Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are running out of money

[sheclown]

When gas hits $6 a gallon, are people more likely to:

(a) Drive to multiple M&P shops to buy one item at each, or

(b) Drive to Wal-Mart where they can do all their weekly shopping in one location?

It isn't just the M&Ps.  It is the local farmer who can drop off his stuff at the local M&Ps b/c now it costs so much to ship those gassed veggies across the country to the mega grocery stores.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sam Walton probably never ever envisioned a corporation that would put so many Mom and Pops , Grocers , etc out of business.  I really do not believe he would have wanted it this way.

Or, he would look at the fact that his business was able to dramatically increase the quality of life for tens of millions of people by allowing their dollar to stretch much further, free up income for extra luxuries people otherwise couldn't have afforded, provide $4 prescription drugs to families who otherwise couldn't afford medication, and offer stable employment for over one million workers (economics 101: stable employers can find workers for a lower salary than unstable employers due to the benefit of job security). Considering this, Sam Walton might just be proud of what his company has become, rather than boo-hooing because he didn't stop the free market from doing its job and offer more charity to the Mom and Pops. Sucks for the small local grocers, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If a big corporation can offer an entire community groceries for 25% cheaper, you don't sacrifice that for the romantic notion that a local grocer should be the one peddling more expensive goods instead. Let the local grocer find a way to differentiate and market his own product. If he succeeds, fantastic. If he fails, that's how the market works. It's not like Walmart won't one day suffer the same fate when someone comes along with an idea about how to do things even better.

Intentionally underpaying your workers to such an extent that a full 40% of your workforce is on some form of medicaid/medicare and/or literally on welfare is hardly some genius business idea, it is just outright theft from the taxpayers, who are the actual supporters of this business. Without taxpayers subsidizing half their workforce through government assistance programs, WalMart either wouldn't exist, or would have the same price structure as local competitors who either choose not to do business unethically, or else simply lack the lobbying clout to get away with it. And neither is importing cheap-assed Chinese products any genius business idea. WalMart is "revolutionary" in the same sense that any parasite is, for having figured out how to reap the benefit of someone else's burden.

[Overstreet]

Walmart closing down mom and pop grocers.........

In my neighborhoods where I shopped the closed down grocery stores were Albertsons, Piggly Wiggley, Sav-A Lot, and A&P. None of them were mom and pop.  

But whoa, Tillman's is still open, Mexico Beach grocer is still open, the Port ST Joe Piggly Wiggly is still open. The butcher up at Hendirx and San Jose would still be open but his wife had a stroke and he retired again to take care of her.  I think you can't generalize.

Has WalMart closed the mom and pop drug stores in my neighborhoods? Probably not. Atkins is gone and the drug store where the limo service is now is gone. But I got the feeling that the drug stores in WinnDixie, Publix, CVS and Walgreen did that deed.

Has WalMart  closed the Dollar Stores in my neighborhood? No, but it would be OK by me. Now Port St Joe, small town, still has two dollar stores. Same junk just there. They are the main source of entertainment on Friday night. But no substitute for the run to WalMart, and Publix on Sunday from that small town.

WalMart and goods from China.................uh....don't forget the ones from Hati, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. with American company names on the goods.  I didn't buy my last gun from WalMart but I did buy the american made ammo from there. No they haven't closed the M&P gun shops either.

[KenFSU]

Have you read anything, and I mean anything at all, on this topic before spouting off silly anecdotes?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=484903

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0034653053327568?journalCode=rest

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00235.x/full

http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00195.x/full

That's just a basic introduction to this topic, but I highly suggest you read the above.

And FWIW, I prefer prescriptions at Publix, a Florida homegrown business, many of which are actually *free*...

No reason to be condescending. I wasn't trying to flame you, but rather simply asking where a) the data was to back up the claim that Walmart destroys many local economies, and b) asking what the ratio of these supposedly destroyed local economies were in proportion to the overall population of communities with a Walmart presence. I appreciate the links, and will definitely give them a read. To answer your question, yes, I have in fact read a lot of the subject. I tend to do that before forming an opinion. Said opinion is based cumulatively off 15+ year daily readings of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal (or Washington Post, I've gone back and forth over the years), and the (I know, I know) USA Today. It's also been shaped by the Economist, New Yorker, numerous business and economics books, and a college education in business. We could rapidly fire 50 hyperlinks back and forth with conflicting conclusions like two kids playing Pokemon, but it's a Friday evening, so I'll just say that I've read numerous studies showing, generally over a 20 year period, a pretty significant boost to local economies, including job growth as well as increase in both mean and median income, in areas with a new Walmart presence relative areas with similar demos and characteristics without a Walmart. Anyone interested can simply Google something to the effect of "Walmarts effect on local economies." I'm sure they'll find half the articles to be pro and the other half to be con.

My main point was simply that Walmart isn't intrinsically evil.

People's overall problems with Walmart, more often than not, tend to be more problems with the system itself.

