cola to Mayfield Dairies. Over 80% of WMT's revenue comes from discount stores (both American and International), so the comparison made isn't valid. But we'll assume that it is, knowing that it isn't.

For Wal Mart to start paying its employees wages comparable to Costco, they would have to increase their labor cost by... guess.

Too low.

Wrong again.

Close enough. $35,000,000,000 dollars. That's 3.5x the amount they made in "profit", meaning that the assertion made about WMT being able to afford Costco wages w/o having to raise prices is, not shockingly, incorrect.

But... there is a means out there for WMT to raise their avg hourly rate to Costco levels.

Just fire 600,000 people.

And don't bother countering with "executive salaries must be cut!" blather. Even if WMT execs were soaking the company for $100,000,000/year (which they aren't, but anyway) the average wage for the other employees would increase $.039/hour, or $78 year.

So, what have we learned?

1. Costco and Wal Mart are in two different businesses, each with their own business model and cost structure. Had the article bothered breaking out the Sams component to WMT, it would've made more sense, but it didn't and therefore is essentially useless.

2. Wal Mart, disregarding the differences in business models, would have to pay over $35 billion more in wages for current employees to be paid Costco wages (given my, admittedly quick 'n dirty, assumptions). That is 3.5 times more than their current after-tax profits.

3. Or Wal Mart could lay off 600,000 people in order to achieve a Costco-esque wage structure.

So, you don't have to do the work on the Costco thing. You're welcome.

Now you've got a decision to make: Raise prices and destroy your business model, leaving no other reason than social inertia for people to come to your suddenly overpriced discount store, or fire 600,000 people?

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Your friends job is stupid. Buying out inventory stocks as a means to put people out of business? How, exactly, does that work? "DAD! I just sold 40 copies of Shreck at $22.99 each to the Wal Mart guy, giving us two weeks of cash flow, income, and profit in one fell swoop!" "Damn them! They're going to put us out of business if they keep on buying out our stuff!!!" :dubious:



I'm curious you're continuing to make this point. I feel other posters did a good job explaining why absence of stock (even if it's purchased /paid for) can have negative effect on the short-term and long-term health of a small retailer.

[mazinger_z]

Interesting mazinger_z. I give a cite that contradicts your bizarre assertion that Walmart's wages aren't significantly lower than Costco's, and you try to spin it by saying it confirms predictions you made someplace else besides here. That's a stretch. That wasn't my point. I even said, twice, that my numbers were from lazy googling. Do you need me to re-post my point, or can I trust you will re-read what I wrote.

Rubbermaid may or may nor be a bunch of bastards -- that's beside the point. The Frontline documentary cited above seems to suggest that Wal-Mart is being a bunch of bastards by demanding pretty extreme changes in Rubbermaid's pricing after they were accommodated into a relationship. It may be legal and it may be pure capitalism, but clearly they weren't expecting a cuthroat move like that from a big customer. People know better now about WalMart, but Rubbermaid clearly had no warning that Walmart would play ball that hard. Again, if they thought they could do it and didn't, I will less critical. But, if they (rubbermaid) thought/knew they couldn't do it, and tried to do it anyway, then they and all others like that are fools, which is what my point was entirely.

How is this any different than running loss leaders? Why should we as a society stifle competition? Hasn't the local store made its profit already by having their inventory bought out? I'm sorry, I'm not buying your argument, give me a real world example, even if a thought experiment, that shows that this is nothing different from running a loss leader, and that such a solution isn't mandating how a company runs its business.
And your use of "loss leader" is clearly different from everyone else's. Selling products at a loss to lure in business is different altogether from denuding a competitor's shelves, as Nonsuch points out. So that's a "no" then? Seriously, which is more logical: going to a store and not finding your one item, thinking "Sold out? Screw you guys. I'm never going to here again, I'm going to Wal-Mart because they have everything," or "Why should I even stop at this store, when I have all this other shopping to do, I'm sure I can find my item at Wal-Mart along with everything else"? [or what JohnT said.]

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

If the town is in such a condition where Wal-Mart is the only alternative, for good or for bad, it is that way before Wal-Mart even got there. If Wal-Mart is crushing local competition, it is because those business cannot compete or adapt and deserve to be out of business.
I don't think you understand their business model, and the final sentence of your quote here is way off-base. Let's say Wal*Mart decided to move into a town where you have a bookstore. Your store is doing just fine, with reasonable prices and knowledgeable staff to help people with their book questions and special orders. There's not much growth potential, though, because it's a small town.

Wal*Mart moves in, and sets up a book section containing only the most popular current books, which they price at (or very close to) cost. They are the only supplier in town for games and electronics, so they price those higher to make up for the lost profit in books.

People buy all of the high-volume popular books at Wal*Mart because they're so cheap, and they come into your store for the special orders and hard-to-find stuff. You lose half your sales, your store goes under, and Wal*Mart raises the price of books since there's no longer any competition in town.

Wal*Mart can accomplish this because they can subsidize their new stores with revenues from the existing ones, and because they can price some items below cost for the specific purpose of killing local businesses.

How does that make your bookstore "deserve to be out of business"?

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Well, I can easily think of an example: fish.My daughter went into Wal*Mart to get a filter for her fish tank. She counted eight-four dead fish in the aquariums there. She complained to the manager, and checked back the next day. Only half of the tanks had had the dead fish cleaned out.

What exactly are you buying at Walmart that requires assistance from ‘trained staff’?Me? Nothing. I won't shop there. What are other people buying that might require assistance? A lot. Here are typical questions that I'd expect a retailer to be able to answer. Tell me if your typical Wal*Mart employee could answer them.

"My son wants a video game. Does that one with the sticky ball you roll around have a sequel?"

"What's the latest book in the Discworld series?"

"Will this MP3 player work with my Macintosh?"

"Which of the car adapters will work for my Motorola cell phone?"

"Can I use this battery charger for my ATV?"

"Which is the second Matrix movie: Revolutions or Reloaded?"

[Little Nemo]

As far as the CD thing is concerned, so what? K-Tel has been offering and selling sanitized versions of songs for decades and nobody batted an eye. Those compilation disks - "Wow 18" and the like - are heavily edited as well regardless of whether you buy them.

