Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WalMart has done some despicable things, like using local governments to seize private property to build stores on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to pick between local government taking private property for a new minor league sports park* or a new Wal*Mart, I'd have no trouble choosing the big box. I'm certain the community would see much bigger benefits overall.

* My county has one. It's empty. PM me if you have a minor league team in need of a home in SW Florida.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I put a gun to your head and said I could either shoot your family or rape your mother, which would you choose? And why is it relevant?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If walmart treat and pay their employees like crap, why does anyone work there?



[/ QUOTE ]

Because they hate working other jobs with better pay and more benefits. Same reason people worked 12 hours a day in coal mines and died of black lung when they were 50. They were simply tired of the grind that comes with being a brain surgeon.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is your positon that the only reason people work for walmart is because they can't work anywhere else? How many people work at walmart that you know of? Compare that number to people that don't work at walmart, then get back to me.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
People work there mostly because they have no better options in the area, or don't find out about these problems until it is too late.


[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of economics is to try and figure out what is going to increase the wealth that is going to increase worker options. We can do this artificially through min wage laws or unions or we can figure out what creates real wealth.

Every dollar that the government wastes is a dollar that is not going to be in the economy and increase competition and wages. It is completly pointless to talk about poverty and walmart without mentioning the billions your government spends on its military. Something like half a trillion dollars a year is taken out of your economy. Thats crazy! Pile on top of that government waste, ineffecient socialist programs, and good old fashioned corruption, its no wonder why walmart can get away with paying the wages they do.

But to even sit here and talk about walmarts low wages like they get to decide what they pay for labour is just rediculous.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
The initial question was: Are Americans who work at Wal-Mart are more well off than they would be if Wal-Mart did not exist? I don't care whether you consider it "unjust" by comparing it to slavery, or whether you disregard the economic benefit of cheap goods. Yes or no.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would depend. If your sporting good store went out of business because everyone shopped at Wal-Mart, then as a result, you took a job at Wal-Mart that paid half of what you made owning your own store, you would certainly be worse off. Just like that episode of King of the Hill when the Mega-Lo-Mart started selling propane.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The initial question was: Are Americans who work at Wal-Mart are more well off than they would be if Wal-Mart did not exist? I don't care whether you consider it "unjust" by comparing it to slavery, or whether you disregard the economic benefit of cheap goods. Yes or no.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would depend. If your sporting good store went out of business because everyone shopped at Wal-Mart, then as a result, you took a job at Wal-Mart that paid half of what you made owning your own store, you would certainly be worse off. Just like that episode of King of the Hill when the Mega-Lo-Mart started selling propane.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a good or bad thing for people as a whole?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
So is your positon that the only reason people work for walmart is because they can't work anywhere else? How many people work at walmart that you know of? Compare that number to people that don't work at walmart, then get back to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people work at Wal-Mart because they cannot get a better job. Do you think they turned down better jobs to work there? I have a few relatives who work there..and yes it is because they cannot get a better job.

In rseponse to your second question, I think this is better for society as a whole. I am not anti-Wal-mart, and a mom and pop going out of business is not necessarily a bad thing.

[cpk]

From a "corporate citizen" standpoint, Wal-Mart was a much better company when Sam Walton was alive. Even though he was an [censored] personally (and so is most of his family--I've met Sam and Alice and Jim), he generally cared about his employees and the communities he did business in. He lamented the loss of the mom-and-pops, because he used to BE a mom-and-pop business owner (Wal-Mart, after all, started out as one store in Rogers, Arkansas). My mother used to work in his secretarial pool, and he offered all of his employees ownership options when the company was incorporated in 1969. (Unfortunately my mother was a moron and didn't take the options--a mere $1000 investment then would be worth much more than a million today.)

This is a far cry from how Wal-Mart operates now. Employees are numbers to be maximized on a spreadsheet, not human beings. Suppliers are not just expected to provide awesome products for cheap prices, they are often forced into bankruptcy trying to meet Wal-Mart's demand. Vlasic is an example of a company that got hosed by this--even AFTER moving manufacturing to Mexico and vastly reducing product quality, they still couldn't make a profit at Wal-Mart's demanded price.

In the name of its own profits, Wal-Mart is using its market dominance to cannibalize the profits of other companies. Perhaps in the long-run this results in hyper-efficient companies across the economy, but what is happening so far is simply widespread damage. One thing will be clear--anyone working for Wal-Mart's suppliers will certainly be working for lower wages, with reduced benefits, for longer hours, and in more dangerous working conditions. This tends to neutralize any benefit to the cost of living yielded by Wal-Mart's lower prices.

Further, Wal-Mart does do some stuff that they wouldn't get away with if there were not massive barriers to entry in modern retail operations:

* They inhibit effective employee bargaining. Hate unions as an institution all you want, it's supposed to be a libertarian ethic nonetheless that employees should be able to collaborate in bargaining for higher wages and better conditions. However, Wal-Mart does everything it can to inhibit such bargaining, up to and including mass firing.

* They defraud their workers by demanding they work off the clock as a condition of employment.

* Sexual harrassment and gender discrimination is rampant in Wal-Mart.

* In areas with little competition, Wal-Mart often sets prices that were higher than those offered by the competitors they discplaced.

All of this is fair game, of course, if you are a libertarian or ACist--after all, employees could "just get another job." But often, there are few alternatives to Wal-Mart in the areas where it is dominant. And moving costs money and causes other disruptions.

But all that aside, my fear is that Wal-Mart encourages a business climate that is miserable to live and work in for all except the elite. I suppose this is why I resist ACism and even libertarian minarchism--I fear the whole world would be like Wal-Mart if there were not such things as fair-labor practices laws, anti-harrassment laws, unemployment compensation, and so forth--it's my belief that without these things Wal-Mart would behave even worse.

That said, I don't think that anything should be "done" about Wal-Mart, except that to the extent they are violating existing laws, they need to be nailed to the wall. An example must be made.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it would depend. If your sporting good store went out of business because everyone shopped at Wal-Mart, then as a result, you took a job at Wal-Mart that paid half of what you made owning your own store, you would certainly be worse off. Just like that episode of King of the Hill when the Mega-Lo-Mart started selling propane.

[/ QUOTE ]

But everyone else is better off. People don't want expensive propane because it sucks compared to cheap propane. If the overall economic benefit of new jobs, bigger stockholder revenue, and more money in the consumer's pockets (coupled with the extra productivity mom and pop are going to have to find in order to make money) outweighs mom and pop losing their crap business, wouldn't you agree that it's better over all?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
From a "corporate citizen" standpoint, Wal-Mart was a much better company when Sam Walton was alive. Even though he was an [censored] personally (and so is most of his family--I've met Sam and Alice and Jim),

[/ QUOTE ]

cpk-

Even though this is off-topic, can I ask how you met them?

(I find the psychology of mega-uber-rich people interesting because I can't possibly imagine how anyone could reach those levels of wealth without being a complete [censored])

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
(I find the psychology of mega-uber-rich people interesting because I can't possibly imagine how anyone could reach those levels of wealth without being a complete [censored])

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed that govt. employees make less than the private sector? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]