Aren’t the laws of supply and demand applicable here? Competition? Those businesses that learn to compete, do. Those that don’t, they go out of business. Seems like we are hating Walmart because they are too good at their game.
Is it really that ‘Walmart forced these jobs overseas’, or could it be a little more complicated? Could Walmart be a convenient scapegoat? Could this be part of a larger business cycle that we can’t really see that easily?
As the story says, it wasn’t Walmart that killed Vlasic. And Levi Strauss was a dying a dying dinosaur due to it’s own managerial refusal to get with the times. Do these businesses deserve to survive? Or do they deserve to go belly up?
I understand the desire to keep jobs here. But I do not understand the idea of supporting an inefficient company soley to accomplish saving a few jobs. Especially when we are likely to being saving inefficient management types rather than the rank and file. Really, if we buy from inefficient companies at higher prices, does that somehow preclude them from shipping jobs overseas anyways?
I really don’t know.
spooje, lots of questions, few answers…
If you agree that we do not owe jobs to people whose careers have become obsolete, then, as it happens, I do have some ideas about what resources we might make available to people seeking to change careers in mid-life.
A question regarding this…is it really in our best interest that we allow all these jobs to become obsolete?
Don’t we want to have a country whose inhabitants perform a wide variety of tasks…not just clerking it at the local Wal-mart? Don’t we want to make sure that our country has a strong industrial base, with jobs up and down the scale, from menial labor, to managerial positions, in a large pool of diverse services and products?
Don’t you want a car that gets seventy miles to the gallon and can accelerate from 0 to 60 inside 3 seconds?
Sure. At least, I do. But that’s only part of the question. We want it, ASSUMING the cost is not prohibitive. In the case of my car, it is prohibitive - at least at present.
So don’t merely ask, “Don’t we want a country that…?” That’s simplistic and incomplete. Ask instead, “Do we want to spend the money that realizing that vision will cost?”
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but people don’t seem to be thinking about quality.
For instance, the clothing. If the suppliers are sliced down to the very edge of THEM being able to survive, the product will and HAS already suffered. Stitching that comes out, cheaper, thinner material, sizing that’s not consistant, (why is it that a black pair of jeans size 10 is smaller than a blue pair of jeans size 10? when they are the exact same brand and style?), socks are already worn through after one wearing and washing, and so on and so forth.
“Saving money” in this way can cost you money. I avoid Wal-mart as much as possible, I haven’t been in there for maybe a year or two. Maybe the prices are a little less, but the cost to all of us, of those low prices, is too much IMHO.
Errg, forgot something. The article completely forgot to mention their somewhat shady treatment of their employees, and the terrible pay. I’m sure that’s got to add to their bottom line.
This is a rather illogical analogy. It’s not as if the “other” businesses offering goods and services are offering goods and services that are not modern, or no longer useful in today’s age.
In fact as another poster mentioned, in many cases the smaller operations are offering BETTER quality and more unique and useful items. Then, at the arrival of a new walmart, the community turns into a herd of sheep all following the bright lights and seductive promise of lower prices. The offerings at walmart aren’t better, more useful or more modern, just cheaper. Period.
Our argument is that if we’re losing jobs, and putting long-standing operations out of business JUST FOR a slightly lower price, is that worth it?
Again, walmart is not offering star quality goods or services, therefore your sportstar analogy is again somewhat illogical. They are offering nothing unique, nothing better, only cheaper. Frequently they are offering as part and parcel OF that cheapness, well CHEAPness, since many of their goods are low-quality.
It all trickles down. It’s not just the other businesses that provide services similar to walmart’s. If they get put out of business, then their employees are out of work, their employees can then no longer afford to patronize other types of businesses and so forth.
And I say this as one for whom companies like Walmart are clients, they pay ME (well, my company) to provide a service to them, one which no “walmart” type megagiant will take over. It’s not that sort of business.
So, I’m not personally affected by the perils of retail. But I can still see how the walmart saga isn’t a good thing overall, and why.
Great, so if we patronize a business where goods have been manufactured in a country with no environmental protection in place, not only are we “sending jobs overseas” we’re contributing to all sorts of bad environmental practices.
OK. But the basis of my argument remains sound. I am happy to substitute for my buggy-whip manufacturers tailors who hand-stitch clothes, and have them lose jobs to people sewing by machine. The machine sempstors can turn out clothes much cheaper, because they spend much less time on each item. Same argument as I made before: I am unwilling to subsidize the hand-made clothiers.
Yes. Of course, you may choose to spend your money differently; that’s fine. It is, after all, your money. But don’t be shocked when I, and many others intent on preserving our families’ resources, choose to spend as little as possible while still getting the requisite quality.
You can certainly make the argument that it’s short-sighted to buy a pair of jeans that will rip after six months for $20, when you could spend $30 and have better jeans that will stay intact for two years of use. And if that were true, I’d listen. It hasn’t been my experience. For my kid’s clothes, so far he grows out of them before wearing them out, for example. Nor have I noticed other problems in quality. However, I admit I don’t buy my suits at Walmart.
Again, walmart is NOT providing anything more modern than the being-put-out-of-business smaller businesses. Your analogies of “modern product compared to out of date product” are not accurate ones.
The ONLY thing walmart is providing that other stores don’t, is a much lower price. And one of the ways they do that is by offering a less quality item. No one is talking about sewing something by hand. Though I certainly wouldn’t buy a formal at walmart.