Again, so what? If you want the version of "Hollaback Girl" that has Stefani singing "shit" 34 times, download it. Or buy it off the internet. Or go to the library and buy it off the internet. Or get your friend with a credit card to go to the library to buy it off the internet.
K-Tel never controlled 30% of the marketplace. Businesses like WalMart and Blockbuster now control a large enough share of the market that they can tell artists what to do. And saying artists don't have to do what they're told is disingenous - you just claimed it was impossible for WalMart to make a decision that would reduce their income by 2%. How can an entertainment company justify losing 30%?

The bottom line is that capitalism doesn't work when any player - producer, seller, or customer - becomes too big. You can be in favor of big companies like WalMart or you can be in favor of the free market - but if you claim you support both, you don't understand the subject.

[Shodan]

Businesses like WalMart and Blockbuster now control a large enough share of the market that they can tell artists what to do. And saying artists don't have to do what they're told is disingenous...No, it's entirely true. Artists don't have to do anything that Wal-mart says; they can create gangsta rap if they want to or hard-core porn or whatever they like. They merely need to realize that the price of doing so is that Wal-mart won't carry them.

I won't bother to repeat the old joke, because I suspect you already know it, but the punch line is "We already know that - right now, we're just dickering." You can do anything you want, as long as you are ready to pay the price. If Wal-mart requires you to bowlderize your lyrics or lose the chance to sell thru Wal-mart, and you say Yes, then the price of your artistic integrity has just been set and communicated. The free market, which is nothing more than information about relative supply and demand, has worked exactly as advertised.
The bottom line is that capitalism doesn't work when any player - producer, seller, or customer - becomes too big. You can be in favor of big companies like WalMart or you can be in favor of the free market - but if you claim you support both, you don't understand the subject.
No, things like economy of scale and even cartels and other forms of monopoly are covered by capitalist economic theory. But I hardly think some spoiled singer's pique at not being able to say "shit" enough to suit her and still sell in a family market hardly counts as a refutation of capitalism.

Regards,
Shodan

[LionelHutz405]

Me? Nothing. I won't shop there. What are other people buying that might require assistance? A lot. Here are typical questions that I'd expect a retailer to be able to answer. Tell me if your typical Wal*Mart employee could answer them.


I don’t know. I wouldn’t ask those kinds of questions at any store. But I guess you do and have found out WalMart employee’s can’t answer them? Wow, they must lose a lot of business to other stores whose employees’ know that stuff. So many lost sales….

Wait, which store was the one you were worried about going out of business?

[Little Nemo]

I won't bother to repeat the old joke, because I suspect you already know it, but the punch line is "We already know that - right now, we're just dickering." You can do anything you want, as long as you are ready to pay the price. If Wal-mart requires you to bowlderize your lyrics or lose the chance to sell thru Wal-mart, and you say Yes, then the price of your artistic integrity has just been set and communicated. The free market, which is nothing more than information about relative supply and demand, has worked exactly as advertised.
Again, I think we have different definitons of what the free amrket is. I think it includes producers and consumers each being able to make their own decision about what to produce or consume. And as you point out, any producer has to make a choice of what consumers he will aim his product for. Now if I'm a gangsta rapper and I decide to make a song called "I hate white people" then I am doing so with the realization that some customers will decide not to buy my album. Suppose I think that I'll lose 50% of my sales by recording this song; I now have to decide how much my artistic integrity is worth to me. As you said, this is the free market.

But what we're talking about is something different. It's not my customers saying they won't buy my album; it's a single store selling they won't sell it. And by saying that, they've eliminated 30% of my sales. And as you yourself wrote, a 30% disadvantage is far more than enough to decide who succeeds and who fails in business. This isn't the free market; this is one entity deciding what people can buy and sell.

If WalMart makes a deal with Goodyear tires to carry their tires instead of Goodrichs, then the free market is no longer determining whether people buy Goodyear or Goodrich tires - WalMart made the decision and millions of customers have no effective choice except to buy the brand that WalMart selects for them. It doesn't matter if Goodrich builds better tires or cheaper tires or more stylish tires - WalMart controls the market. As I have said before, if you think this is a free market, you don't understand the term.

[JohnT]

K-Tel never controlled 30% of the marketplace. Businesses like WalMart and Blockbuster now control a large enough share of the market that they can tell artists what to do. And saying artists don't have to do what they're told is disingenous - you just claimed it was impossible for WalMart to make a decision that would reduce their income by 2%. How can an entertainment company justify losing 30%?

The bottom line is that capitalism doesn't work when any player - producer, seller, or customer - becomes too big. You can be in favor of big companies like WalMart or you can be in favor of the free market - but if you claim you support both, you don't understand the subject.

Cite on the stat that WMT sells 30% of all Music and video in the US? Considering they only make up less than 9% of total US retail sales and that less than 7% of all WMT store space is devoted to electronics in general... I don't really see it.

So... Cite?

[JohnT]

[quote]If WalMart makes a deal with Goodyear tires to carry their tires instead of Goodrichs, then the free market is no longer determining whether people buy Goodyear or Goodrich tires - WalMart made the decision and millions of customers have no effective choice except to buy the brand that WalMart selects for them. It doesn't matter if Goodrich builds better tires or cheaper tires or more stylish tires - WalMart controls the market. As I have said before, if you think this is a free market, you don't understand the term.[/quote

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

God, you're argument boils down to "But people are stupid!!!!!"

Jesus, you ever thought they they might go to the Goodyear down the street? :rolleyes:

[Daithi Lacha]

Jesus, you ever thought they they might go to the Goodyear down the street? :rolleyes:
Except that there are still areas, as pointed out in the OP, that don't have any choice except Wal-mart. So this then is not their stupidity; it's their only choice (within reason).

[Shodan]

Again, I think we have different definitons of what the free amrket is. I think it includes producers and consumers each being able to make their own decision about what to produce or consume.I can agree to this definition. Prices (in a free market) reflect the aggregate of all those decisions - the point at which supply and demand meet.
And as you point out, any producer has to make a choice of what consumers he will aim his product for. Now if I'm a gangsta rapper and I decide to make a song called "I hate white people" then I am doing so with the realization that some customers will decide not to buy my album. Suppose I think that I'll lose 50% of my sales by recording this song; I now have to decide how much my artistic integrity is worth to me. As you said, this is the free market.

