| continuing walmart discussion here from this topic: http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=60696&show=40 kei-clone said: Solanio said: To address your point on Wal-mart, let me just say this. Every single person working at Wal-mart does so because it makes them better off than working any other job they are able to get or staying home all day. Otherwise they'd be working that better job or staying home. Wal-mart does not need to coerce people to work there. Hundreds of thousands of people do so voluntarily. I have no idea how this can possibly be construed as bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI that's how kei-clone said: Sohei said: kei-clone said: Sohei said: outsourcing = efficiency. remember that for all the americans losing their jobs, at least 3 chinese will be able to work. true, but from an american's point of view it would still be bad. depends. If they wanted to give every american a job, prices for everything would sky-rocket due to high labor costs. and then you're not even talking about government subsidies that sustain those workers, money that could be spent much more wisely. sadly enough, alot of people don't necessarily understand that situation. I think whether they do or not those whose jobs are in jeopardy must still look after their own interests. the fact is that when a WalMart opens up in many communities a LOT of jobs in the area are lost, many which may have been there for a long time. those jobs are replaced with jobs at walmart. note that i'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing in the long run, but the video still speaks the truth that those lower prices come at a cost. New York City I know has banned Walmart from opening a store anywhere in the city, and that keeps a lot of local businesses running. Of course, you'd note that everything in NYC is crazy expensive, but it then also gets to retain its "culture" in a way, somewhat delaying the uniformity that is already occuring with the prevalence of Starbucks and Chase bank chains popping up on every corner. But I digress... The original question asked how Walmart can be viewed as a bad thing, and I was intending to answer that. but really it depends on what you're looking for. |
kei-cloneJan 5, 2009 4:53 PM
| San Francisco has a similar ban on Walmart, and things aren't radically expensive. As bad as Walmart is, most people are still gonna buy from them because its cheaper. |
 |
| I buy from them too but I prefer costco or sam's club |
| no idea what happened in other topik i found out recently theres a walmart close by me, just opened. need to go there, economy is crazy with crazy price changes. least theres one place thats not going under that has low prices. im all for the new walmart in the area since local other places, ie asian supermercado gonna have that shit walmart doesnt and other places got shit too. blah blah blah other side, i need to get my costco membership renewed. e. not kewl at saying costco 45 secs b4 me bro |
 |
kei-clone said: The original question asked how Walmart can be viewed as a bad thing, and I was intending to answer that. but really it depends on what you're looking for. but it wouldn't do the question justice to discuss only the cons ^_^ Definately, culture is a factor to be considered, especially when trying to distance yourself from the uniformity that is already quite prevalent. At a certain point though, things need to renew themselves. The longer you wait, the harder it will be for the economy to adapt to the new system. The USA cannot ignore globalization, especially not while facing the consequences of the credit crunch. Third world labor will only get cheaper as the economy slows. I understand the importance of keeping a stable economy by ensuring a large amount of jobs. But these jobs need not be dependent on subsidies by the government, or tarriffs to keep foreign companies out. Instead of keeping unhealthy companies alive, governments should seek out new job opportunities and invest in that. It might be easy to say that, but of course in reality it would be much harder to re-allocate jobs. Now for the economic sectors affected by Wal-Mart, i doubt this to be a large problem, because these people will usually have skills which they can take over to other jobs. For the automaking industry this is obviously a much larger problem. in the end though, it comes to weighing out the benefits and costs of the decisions. Would you rather have uniformity and a healthy economy? go to Walmart. Support diversity while being aware of the resulatant inefficient resource allocation? go to your local coffeehouse as much as possible : ) |