My “unique items” comment wasn’t about clothing, it was based on another posters comments regarding toy stores with more unique items and books, that couldn’t be found at stores like walmart.
I’ve not gone to “seamstress” shops to buy my kid’s clothing either. I do, however, sew. I also spent a time too broke to even buy new clothing at walmart, cheap as it is, so I made do with garage sales, and thrift stores (you’d be surprised how often you can find clothing with the tags still on). I also had many hand me downs for my son from his older cousin.
As for “hard wear” items like jeans, I found that Fred Meyer and Sears sell kid’s clothing for only slightly above that of Walmart. Unless one is buying clothing every week, a buck or two more isn’t going to break the bank for better quality.
The few times I have shopped at walmart, I’ve taken back items that weren’t made well.
slight hijack, not totally OT.
One other reason I refuse to patronize walmart is because of their treatment of employees.
You’re focusing myopically on the out-of-date issue. That’s not the gravamen of my argument. In fact, I don’t care if clothing is machine sewn in one case, and conjured out of the ether via a Wiccan spell in the other. In that case, I would eschew the machine-sewn in favor of the Wiccan-created, assuming that the Wiccan wholesaler was able to provide the items for less money, based on the substantial time savings spent in the clothing’s creation.
In other words, the only relevance the “modern vs. outdated” business has is that one is quicker and thus less expensive. I would happily buy hand-sewn clothes for a lesser price than machine-sewn; the nature of the business is, however, that hand-sewn clothes are more expensive.
Now you’re on to something. As I suggested above, I would certainly weigh the best value argument – that is, paying more for a pair of trousers that was of higher quality than what Walmart offered. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been my experience that Walmart offers shoddy merchandise. In fact, in the pickle discussion which appears in the article cited in the OP, it’s beyond cavil that quality is not an issue: Vlasic pickles were being offered by Walmart in larger size for the same price as smaller sized Vlasic jars were sold in other stores. In that case, it’s clearly weighing Vlasic against Vlasic, and there is no quality concern troubling us.
If you have some evidence concerning shoddy Walmart merchandise that may be avoided by shopping elsewhere, I’m all ears. But I deny that you can offer, as a general proposition, that Walmart offers cheaper and shoddier merchandise than its competitors. So far, the only evidence points to Walmart offering identical merchandise to its competitors at lower prices than they.
I am not going to refuse to patronize Walmart based on their treatment of their employees, either. If a perosn feels that Walmart corporate policy is too demeaning, they are certainly free to quit. If it developed that Walmart was acting illegally, as a matter of corporate policy, in inflicting some sort of abuse upon their employees, then I certainly might change my mind. If it developed that Walmart supported political causes with which I took issue, I might choose to vote with my dollars. But so far as I’m aware, they do not.
As I mentioned several times above, price is not the sole concern I have. I am sensitive to the quality of what I’m buying, and when Walmart cannot meet that quality for the price, I don’t buy there. As it happens, I have my suits custom-made, and I get a three-piece suit with two pairs of trousers for $200 - $100 for the material (ten yards of excellent woolen suiting fabric at fabric.com) and 4,000 DR pesos (less than $100 at the current exchange rate) for a suit made out of that fabric by a tailor in the Dominican Republic. Admittedly, it also “costs” me a plane ticket there, but that’s a sunk cost, since we go anyway for the holidays.
I cannot get an off-the-rack suit for $200 from Walmart, much less a custom-fit one, much less a three-piece with an extra pair of trousers.
So price IS a major concern, and my suit-shopping relfects that.
They are offereing much the same goods that other stores are offering. Only cheaper.
Yes, I shop at Walmart. I shop at other stores, too. But if I know I can the same item cheaper somewhere, then that’s the place that gets my business.
The other day, I was at Walmart to by my one true love some of the soap she likes. Walmart had only 1 bottle, and it was already opened. So I went down the street to the Ralph’s grocery store. Much to my dismay, they wanted $10 for what Walmart only wanted $6.
And Ralph’s is not a mom and pop operation. It’s a freakin mega-grocery. And they wanted better than %50 more for the same item. Will THEY get my money next time?
Only if Walmart is out…
They are cheap, conveniently located, and offer a large selection. Damn their evil hides!!!
BTW, I have purchased the cheap jeans at Walmart AND at Target…they last for years, not months. I will get tired of wearing them before they give out.
A business must produce a product and find a market for that product. If someone else produces something of similar quality for less, then they, at least, deserve a look. I am paying for a product. Not for a way of life for those who produce it. If these people want to stay in business, they had better adapt and figure out a way to entice to their product.
That burden is on them. Blaming Walmart ain’t gonna do it.
Perhaps you’ll understand the argument better when your job is the one outsourced, or when your employer adapts by putting you on the street.
Mall-Wart is another example of bigger not necessarily being better.
I enjoy value just as much as the next guy, but I’m also aware that with one trifling exception, the universe is composed of others, and their jobs, families, and future depend on how we all collectively spend our money.
When retailers grow to the size of Mall-Wart, they can demand price concessions from retailers. If you remember trickle down economics theory, the people at the bottom are the ones being pissed on.
So yes, I’ll spend a little more to keep another operation in business, keep a factory open, help a thousand people I don’t know and never will know in their jobs. Why? Because they’re ordinary people, just like you and me, and somebody has to give a damn.