But what we're talking about is something different. It's not my customers saying they won't buy my album; it's a single store selling they won't sell it.There is no functional difference between Wal-mart and Death Row Records. Both are deciding whether or not to buy a product in order to resell it to consumers in a mass market. If Snoop Draggy Drawers wants to issue an album called "Yo, Turn Ya Hat Around and Stop Being Such An Assmunch About Tha Polices" or Pat Boone calls his latest song "I Want to Felch A Golden Retriever", both need to consider if their record company will accept this for sale.

Wal-mart is making the same decision. Will such-and-such an album sell to their target market - a family-oriented mass market for Wal-mart, or people with golden teeth and other regrettable fashion choices for Death Row Records.
And by saying that, they've eliminated 30% of my sales. And as you yourself wrote, a 30% disadvantage is far more than enough to decide who succeeds and who fails in business. This isn't the free market; this is one entity deciding what people can buy and sell. This is just nonsense. 30% is hardly a monopoly. What's to stop Stephanie Sweetcakes from selling her latest ditty "I (Shit) Love (Shit) You, (Shit) Honeycakes (shitshitshit)" to whoever thinks they can make a buck reselling it? It is still a free market until Wal-mart or someone else tries to stop her from doing business with someone else.
If WalMart makes a deal with Goodyear tires to carry their tires instead of Goodrichs, then the free market is no longer determining whether people buy Goodyear or Goodrich tires - WalMart made the decision and millions of customers have no effective choice except to buy the brand that WalMart selects for them. Oh come on - how does Wal-mart stop me from buying my tires from the local auto shop, the way I already do?
It doesn't matter if Goodrich builds better tires or cheaper tires or more stylish tires - WalMart controls the market. As I have said before, if you think this is a free market, you don't understand the term.
No, the term remains what it always was - Wal-mart is free to decide what they will sell and what they won't, and at what price, and everyone else is free to decide if they want to buy at that price or look elsewhere.

Wal-mart has a large market share, because they have an efficient business model and things like economy of scale. But they better keep reacting to the market, or they will go under. And they cannot force me to shop there, or stop me from going somewhere else.

Regards,
Shodan

[mazinger_z]

Wal*Mart moves in, and sets up a book section containing only the most popular current books, which they price at (or very close to) cost. They are the only supplier in town for games and electronics, so they price those higher to make up for the lost profit in books. [snip] Wal*Mart can accomplish this because they can subsidize their new stores with revenues from the existing ones, and because they can price some items below cost for the specific purpose of killing local businesses.
First off, I am unfamiliar with any law that this type of action is violating. Although, it seems highly suspicious to me, legally. Secondly, from what I've read from the Time article, they do close stores, particularly the ones that are not profitable, just like any other business. Third, why are they even gunning for me? Simply because I exist or because I'm the only game in town.

But, that last point doesn't really matter. From what I've seen, unless I have some magical economies of scale, my bookstore would fold without even so much as Wal-Mart specifically gunning for me, not much less batting an eyelid. Also, don't they have national pricing? Even if it is true (setting different prices for different areas), their ability to do so far outweighs my ability to compete. Therefore, I should fold. If I can still eek out a living with my small-time bookstore, I will continue to operate it. If not Wal-Mart, any big chain, like Borders, Walden, Books-a-Million, or Barnes and Noble will come by and put me out of business. If my area is so remote (or poor or both) that those large chain specialty shops won't move in, it's because it's not worth it (to them). Wal-Mart runs their business so that they can do business in these areas. The fact that they can do better business than my small time shop is because of economies of scale, better resources, and a better overall business plan. It's better for the overall community because Wal-Mart can provide many more things that I can't. Isn't it more efficient to do all of your shopping at one place? IOW, why should I keep my bookstore when others can do it more efficiently than me? If I can't adapt, I should fold. If I can adapt and there is no market for my new bookstore, than I should move to a better market, expand my market (hello internet), or fold. Oh, and any cite for their business plan that involves manipulation of prices, even though they have prices set on their internet page?

[Little Nemo]

Like I've said, Shodan, there's no point in my discussing this issue with some one who doesn't understand the subject. And I think you've demonstrated you don't.

Cite on the stat that WMT sells 30% of all Music and video in the US? Considering they only make up less than 9% of total US retail sales and that less than 7% of all WMT store space is devoted to electronics in general... I don't really see it.
A specific cite that they sell 30% of the music in this country? I can't; I'm just using a figure that somebody else mentioned here.

But the point I'm making applies to every product, not just music. This article (http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,514502,00.html) says that WalMart sells 15% of Proctor & Gamble products, 35% of the dog food, and 24% of the toothpaste in the United States. (Incidentally, it also says that WalMart's biggest product line is music and video.) And this site (http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2005/08/when_will_walma.html) says that WalMart sells 24% of the groceries in the country and has a 60% share of the Discount Department and General Merchandise market. This site (http://www.retailwire.com/RetailForward/WalMart_Food.cfm) says that at its present rate of growth, WalMart will control 35% of food sales and 25% of drug sales in the US by 2007. And in this article (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/08/news/companies/walmart/?cnn=yes) , a market analyst says, "The company is already an industry leader in apparel with 12 percent market share. But it generally aims for 30 percent share in any category it focuses on."

So can I specifically cite a 30% figure for music and video? No. But I can cite other figures of 30% and above. And point out that WalMart music and video sales are higher than any of these other products. So my estimate would be that WalMart's share of the music and video market is significantly higher than 30%.

[Little Nemo]

Let's put it in terms you guys are more comfortable with. Let's pick on the government.

Imagine you're the CEO of Timex Watches. And you make a number of sizable donations to some Congressmen. So they pass a law putting a special 25% sales tax on every brand of watch except Timex.

Now you haven't done anything to prohibit people from buying Saikos or Rolexes. Anyone can still buy those watches, they just have to pay 25% extra above the sales price. So theoretically, the amount of Timexes sold will not change. But in the real world, does anyone believe that Timex will not find it's selling more watches?