Netforce said: that has low prices THIS IS A LIE I used to work at a wal-mart, long time ago and far away. And I worked with some other smart people. We decided to play a game where we tracked the prices of certain items, compared them to other stores, and watched what wal-mart would charge for these items. Here is what we found: -when other stores had an item on sale, Wal-mart would raise the price (don't forget, they price-match sale items) -when wal-mart moves items into a central location or an aisle, they raise the price. -during the "sale" time of certain items, wal-mart would actually charge more than what you could get the item for at non-sale times at other stores. So the whole myth that wal-mart has cheaper prices is exactly that, a myth. Oh yeah, they are banned from areas of Portland too, thank god. |
| Fools. the closest wall-mart to me is 500 km away. i have to do with Carrefour. |
| There are no wal-marts in the more dense down-town areas of (greater) Vancouver, BC. There is quite simply not a market. It would cost Wal-Mart too much money to open up a store there, when most people would rather not shop at Wal-Mart. It has a bad stigma here. There are some Wal-Marts on the edges, looking at a map. Areas with farms and cheap housing/social issues. Also Kei, I laughed so hard at your video link. It's so true. |
| There's a Super-Duper Wallmart a couple miles away from me, and it's just awful.... |
|
| Honestly I feel uncomfortable in a wal-mart. My grandma lives up north, which in Canada that equals "the south," very loosely. They have a mega big wal-mart (which my grandma thinks is the best thing that hit their town), and I just hate it. If she drags me in there I feel uncomfortable, because there are so many fat people, ugly clothes which she tells me I should get, and this like really big PUSHING force to "BUY THIS CRAP YOU DON'T WANT AT A LOW LOW LOW PRICE!!!" I also hate to let her down so she always tries to buy me things from wal-mart I don't want no matter what store it came from. She has an addiction to "bargain" shopping, so she ends up spending way more than I would on the few things I buy for myself (and enjoy for a long time). It's really sad. Really, if you bought something better quality it would last longer and be worth it. :( |
| I love how every five feet, there's a huge TV advertising things in the store, even in the checkout line! I swear, it reminds me of Buy and Large from Wall-E... |
|
kei-clone said: I buy from them too but I prefer costco or sam's club Costco just wins, really. In fact we live in the US but we actually live pretty far from a Walmart and rarely go there. There's a Costco 20 minutes from my house and I regularly go there, its amazing. I personally have no beef with Walmart myself, seeing as no one I know has been affected by it. But I see the impact it's been having on the world, and I'm not sure I approve of that. |
     |
| I buy 60% of my clothes from Walmart, along with my magazines and make up. |
| sad |
| My problem with Walmart is not so much the concept of it -- it really is a jewel of capitalist theory, retailing with almost every bit of efficiency milked out of it -- but rather the effect of lowering certain items to the point where they are not considered "luxury" items but rather slightly within the range of affordability. Now I know this sounds crazy on the surface, the idea that making something unaffordable affordable is a bad thing, but I sort of think it is. Most people live on a core set of items: Food, clothing, lifestyle maintenance, entertainment items, etc. The ideal would be to spend a certain percentage of your income to attain these items, and if it went beyond that certain percentage -- you either gave up on it and saved your money, or saved your money to buy at some later point. Walmart's retail distribution model has made that core set of items within "reach" much larger, and the marketing has made it larger still perceptually ("I didn't know I needed this crap until I saw the ad!") Combined with easy credit, this has been one factor in irresponsible spending and declining (if not negative) personal savings, which I see as one of the prime financial culprits affecting more than half of the populace. Anybody notice a trend in this chart?: Flat-panel TVs from China are one of my favorite Walmart targets. Seems like everybody wants to get a good deal on them there. If the least 42" model was $1500US at Walmart, it would sell, but there would be a large group of people with $300 who would throw up their hands and say "That's too much!". Some would spend it on some other crap like iPods, but at least some would go into savings, because these people were specifically looking for a new flat-panel TV. But it's not $1500 -- it's $500, and that draws a lot of people into spending the $300 they have and then adding $200 to the balance of their 29% APR credit card, and happily hauling their new bottom-of-the-line LCD set home, when the CRT they have sitting there already has a better picture than their new one. "But I got a good deal." It does seem to be illogical that lower prices and more efficiency could be a bad thing -- and if you look at the "big capitalist economic picture" with transfer and creation of wealth it is working as it's supposed to -- but the problem is people are valuing the new LCD-TV (suddenly within their price range) over their long-term financial health. This isn't Walmart's fault, but rather the consumers'. And if Walmart didn't do it, retail would have evolved that some other retailer would take a similar role anyway. It's symptomatic of our entire modern retail structure. In this way, I think we're a nation being driven into personal bankruptcy by the lure of good deals. That being said, I go to Walmart around once a month. But if any purchase there would make me unable to pay off my CC balance in full at the end of the month, I don't buy it, period. |