For better or for worse, a corporation's sole responsibility is to the shareholders. They are going to do whatever it takes, whether that be paying low salaries or exploiting the system on benefits, to increase the bottom line.

If they are exploiting the system, which we all know they are, I have to put most of that blame on those whose job it is to ensure that large corporations like Walmart play by the rules. It's the same with Wall Street. I don't as much blame the selfish crooks as I do those who allow them to get away with it.

If a company can legally push tux burden for their employees medical care onto the taxpayers, that's not a problem with the player, it's a problem with the game.

[dougskiles]

KenFSU, that was very well stated, and I think most probably agree with you.  We need to take a hard look at the rules of the game.  And more precisely at how easily those rules can be changed to favor the party in power at the time.  We have seen too many examples at how one person, elected by less than 50% of the state, can completely undo years of bipartisan efforts.

[ChriswUfGator]

Have you read anything, and I mean anything at all, on this topic before spouting off silly anecdotes?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=484903

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0034653053327568?journalCode=rest

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00235.x/full

http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00195.x/full

That's just a basic introduction to this topic, but I highly suggest you read the above.

And FWIW, I prefer prescriptions at Publix, a Florida homegrown business, many of which are actually *free*...

No reason to be condescending. I wasn't trying to flame you, but rather simply asking where a) the data was to back up the claim that Walmart destroys many local economies, and b) asking what the ratio of these supposedly destroyed local economies were in proportion to the overall population of communities with a Walmart presence. I appreciate the links, and will definitely give them a read. To answer your question, yes, I have in fact read a lot of the subject. I tend to do that before forming an opinion. Said opinion is based cumulatively off 15+ year daily readings of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal (or Washington Post, I've gone back and forth over the years), and the (I know, I know) USA Today. It's also been shaped by the Economist, New Yorker, numerous business and economics books, and a college education in business. We could rapidly fire 50 hyperlinks back and forth with conflicting conclusions like two kids playing Pokemon, but it's a Friday evening, so I'll just say that I've read numerous studies showing, generally over a 20 year period, a pretty significant boost to local economies, including job growth as well as increase in both mean and median income, in areas with a new Walmart presence relative areas with similar demos and characteristics without a Walmart. Anyone interested can simply Google something to the effect of "Walmarts effect on local economies." I'm sure they'll find half the articles to be pro and the other half to be con.

My main point was simply that Walmart isn't intrinsically evil.

People's overall problems with Walmart, more often than not, tend to be more problems with the system itself.

For better or for worse, a corporation's sole responsibility is to the shareholders. They are going to do whatever it takes, whether that be paying low salaries or exploiting the system on benefits, to increase the bottom line.

If they are exploiting the system, which we all know they are, I have to put most of that blame on those whose job it is to ensure that large corporations like Walmart play by the rules. It's the same with Wall Street. I don't as much blame the selfish crooks as I do those who allow them to get away with it.

If a company can legally push tux burden for their employees medical care onto the taxpayers, that's not a problem with the player, it's a problem with the game.

1: That's a different tune than you were singing in your post I responded to.

2: Half the articles won't be "pro and the other half con." I was referring to the hard data. Facts like 40% of a corporation's workforce needing taxpayer assistance to survive, and net job and economic losses when WalMart enters a formerly healthy local ecnonomy, together with their defective product return rates astronomically exceeding other retailers as a % of sales volume, it's hard to figure out the "pro" in all that. And reading peer reviewed data is hardly the same thing as reading the NYT, which is why I provided the links above.

3: The rules of the game are set by a deep-pocketed player's lobbying budget. You know this as well as I do. When a bunch of state AGs got together and sued WalMart for its fair contribution to state poverty-assistance programs, WalMart got the legislatures in each to exempt them. So no, you cannot shift blame onto a broken system when WalMart's lobbyists originally broke this aspect of it.

[FayeforCure]

It really blows me away... the animosity towards walmart.  This is a genuine homegrown American business success story.  Employs thousands of people, sells the folks what they want at a price they can afford.  Walmart is a lesson in innovation, marketing, buying and selling... and apparently has become sooooo freeking good at it... it is now the target of hate that some folks appear to actually want it to FAIL!  You guys are amazing!

Next thing ya know you will be hoping for Apple to fail... how about Microsoft?  Any other American successes you object to?

 Fire away...

Actually I hate Target just as much: they are the largest contributor to Michelle Bachman, that nutty congresswoman who puts other beautiful brunette's to shame.

As far as Walmart is concerned, they are the largest welfare queen in the US: almost their entire work force (probably the largest in the US) is being subsidized by the American tax-payer as almost all their employees earn so little, they are pretty much all on food stamps.

[FayeforCure]

If he succeeds, fantastic. If he fails, that's how the market works.

Unless you're a Wall Street bankster.  In that case, if you succeed, fantastic; if you fail, you get the taxpayer to bail you out.

Yup, we have that nasty habit of privatizing the profits but socializing the losses.............so much for capitalism in America.