Now imagine that the Timex CEO makes his deal with WalMart instead of Congress. WalMart, which controls 25% of the watch sales in this country (figure made up for rhetorical purposes) decides it will only sell Timexes. Again, in theory, the amount of Timexes sold will not change. But in the real world again, Timex will sell more watches.

So if you're the CEO of Timex and you're looking to expand your company, you could go the Adam Smith route and invent better watches or develop more efficient production methods. Or you could hook up a sweet deal with Washington or Bentonville. And if you picked Washington or Bentonville as your answer, you've bypassed the free market.

[Shodan]

Your Timex example is not particularly analogous to anything Wal-mart can do, unless you can show how they are able to force prices higher for their competitors as the government is able to do.

And you are confusing "understand" with "agree". You offered a definition of the free market, with which I agreed. But that doesn't mean that Wal-mart isn't operating in a free market.

Regards,
Shodan

[ouryL]

mazinger_z, your examples contradict figures given elsewhere and attempt tro trivialize others. Regarding Wal-Mart vs. Costco wages, see this result from Forbes, that bastion of marxism:

http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/newswire/2003/11/23/rtr1157966.html




You can find similar stories elsewhere.


Walmart's strong-arming has become legendary. I don't know if they forced Vlasic out of business or not, but the implication from the Frontline program is that they certainly did Rubbermaid in. Other chains do certainly try to get the best price; I've never heard that any of them effectively forced suppliers out of business. That's not "business as usual".


As for Wal-mart's buying up popular DVDs -- we're not talking hundreds of DVDs here, in most cases. On-hand stock isn't huge, and it takes time for replacements to come in. If your business depends on satisfying instant gratification having things on-hand is priceless. You can't blithely argue that peopl were going to Wal-Mart anyway". The only rational reason for Wal-Mart to do this in the first place is to bring them in to the store because otherwise they wouldn't have gone to Wal-Mart, but to their usual store instead. Certainly ther can legally do so, but it indicates that they're gunning for the other businesses.


Costco says...

'nuff said.

[ouryL]

Thanks for the link, it shows exactly the results I had predicted (though, not in this thread, just in discussions I have with friends IRL). The most important part is that it shows a real-world example of value: Costco is paying its managers more.

Perhaps I should have better illustrated my point, however. The difference in salaries between Costco and Wal-Mart is competition. What Forbes is reporting is the essence of competition in mid-stream. It looks like Costco is losing for now -- As cited in the article, Costco trailing the leader, but the comparrisons aren't exactly similar: net income (Costco -3%) vs. operating revenue (Wal-Mart +12%). Costco may eventually outpace Wal-Mart if all things stayed equal, because Wal-Mart will not have the adequate talent and manpower to operate additional stores efficiently (Wall Street hates stagnation). Wal-Mart will have to adjust and pay more. On the other hand, if Costco doesn't move quickly enough, it will be saddled with higher labor costs because of union pricing (which may not be true if union lock-step pay raises end qucikly). Let's see how long it will last. Personally, I do all my shopping at Costco, except for propane (cheapest by $4 anywhere I've seen, and I shop around!) and Kellog's Raisin Bran (cheaper by $1 than most stores' reg price).

Anyway, my googling's first hit was some Wal-Mart employee talking about her pay rate vs. others, the fourth hit was comparing wages in the local economy. Hardly scientific, which is why for the second time, I'm not listing my results.

Rubbermaid is a bunch of bastards, I know from personal experience dealing with them at the corporate level. They deserve what they got. (I haven't dealt much with their latest entity, but they seem ok so far). If the supplier cannot meet Wal-Mart's demands, it has no business doing business with Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart can't find anyone to do business the way they want business to be done, then it will have to change. Wal-Mart doesn't want its suppliers to go out of business, it needs more and more suppliers to capture more and more market. When companies accede to Wal-Mart demands -- and fails -- it is either through bad leadership and/or poor knowledge of its products and services. If a company knows that they cannot perform at those conditions, then it either has to change or don't do business with Wal-Mart (or at all).

How is this any different than running loss leaders? Why should we as a society stifle competition? Hasn't the local store made its profit already by having their inventory bought out? I'm sorry, I'm not buying your argument, give me a real world example, even if a thought experiment, that shows that this is nothing different from running a loss leader, and that such a solution isn't mandating how a company runs its business.

At our store, we saw the Rubbermaid saleperson for about five seconds, then he would take the boss out to lunch. Then the next day, we would get an order of Rubbermaid, enough to fill two cargo containers in blue only, or in green only, depending on what color the Rubbermaid warehouse couldn't normally unload. Then there would be a sale, "All rubbermaid 40 to 45% off", which would continue until it was all gone. Of course, that for 5% over our cost.
Then one year, the District Manager sat in on the buying decision. He invited in the Dept manager. They bought half as much for a better lower cost. The next year, will never saw the Rubbermaid saleperson anymore. We got instead five containers of plastic goods that sold for 10 to 20% over cost from China. In a variety colors, I might add.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

...from what I've read from the Time article, they do close stores, particularly the ones that are not profitable, just like any other business.Sure. Established stores. But when they're launching a new store, they can afford to run it at a loss until they've killed off the competition. In fact, that's the business model.

Also, don't they have national pricing? Even if it is true (setting different prices for different areas), their ability to do so far outweighs my ability to compete. Therefore, I should fold.No. Prices vary from store to store. And I don't buy the argument that small stores "should" fold or "deserve" to fold. In the scenario I described, Wal*Mart is using profitability in one product line (electronics) to offset predatory pricing in another product line (books).

If I can still eek out a living with my small-time bookstore, I will continue to operate it. If not Wal-Mart, any big chain, like Borders, Walden, Books-a-Million, or Barnes and Noble will come by and put me out of business.It's "eke," by the way. If you didn't already realize it, I own a bookstore. I have no problem competing with Borders, B&N, or any of those others. They aren't going out of their way to bankrupt indy bookstores. Wal*Mart is. I've seen what they've done to other small towns, and I haven't seen anything yet that was actually good.