  |
ScrumYummy said: o snaps |
|
| I generally put Wal-Mart in the same category as "useless", "crappy", "stupid". It is not the only store of its kind, of course. In Canada, there is Canadian Tire that sells similar stuff. I don't think anybody has mentioned this, but in Wal-Mart it is very difficult for the employees to form a syndicate. Whenever there is an effort to form a syndicate the store usually shuts down. This has happened in Quebec, I forgot where and when exactly, but it doesn't matter. Iri, the problem you speak of is hardly due to Wal-Mart. It is a common capitalist way of thinking, of spending, buying things you don't really need. People in North America tend to get credits in order to buy stuff rather than save up their money. And this mentality is very good for the economy. Though your idea is quite interesting, I wouldn't so easily pin the reason for people having no money on the fact that Wal-Mart sells cheap and crappy TVs; it is simply a lack of control and good financial planning. It should be common sense that you should never spend all the money you get from each pay check, but very few people actually follow this simple rule. |
| A past can last a lifetime. How to Read Manga! | AnimeBytes | iMangaScans |
georgi said: Iri, the problem you speak of is hardly due to Wal-Mart. It is a common capitalist way of thinking, of spending, buying things you don't really need. People in North America tend to get credits in order to buy stuff rather than save up their money. And this mentality is very good for the economy. Though your idea is quite interesting, I wouldn't so easily pin the reason for people having no money on the fact that Wal-Mart sells cheap and crappy TVs; it is simply a lack of control and good financial planning. It should be common sense that you should never spend all the money you get from each pay check, but very few people actually follow this simple rule. I totally agree, and said as much in my response that it was the consumers' ultimate fault rather than Walmart's itself. However, when you have an efficient retail structure (and I'm not just talking about Walmart here) that places 1000 items within striking distance of your price range (and by "striking distance" I mean cash on hand plus available credit) rather than just 500 or 250, by consequence it's going to worsen the already existing mentality. I'll reiterate that this is a result of retail evolution rather than anything peculiar to Walmart, Target, Costco, etc. |
|
Iri said: Just like my poor grandma :< Buy's anything if it's a deal and is broke because of it. ...consumers' ultimate fault... This is why I took a bit of extra money I had and locked it away to gain some compound interest for me to be retrieved when I get through my undergrad. Extra money sitting doing nothing has always made me nervous. I didn't wish to spend it, because I knew I would need it at some point (school is costly), but I did not wish to spend it on frivolity. I personally felt almost too secure with a bit of back-up money easily grabbed. Of course now that I've bought my text books for the term I feel rather poor! Ah, it feels nice, because it's so motivating and makes me conscious of my budget (but I don't worry too hard). On another note, I do not have any sort of credit card, as the idea of buying things on credit does not particularly appeal to me. However, having no credit rating later on in life may bite me in the ass. Also, online purchases, which seem to be harder and harder to avoid are mostly impossible for me. It's like the world wants me to buy on credit! :( |
| I don't really deal with Walmart because I don't have to. Something about those stores call out to people to buy a bunch of useless crap they don't need (perhaps the whole "deal" thing). No thanks. If you're responsible with your money, credit cards are not a bad thing. It does allow you to purchase things online and also has better fraud protection. That comes in handy even in person, like at gas stations or other high risk areas. I've had a gas station worker BUY porn on the internet using my card (I was mostly pissed at the buying part.. like you can't find something for free?!) Charges like that are just easier to protest on a credit card versus check card typically. It's also nice for making the occasional large purchase. Just buy what you have money for and pay it off at the end of the month. That's too much to ask for some people, but not all. Credit history also is a plus when buying a house or car, especially these days when banks are acting somewhat more responsibly and not throwing money at anything that shows signs of life. |