[FayeforCure]

It really blows me away... the animosity towards walmart.  This is a genuine homegrown American business success story.  Employs thousands of people, sells the folks what they want at a price they can afford.  Walmart is a lesson in innovation, marketing, buying and selling... and apparently has become sooooo freeking good at it... it is now the target of hate that some folks appear to actually want it to FAIL!  You guys are amazing!

Next thing ya know you will be hoping for Apple to fail... how about Microsoft?  Any other American successes you object to?

  Fire away...

Actually it epitomizes what's wrong with American business today. WalMart is a parasitic entity that buys largely from China and has wrecked the local economies in many communities where it operates. Add to that the fact that WalMart wouldn't exist if it hadn't figured out how to undercompensate its workforce to such an extent that the taxpayers are actually subsidizing this company's operations via medicaid/medicare and state welfare and charitable assistance programs, since they provide little or no health coverage, and don't pay their employees a livable wage.

^ +1000

[finehoe]

I have to put most of that blame on those whose job it is to ensure that large corporations like Walmart play by the rules. It's the same with Wall Street. I don't as much blame the selfish crooks as I do those who allow them to get away with it.

As long as one of the major parties believes regulation is a bad thing and does everything in its power to gut said regulations, this will continue.

[FayeforCure]

I have to put most of that blame on those whose job it is to ensure that large corporations like Walmart play by the rules. It's the same with Wall Street. I don't as much blame the selfish crooks as I do those who allow them to get away with it.

As long as one of the major parties believes regulation is a bad thing and does everything in its power to gut said regulations, this will continue.

I completely agree.

THAT is the difference between the European model of Capitalism and the American model of Capitalism.

In America greed always wins out, and consumer protections are nil.

The REAL culprit is the Republican mantra that has branded all regulations as red tape, rather than the needed protections they serve in our society.

And the Democratic enablers over the past three decades, who spinelessly let Republicans bulldozer them with their bumper sticker rhetoric are also disappointing.

[BridgeTroll]

Do you hate Apple too??  No one is calling for Apple to fail??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-workers-treated-inhumanely

Apple's Chinese workers treated 'inhumanely, like machines'Investigation finds evidence of draconian rules and excessive overtime to meet western demand for iPhones and iPads

Gethin Chamberlain guardian.co.uk, Saturday 30 April 2011 21.30 BST 

An investigation into the conditions of Chinese workers has revealed the shocking human cost of producing the must-have Apple iPhones and iPads that are now ubiquitous in the west.

The research, carried out by two NGOs, has revealed disturbing allegations of excessive working hours and draconian workplace rules at two major plants in southern China. It has also uncovered an "anti-suicide" pledge that workers at the two plants have been urged to sign, after a series of employee deaths last year.

The investigation gives a detailed picture of life for the 500,000 workers at the Shenzhen and Chengdu factories owned by Foxconn, which produces millions of Apple products each year. The report accuses Foxconn of treating workers "inhumanely, like machines".

Among the allegations made by workers interviewed by the NGOs â€" the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (Sacom) â€" are claims that:

■ Excessive overtime is routine, despite a legal limit of 36 hours a month. One payslip, seen by the Observer, indicated that the worker had performed 98 hours of overtime in a month.

■ Workers attempting to meet the huge demand for the first iPad were sometimes pressured to take only one day off in 13.

■ In some factories badly performing workers are required to be publicly humiliated in front of colleagues.

■ Crowded workers' dormitories can sleep up to 24 and are subject to strict rules. One worker told the NGO investigators that he was forced to sign a "confession letter" after illicitly using a hairdryer. In the letter he wrote: "It is my fault. I will never blow my hair inside my room. I have done something wrong. I will never do it again."

■ In the wake of a spate of suicides at Foxconn factories last summer, workers were asked to sign a statement promising not to kill themselves and pledging to "treasure their lives".

Foxconn produced its first iPad at Chengdu last November and expects to produce 100m a year by 2013. Last year Apple sold more than 15m iPads worldwide and has already sold close to five million this year.

When the allegations were put to Foxconn by the Observer, manager Louis Woo confirmed that workers sometimes worked more than the statutory overtime limit to meet demand from western consumers, but claimed that all the extra hours were voluntary. Workers claim that, if they turn down excessive demands for overtime, they will be forced to rely on their basic wage: workers in Chengdu are paid only 1,350 yuan (£125) a month for a basic 48-hour week, equivalent to about 65p an hour.

Asked about the suicides that have led to anti-suicide netting being fitted beneath the windows of workers' dormitories, Woo said: "Suicides were not connected to bad working conditions. There was a copy effect. If one commits suicide, then others will follow."

In a statement, Apple said: "Apple is committed to ensuring the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base. Apple requires suppliers to commit to our comprehensive supplier code of conduct as a condition of their contracts with us. We drive compliance with the code through a rigorous monitoring programme, including factory audits, corrective action plans and verification measures."