It's better for the overall community because Wal-Mart can provide many more things that I can't.Whoa, dogie! It's better for the economy to destroy jobs and replace them with fewer, lower-paying jobs while siphoning money out of the local economy and sending it off to Bentonville? It's better to manipulate the market to remove choice from consumers?

Oh, and any cite for their business plan that involves manipulation of prices, even though they have prices set on their internet page?Since you seem to like Wal*Mart so much, go spend some time in one. Preferably in a new one in a small town. Pick items that other stores in the area carry, and compare the Wal*Mart store's prices with the Wal*Mart Web site. It's just like Barnes & Noble. The prices on the Web site don't match the prices in the stores.

[JohnT]

Let's put it in terms you guys are more comfortable with. Let's pick on the government.

Imagine you're the CEO of Timex Watches. And you make a number of sizable donations to some Congressmen. So they pass a law putting a special 25% sales tax on every brand of watch except Timex.

Now you haven't done anything to prohibit people from buying Saikos or Rolexes. Anyone can still buy those watches, they just have to pay 25% extra above the sales price. So theoretically, the amount of Timexes sold will not change. But in the real world, does anyone believe that Timex will not find it's selling more watches?

Now imagine that the Timex CEO makes his deal with WalMart instead of Congress. WalMart, which controls 25% of the watch sales in this country (figure made up for rhetorical purposes) decides it will only sell Timexes. Again, in theory, the amount of Timexes sold will not change. But in the real world again, Timex will sell more watches.

So if you're the CEO of Timex and you're looking to expand your company, you could go the Adam Smith route and invent better watches or develop more efficient production methods. Or you could hook up a sweet deal with Washington or Bentonville. And if you picked Washington or Bentonville as your answer, you've bypassed the free market.

:lol:

This makes no sense. That last paragraph, rephrased, states:

"So if you are the CEO of Timex and you are looking to expand your company, you can either produce watches or distribute them - you can't do both. If you make them, you're a free-marketeer. If you sell them, you're a... whatever."

I mean... what is Timex to do with those watches it's creating? Avoid retail distribution outlets? If it makes a deal with Wal Mart (or Target or whomever), why does that necessarily prevent them from making watches?

:confused:

[JohnT]

Like I've said, Shodan, there's no point in my discussing this issue with some one who doesn't understand the subject. And I think you've demonstrated you don't.


A specific cite that they sell 30% of the music in this country? I can't; I'm just using a figure that somebody else mentioned here.

But the point I'm making applies to every product, not just music. This article (http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,514502,00.html) says that WalMart sells 15% of Proctor & Gamble products, 35% of the dog food, and 24% of the toothpaste in the United States. (Incidentally, it also says that WalMart's biggest product line is music and video.) And this site (http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2005/08/when_will_walma.html) says that WalMart sells 24% of the groceries in the country and has a 60% share of the Discount Department and General Merchandise market. This site (http://www.retailwire.com/RetailForward/WalMart_Food.cfm) says that at its present rate of growth, WalMart will control 35% of food sales and 25% of drug sales in the US by 2007. And in this article (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/08/news/companies/walmart/?cnn=yes) , a market analyst says, "The company is already an industry leader in apparel with 12 percent market share. But it generally aims for 30 percent share in any category it focuses on."

So can I specifically cite a 30% figure for music and video? No. But I can cite other figures of 30% and above. And point out that WalMart music and video sales are higher than any of these other products. So my estimate would be that WalMart's share of the music and video market is significantly higher than 30%.

A couple of points:

1. While WM might have, for example, 35% of the dog food market, that doesn't mean that they sell 35% of each brands volume. The ratio likely goes something like this (numbers made up):

(Brand: Percentage of sales as a result of Wal Mart)
Store brand: 100%
Alpo: 22%
K-nel Ration: 46%
Pedigree: 4%

etc etc. Their "market control" does not necessarily lead to "company control". They'll have a much easier time squeezing Knel ration than they will Pedigree. But only because the CEO of Knel ration let his company be put in this position.

I also see that you didn't note that the article specifically excluded Pet Store sales from the percentage regarding dog food sales :dubious: ... so the percentage really isn't 35%, is it?

2. "30% market share in everything"? Please. The company has aimed for many things. And failed. Note that the "30% in everything" that they boast is only achieved in the dog food market (well, not really).

3. In regards to video, it states that WMT was responsible for $1.5 billion in VHS/DVD sales for 2001. However, the entire US home video/DVD market in that year was 8.52 billion (http://www1.videobusiness.com/articles/images/vb/20011231/01_sales_overall_big2.gif), giving WMT 17.6% of that market. Again, far less than 30% and far less than that which is needed to exert the sort of market control people are fearing.

Except in the war regarding DVD pricing in the mid 1990s. Blockbuster wanted "rental" pricing - pricing in the sub $100 range, driving people to rent more. Wal Mart wanted volume pricing, pricing that would move movies off the shelves. Both companies made their case, and Wal Mart won... a decision that marks the beginning of the end of the Blockbuster Video "juggernaut" myth and made DVD's affordable to even their typical consumer. Much to our benefit, I might add. But, again, note that 82.4% of all DVD sales revenue has nothing to do with Wal Mart - this decision was obviously far better for the production companies than WMT.

4. Note that music isn't even in the top 10 categories that WMT carries. Seeing that, I find it increasingly hard to believe that they have such amazing control of the entire industry.

5. The fact that they have a 60% share in "discount merchandise" is irrelevant. Somebody has to be top dog, and they are in a retail category that was despised as irrelevant recently as 20 years ago. What's the big deal?

Forgotten Sears executive: "Wal Mart? They might be a threat to K Mart, but I'm not concerned - their customers are the NASCAR crowd - they can have them!"

6. I don't get the 24% in groceries figure. WMT's last 10k states that grocery sales make up 28% of WMT's sales, a figure approaching $60 billion. Compare that to the $530 billion total market size (http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/fullpub.html) of all US retail food and beverage sales. That, to me, comes up to only 11.3% of the total retail food market, not 24%. (I can see where the blog cheated - they compared WMT just to other supermarkets and not to all grocers. :dubious: ) Even assuming the other sites (http://www.retailwire.com/RetailForward/WalMart_Food.cfm) $82 billion figure, that's still 15% of the market, not 24%.