| Copied and pasted; So let me get this straight....millions of people saving money, and thousands of people in poor urban areas being employed thanks to Walmart is bad....because a few thousand other people will be unemployed? Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we have the government subsidize 100 people for making paper airplanes all day, paying them 60k/year? Then, when someone mentions that this is a waste of 6 million dollars a year in taxpayer money, you can tell them the same thing, "Oh....but what about the 100 people who will be employed?? Stop it with your evil corporation!!!" Also, anyone who wants to learn more about the supposedly evil Walmart, do yourself a great big favor and watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8 |
selective_yellow said: On another note, I do not have any sort of credit card, as the idea of buying things on credit does not particularly appeal to me. However, having no credit rating later on in life may bite me in the ass. Also, online purchases, which seem to be harder and harder to avoid are mostly impossible for me. It's like the world wants me to buy on credit! :( This is offtopic, but I'd recommend all younger people get a credit card (specifically one with NO annual fee) right away, even if you stuff it in a drawer and never use it. The reason being is that 15% or so of your credit rating score comes from the average age of your accounts (at least from the US companies.) If you spend no more than you normally would and pay off your balance monthly, credit cards are a complete convenience -- you're using the companies' money and transactional power for free (not the type of customers the card companies want) in addition to the protection that shinkeikaku mentioned. Now, about a third of that rating comes from punctual payments and another third comes from your current debt in relation to your credit limit, so charging $10 a month or so and making sure you pay it off is a good way to start building your credit rating. To bring it back on topic a little, they are not for people with little discipline, and can be VERY dangerous. Walmart and other retailers depend on this lapse of discipline to some degree. However, using common sense and good judgment, they are valuable tools. I don't think I've regularly carried more than $10 in cash around with me for a very long time. |
|
Iri said: selective_yellow said: On another note, I do not have any sort of credit card, as the idea of buying things on credit does not particularly appeal to me. However, having no credit rating later on in life may bite me in the ass. Also, online purchases, which seem to be harder and harder to avoid are mostly impossible for me. It's like the world wants me to buy on credit! :( This is offtopic, but I'd recommend all younger people get a credit card (specifically one with NO annual fee) right away, even if you stuff it in a drawer and never use it. The reason being is that 15% or so of your credit rating score comes from the average age of your accounts (at least from the US companies.) If you spend no more than you normally would and pay off your balance monthly, credit cards are a complete convenience -- you're using the companies' money and transactional power for free (not the type of customers the card companies want) in addition to the protection that shinkeikaku mentioned. Now, about a third of that rating comes from punctual payments and another third comes from your current debt in relation to your credit limit, so charging $10 a month or so and making sure you pay it off is a good way to start building your credit rating. To bring it back on topic a little, they are not for people with little discipline, and can be VERY dangerous. Walmart and other retailers depend on this lapse of discipline to some degree. However, using common sense and good judgment, they are valuable tools. I don't think I've regularly carried more than $10 in cash around with me for a very long time. I realize this, and I am planning one with no annual fee, however at the moment I actually cannot get a credit card. The age of majority (In my province, BC and randomly New Brunswick) is 19, not 18. I turn 19 this year, in December.. I still don't like the idea of them, though. Even though I know I shall get one in a year. I should start a new topic.. poor wal-mart. |
| I personally have no problem with wal-mart. I worked there for about a year in high school and didn't find anything particularly upsetting. |
ShaolinRibiero said: Also, anyone who wants to learn more about the supposedly evil Walmart, do yourself a great big favor and watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8 Great chain of youtube videos. Commentary is funny as hell. |
 |
| walmart intentionally keeps itself understaffed and pressures it's employees to work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs |
 |
deathangel521 said: walmart intentionally keeps itself understaffed and pressures it's employees to work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs source? if that was truly so, the federal government would be all over them by now. |
| Walmart, can't live with it, can't live without it. |
        |
| I just want to continue the poking of holes in the video that ShaolinRibiero started. Let's suppose we collectively decide Wal-Mart wages are too low. In fact, we think that everyone should make $100k. So the government starts a company that pays everyone $100k a year to make, say, paper airplanes. The only problem is, of course, when you try to buy something, you find that the only thing available for sale is paper airplanes. You may want to buy food, or clothes, but you're stuck with paper airplanes. Wal-mart has become the unparalleled leader at giving people what they want. If you think Wal-mart is bad, you're basically saying that everyone who shops at Wal-mart has stupid tastes. How can a company that propers by giving people what they want be a bad thing? Oh, and a academic reference, for those who are so inclined: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11809. Basically it says the spread of supercenter shopping outlets has been of substantial benefit to consumers, particularly poor households. Similarly, the internet is full of case studies that show the introduction of "sweatshops" to developing countries is a great deal. If your options are $3/day in an American-controlled sweatshop or $0.50/day scrounging recyclables, well, I know which one I'd pick. Edit: A similiar paper, with no paywall: http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2005/jerry_hausman.pdf |
| I worked at walmart. Because I wanted a job. Certainly not something you want to work at though. I mean, it provides jobs. And so does McDonalds. That doesn't make either of the good. Yeah, it provides jobs. BAD jobs. Also, monopolies create less choices. I like choices. Wal Mart does not carry most of the things I would like to buy. |
 Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
ScrumYummy said: Netforce said: that has low prices THIS IS A LIE I used to work at a wal-mart, long time ago and far away. And I worked with some other smart people. We decided to play a game where we tracked the prices of certain items, compared them to other stores, and watched what wal-mart would charge for these items. Here is what we found: -when other stores had an item on sale, Wal-mart would raise the price (don't forget, they price-match sale items) -when wal-mart moves items into a central location or an aisle, they raise the price. -during the "sale" time of certain items, wal-mart would actually charge more than what you could get the item for at non-sale times at other stores. So the whole myth that wal-mart has cheaper prices is exactly that, a myth. Oh yeah, they are banned from areas of Portland too, thank god. hmmm didn't know that! What an interesting fact... just saw the documentary too... WOW |
| I don't mind walmart, but this may be due to all the years I lived in Texas. My house there had at least 5 walmarts within easy distance, 3 of them Super-Walmarts, and they were all, for the most part, decently kept/tidy. Now that i am back in California, the nearest walmart to me is the Oakland Walmart, which is very rundown and always crowded, and noisier than what I am used to. >_< But it does have some entertainment value, thanks to signs like this hanging in there: |
| Like Shoujo? Visit: Emily's Random Shoujo Manga Page |
Sohei said: deathangel521 said: walmart intentionally keeps itself understaffed and pressures it's employees to work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs source? if that was truly so, the federal government would be all over them by now. That actually happened to me when I worked there, although not quite like deathangel521 says. For one, I wasn't hired on to be a full time employee. I was supposed to only be working <32 hours a week. But they kept the store understaffed, and they would not only schedule me for 40, I would work more than 40, and yet I never got overtime pay on my check. I figured out what they were doing after hearing one of the managers talk about it--they would move the overtime hours into the next week/pay period. So I was working overtime, but not getting paid for the overtime hours. I'm pretty sure that there have been lawsuits related to this, at least I think I've heard about them. I never did anything about it in my situation because I hated working there, so I just quit. MagicalEmi said: LOL, I remember that XD |
ScrumYummy said: I never did anything about it in my situation because I hated working there, so I just quit. Honestly though, wouldn't you say that it is this attitude that allows Walmart to continue working their employees overtime? |