[Little Nemo]

This makes no sense. That last paragraph, rephrased, states:

"So if you are the CEO of Timex and you are looking to expand your company, you can either produce watches or distribute them - you can't do both. If you make them, you're a free-marketeer. If you sell them, you're a... whatever."

I mean... what is Timex to do with those watches it's creating? Avoid retail distribution outlets? If it makes a deal with Wal Mart (or Target or whomever), why does that necessarily prevent them from making watches?
How exactly did you "rephrase" my post into yours? Run it back and forth through a online Japanese-English translator until it made no more sense? As far as I can tell, your post had nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for second post, I guess it just proves that if one person provides enough cites, it just gives another person enough facts to find a nit to pick somewhere. Nothing you posted disproves my original statement, WalMart controls an exhorbinant share of a number of markets. This market share might range anywhere between 10% to 60% depending on how and when and what is being calculated. But even the lowest possible figure is very large - large enough to make my original point true. Even with the lowest possible percentages, WalMart is big enough to unilaterally impose its decisions on the marketplace.

[Shodan]

Nothing you posted disproves my original statement, WalMart controls an exhorbinant share of a number of markets. This market share might range anywhere between 10% to 60% depending on how and when and what is being calculated. But even the lowest possible figure is very large - large enough to make my original point true. Even with the lowest possible percentages, WalMart is big enough to unilaterally impose its decisions on the marketplace.
It still isn't clear how Wall-mart imposes its decisions on the market place.

Let's take your original example and original figures. Wal-mart controls, say, 30% of the market for music. And they won't carry music that says "shit". So Sister Sweetcakes wants to say "shit" on her album.

Wal-mart can certainly refuse to sell her album. My question is, how does Wal-mart stop the other 70% of the market from selling her stuff? If there is a pent-up demand for albums where people say "shit", then Wal-mart loses market share. If there is a pent-up demand for albums where people don't say "shit", then Wal-mart gains share, but so would Sister Sweetcakes if she decided not to say "shit" on her own, and Wal-mart doesn't control that. And if buyers don't care if Sister Sweetcakes says "shit" or not, they just want to listen to her music, then they will buy her music from someone other than Wal-mart - and again, Wal-mart loses market share.

I don't see how Wal-mart is forcing anyone to do anything. All the decisions involved are of people deciding what to buy and what to sell based on what they expect the market will bear. Wal-mart could only escape the constraints of the free market if they could stop everyone else from selling the "Sister Sweetcakes Sings Some Shit" album, as in the government tax on Timex you mentioned earlier. The government can do that, and enforce it, because the government can enforce a monopoly. Wal-mart can't.

Regards,
Shodan

[mazinger_z]

No. Prices vary from store to store. And I don't buy the argument that small stores "should" fold or "deserve" to fold. In the scenario I described, Wal*Mart is using profitability in one product line (electronics) to offset predatory pricing in another product line (books). First off, when I bought my cousin the Seinfeld DVD set, I called around to all the local Wal-Marts (because they had the lowest list price on the internet (other than private sellers on ebay, but I lost those bids) to see if I could go and pick it up. Nope, not available. However, it was the same price as on the internet, so I ordered from there because they could guarantee pre-X-Mas delivery. Prices were the same. I bought it again, 5 months later for my friend's birthday. Look at that, same price. And, the price for Raisin Bran and propane (the two things I buy) are the same at every Wal-Mart I go to. I thought about having my intern call around nationally comparing books and electronics prices, but that was just silly, I let her go home. Secondly, that is an accounting nightmare, especially for an overly scrutinizing retailer like Wal-Mart. The company thrives on cutting prices wherever possible, e.g., the corporate travel policy over there is humorous, at best, ridiculous in general. What products go on their shelves is a ruthless examination of what prices they can demand from their suppliers versus what price they can place on the market. They know their shelf space if valuable. Wal-Mart as it is noted all over this thread is notorious about price. If a product isn't getting the return they want (low price, high turnover), off the shelf it goes. Third, this type of pricing would be easily transparent. If Wal-Mart is taking a hit on Harry Potter books and jacking up prices on DVDs (whatever), then what you have is what is commonly referred to as a loss leader. Again, what is to stop the consumer from going elsewhere -- oh I forgot, there is no where else to go, look below to my response to that.

What you are trying to describe is, at best, predatory pricing (to the more skeptical, it's called "doing business.") I was going to post this long discourse on predatory pricing, on the federal level, but I'm too lazy on a Friday and I already let me intern go home for for lunch (I refuse to research anymore).

Let me summarize by saying that at the Federal Level, predatory pricing isn't an easy thing to prove. This is through years of case law and analysis by many economists. For me, anyway, to fully explore this notion would take far more than a message board post, even though I studied this case in undergrad and law school:

The Supreme Court in Brooke vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, found that predatory pricing is generally implausible. However, the Court does lay out some foundation for predatory pricing: 1) prices have to truly be below cost to the retailer (note, not profits, and the Court was silent on which accounting method to use to determine the cost); and, 2) the predator must be able to recoup losses at the monopoly level pricing.

If you think they are actively engaged in this, please note that they haven't been found guilty of it in either the state or federal level (though imo, I think you would have a better chance in the state courts, however, I don't know the laws in Montanna). It's been tried, but it's been over-turned on appeal.

Anyway, on a lark, I looked at wiki and they do a much more concise job of explaining it than I would have. Look there and you can argue with that reasoning.

Whoa, dogie! It's better for the economy to destroy jobs and replace them with fewer, lower-paying jobs while siphoning money out of the local economy and sending it off to Bentonville? It's better to manipulate the market to remove choice from consumers? First off, the goal is to protect the consumers, as you correctly stated, not the competitiors. IOW, protect the competition, not the competitor. If your extremely local economy can't maintain a small indy bookseller and Wal-Mart, or any small, indy anything and Wal-Mart, then your local extremely local economy is too small. If your local economy can only sustain the types of products that Wal-Mart sells, I don't know what to tell you (i.e. cheap, commoditized goods, which require low labor and low production costs). You have my sympahties.

[Little Nemo]

Shodan, did you know that it used to be that 800 lines didn't work if you were calling from the same area code as where the line was based (true fact)? So if you were running a mail order business that used an 800 line, nobody could call your number in whatever area you were actually located in. So all the mail order companies set up their 800 telephone services in places like Nebraska. And why did they do this? Because if they set up their 800 numbers in New York or Los Angeles they'd lose all the millions of customers in those cities, but in Nebraska you'd lose fewer customers. Now nationwide, the difference between Nebraska and Southern Califonia or New York City might only be 2% of your potential customer base. But most companies did it because they all realized they couldn't afford to fall even 2% behind the competition.

If two companies are selling the same product and one of them is selling theirs for 10% less, which company does succeeds and which one fails? If two companies are selling the same product for the same price and one puts 10% more in the box, which company succeeds and which fails? If you slap a 10% tariff on imports, how much does it benefit a domestic business? If you put a 10% tax on gas in one state, how many people will cross a stateline to buy it elsewhere? If there are two market funds and one of them is earning 10% more than the other, which one gets more investors? The simple fact is that in most businesses, a 10% advantage or disadvantage is huge - if two companies are in the same business and one of them had a 10% advantage over the other, the long term prospects for the weaker company are bad.

And WalMart is in the position to decide who gets a 10% advantage. If you can make a deal with WalMart you have 100% of the customers - if you don't make a deal with WalMart you only have 90% of the customers. Or 80% or 70% or 60% or whatever the relevant figure is in a particular business or location. Is that enough to close down a business overnight? No, of course not. But 10% is enough to close down a business eventually.

Now, maybe what you're saying is that WalMart isn't the only game in town. But for a lot of people it really is. I live in the suburban area. Where I live now, WalMart is about five miles away and it's the closest department store to me. But I could drive another five miles and go to Target. Or another miles past that and go to KMart. If I want to buy a DVD, I can go to Best Buy or Circuit City. If I want to buy a book I can go to Borders or Barnes & Noble. If I want to buy groceries I can go to Shop Rite or Price Chopper.

But my parents live in another town. Where they live the closest department store is a WalMart ten miles away. The next closest store is a WalMart thirty miles away. The next closest store after that is a WalMart that's sixty miles away. There isn't a non-WalMart department store within two hundred miles of where they live. If my father wants to buy a pair of pants or my mother wants to buy a coat, they have two choices - buy what WalMart sells or drive for seven hours. Do you want to tell me WalMart isn't a monopoly? It is where they live.

A free market is where buyers and sellers can get together and trade freely. But WalMart is now sitting there in the middle. It's able to tell sellers, "You can work with me or you can go out of business. Those are your choices." And it's able to tell buyers, "You can buy what I'm selling or you can go without. Those are your choices." When anyone is big enough to say those things, then it's no longer a free market.

[lee]

I worked for a smallish global company (fewer than 3000 employees at the time IIRC). It is probably safe to say that everyone who uses this board has seen something affected by the company I worked for. WalMart would only do business with our Asian divisions, even though the work product was going to be used in the United States. Although many of the Fortune 100 and 500 did business with the company I worked for, to the best of my knowledge WalMart was the only one that worked exclusively through Asia in this way. The other companies did business with the divisions closest to their headquarters or closest to their customers sometimes spreading work across many of our divisions.

[Cheesesteak]

If my father wants to buy a pair of pants or my mother wants to buy a coat, they have two choices - buy what WalMart sells or drive for seven hours. Do you want to tell me WalMart isn't a monopoly? It is where they live.This is something that I've found VERY interesting, because I find it so difficult to believe. Can you tell me what town your parents live in? Or at least a nearby town?

If they still get US Mail, UPS or FedEx, in that remote a locale, they can buy anything WalMart sells (outside of groceries) from somebody else, and often at a pretty decent prices. Maybe not Wal-Mart prices, but Mom&Pop Shop prices.

[Little Nemo]

This is something that I've found VERY interesting, because I find it so difficult to believe. Can you tell me what town your parents live in? Or at least a nearby town?
I won't even say what town I live in online, so sorry, nope. That may sound like I'm whimping out, but someone else in this thread didn't want to name their town either and they were using it as an example of how WalMart didn't drive out competition.

If they still get US Mail, UPS or FedEx, in that remote a locale, they can buy anything WalMart sells (outside of groceries) from somebody else, and often at a pretty decent prices. Maybe not Wal-Mart prices, but Mom&Pop Shop prices.
Seriously, Cheesesteak, do you know anyone who buys their pants online? A screwdriver? A bag of dogfood? Lightbulbs? Blank videotapes? A towel? A case of Pepsi? Windshield wipers? Aspirin? There are hundreds of items people buy every week that they aren't going to buy online (even assuming they have a computer).

[Shodan]

Shodan, did you know that it used to be that 800 lines didn't work if you were calling from the same area code as where the line was based (true fact)?No, I did not know that. But it is no longer the case, is it? IOW, the free market worked, because nobody was able to prevent the change from occuring. Right?
And WalMart is in the position to decide who gets a 10% advantage. If you can make a deal with WalMart you have 100% of the customers - if you don't make a deal with WalMart you only have 90% of the customers. See, this is the part that is wrong. WalMart cannot prevent their customers from shopping elsewhere. They can offer a better price, or a better product, but that same strategy is available to anyone else, so they can steal market share from WalMart just as WalMart can steal from them. That is what "the free market" means, and one party being more successful does not mean that the market no longer operates.
Now, maybe what you're saying is that WalMart isn't the only game in town. But for a lot of people it really is....
But my parents live in another town. Where they live the closest department store is a WalMart ten miles away. The next closest store is a WalMart thirty miles away. The next closest store after that is a WalMart that's sixty miles away. There isn't a non-WalMart department store within two hundred miles of where they live. If my father wants to buy a pair of pants or my mother wants to buy a coat, they have two choices - buy what WalMart sells or drive for seven hours. Do you want to tell me WalMart isn't a monopoly? It is where they live.But in order to show that the market is not operating, you need to demonstrate how WalMart is preventing other department stores from moving into the area and attracting customers away from WalMart. If there is any kind of genuine demand for non-WalMart shopping, or if WalMart is gouging their customers or something, then another retailer can move in and take over, by undercutting WalMart or offering a better product. If there is such a huge demand for people who absolutely hate WalMart, but are forced to shop there, it seems there is a major business opportunity for some mom-and-pop store to open up.

Regards,
Shodan

[Garfield226]

Seriously, Cheesesteak, do you know anyone who buys their pants online? A screwdriver? A bag of dogfood? Lightbulbs? Blank videotapes? A towel? A case of Pepsi? Windshield wipers? Aspirin? There are hundreds of items people buy every week that they aren't going to buy online (even assuming they have a computer).
They "aren't" going to? You mean they CHOOSE not to. Right? You're not suggesting they CAN'T, just that, for whatever reason, they choose to patronize Wal-Mart rather than an online or catalogue retailer.

[Guinastasia]

They "aren't" going to? You mean they CHOOSE not to. Right? You're not suggesting they CAN'T, just that, for whatever reason, they choose to patronize Wal-Mart rather than an online or catalogue retailer.

How does one buy groceries online? How is that even practical? Do you buy milk on line? Gas? Meat?

[Garfield226]

If you were following the conversation, you would recall that Cheesesteak qualified his original statement.

Here, I'll quote it for you:
If they still get US Mail, UPS or FedEx, in that remote a locale, they can buy anything WalMart sells (outside of groceries) from somebody else, and often at a pretty decent prices. Maybe not Wal-Mart prices, but Mom&Pop Shop prices.

I trust this clarifies the matter.

[Cheesesteak]

Seriously, Cheesesteak, do you know anyone who buys their pants online? A screwdriver? A bag of dogfood? Lightbulbs? Blank videotapes? A towel? A case of Pepsi? Windshield wipers? Aspirin? There are hundreds of items people buy every week that they aren't going to buy online (even assuming they have a computer).Why not? Most of that stuff is available online, it's easy to order, and you don't have to feed the Evil Empire.

My last purchase at Amazon was razor blades, toothpaste and condoms. Why Amazon? Low prices and free shipping.

Lands End is all about selling stuff like pants, shoes and coats via catalog or online. You can go to levis.com and have the entire selection of jeans at your fingertips, instead of finding only sizes two inches too short or two inches too big around, or a shade that you don't like.

If I want a car part, I can go to Napa or Advance, pick the correct item for my car and have it shipped right to my home, no deer in the headlights stare at the multitude of wipers at the store. The websites have automated databases to help you select the right item.

Honestly, if you don't like the options at the stores near your home, there are hundreds of companies willing to send you catalogs or provide a website so you don't have to worry about a thing, just pick what you want and go. There is a long history of catalog shopping, especially in the more remote regions of the country. Sears did it for a century.

And, in NYC at least, you CAN buy groceries online. FreshDirect offers a full slate of grocery, fruit/veg, dairy, frozen, meat and deli selections, delivered to your door the next day, frozen stuff is kept frozen, chilled stuff kept chilled in the truck. Instead of dragging the kids out to the store for an hour and a half of hell, you can make all your selections in the comfort of your own home, and they can't whine about that candybar at the checkout.

[danceswithcats]

How does one buy groceries online? How is that even practical? Do you buy milk on line? Gas? Meat?

Don't know if they're in your end of the state, but Genuardi's and Safeway both have online grocery shopping in the Philly metro area and suburbs. You can specify expiration dates on perishables, and make notations such as the degree of ripeness desired on fruits. A friend of mine has started using it, and he says it's the cat's pants.

[Little Nemo]

I said there was no point in continuing this debate and yet I went on anyway. Why don't I listen to myself? Okay guys, I'll give up. WalMart is a boon to the free market. Ronald Reagan won the cold war. Kennedy was killed by a vast conspiracy. The CIA invented AIDS. UFOs built the pyramids. Cigarettes don't cause cancer (but cell phones do). Jesus was the son of God. Santa put those presents under the tree. Homeopathic medicine works.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

...I called around to all the local Wal-Marts...The company thrives on cutting prices wherever possible...Yes, I'm sure all of the *local* stores have the same price. When a Wal*Mart comes into a new area, they don't have to discount as much on the items nobody else in the area carries. Once they kill off competing businesses, they don't need to discount to a predatory level on those products, either.

Third, this type of pricing would be easily transparent. If Wal-Mart is taking a hit on Harry Potter books and jacking up prices on DVDs (whatever), then what you have is what is commonly referred to as a loss leader.You aren't honestly telling me that isn't what they're doing, are you?

The Supreme Court in Brooke vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, found that predatory pricing is generally implausible.Implausible? Didn't work in the semiconductor industry in the 1980's, did you? I saw PLENTY of predatory pricing there, by any definition of the word.

If your extremely local economy can't maintain a small indy bookseller and Wal-Mart, or any small, indy anything and Wal-Mart, then your local extremely local economy is too small.Our local economy is capable of supporting a bookstore and a grocery store and a clothing store and so forth. If Wal*Mart came in, that would make it TWO bookstores and TWO grocery stores and so forth, and no, our economy couldn't support that. Wal*Mart is capable of running a store at a loss for a year with no problem. The independent stores aren't. Hence, Wal*Mart would kill the local stores first, and then the local economy. I'd have to go and get the book to get the names of the towns, but I read last month of an area where Wal*Mart put in two stores within 20 miles of each other. They killed off the competition in both small towns. Then they put in a Wal*Mart Supercenter 20 miles away and shut down both Wal*Marts, leaving the two towns in dire economic straights.

[mazinger_z]

How does one buy groceries online? How is that even practical? Do you buy milk on line? Gas? Meat?

Depending on where you live, Peapod (http://peapod.com/consumerIndex.jhtml) is you friend. Seriously, it covers a lot of territory. I don't think you can by gas, though. My sister uses it (and she calls me lazy), and thinks it's of great value. I like looking at my meat before I buy it (then again, she's more anal about food quality than I am). Others have listed other places. It's a thriving business last time I read about it in D.C.