Sohei said: ScrumYummy said: I never did anything about it in my situation because I hated working there, so I just quit. Honestly though, wouldn't you say that it is this attitude that allows Walmart to continue working their employees overtime? Yes. Although they kind of brainwash their employees to just "do as big daddy wal-mart says." One of the videos that they showed us when I was hired was about "how unions are bad, and if you are EVER approached by a union rep, tell a supervisor immediately." I think I was the only person in the room that was laughing. |
ScrumYummy said: Sohei said: ScrumYummy said: I never did anything about it in my situation because I hated working there, so I just quit. Honestly though, wouldn't you say that it is this attitude that allows Walmart to continue working their employees overtime? Yes. Although they kind of brainwash their employees to just "do as big daddy wal-mart says." One of the videos that they showed us when I was hired was about "how unions are bad, and if you are EVER approached by a union rep, tell a supervisor immediately." I think I was the only person in the room that was laughing. well that basically explains everything. and at first i misrad unions as onions. |
| Unions are not great though. really long fucking rant |
selective_yellow said: Unions are not great though. really long fucking rant personally, i have a strong distaste for unions, but i have to admit that in some cases they're truly necessary. the wal-mart employees do not have the money to sue wal-mart, and therefore they will not be able to do anything about their situation. The unions though, have the power and money to seriously do something, which is why they're needed in this particular situation. |
Sohei said: selective_yellow said: Unions are not great though. really long fucking rant blah blah blah... personally, i have a strong distaste for unions, but i have to admit that in some cases they're truly necessary. the wal-mart employees do not have the money to sue wal-mart, and therefore they will not be able to do anything about their situation. The unions though, have the power and money to seriously do something, which is why they're needed in this particular situation. Maybe we should be looking towards the government being at fault and not even wal-mart or the people employed. The people shouldn't have to get lawyers. Even so, a large group of people suing a corporation is not unheard of. I am going to assume there is a legal loophole, which in such case the government should inform people of how to block Wal Mart from doing this--OR--eliminate the loophole. But they don't want to do that, now do they ^_~ |
selective_yellow said: Maybe we should be looking towards the government being at fault and not even wal-mart or the people employed. The people shouldn't have to get lawyers. Even so, a large group of people suing a corporation is not unheard of. I am going to assume there is a legal loophole, which in such case the government should inform people of how to block Wal Mart from doing this--OR--eliminate the loophole. But they don't want to do that, now do they ^_~ well, the republicans have always supported a Laissez-Faire policy when it comes to economics, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the government isn't doing anything. if anything is to blame, it would be the imperfection of government, or more precisely, the side effects ofcapitalism. |
| I currently work at a Walmart and have been there since mid-September. I don't care for the job or the company all that much, but living in a more rural area there are not as many available jobs. My main position is unloading the trucks, though they throw a lot of shit things for us to do instead of having us finish what we are originally supposed to do; at times we are sent out to collect shopping carts from the parking lot and bring them back into the garages for an hour at a time, sometimes at least three times throughout the day (they hired on several cart pushers about a month ago, and fired them a day later, or so I've heard). Before I got the job, all I would do was stay home and sit at the computer, at least the job provides one way to spend time, and still make some money (yes, quite underpaid for all of the hard work we have, and still only being paid 50 cents over the state minimum wage). I think I'll just keep the job until I find a replacement (have not been looking yet). deathangel521 said: walmart intentionally keeps itself understaffed and pressures it's employees to work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs Now this is one thing that at least in the store I work at, that is untrue. They have a no-overtime policy. If they think we are close to going over (even by a minute I guess), they will come to us and make us sign something saying that if we go over, we go to the next level of "coaching" which is just a disciplinary action. In fact, they have been cutting our hours off and on, scheduling everyone to go home an hour earlier than normal (I work second and they schedule us for 4pm-1am every day; at times 4pm-12am). Also, I am supposed to be a full-time associate, but they have scheduled me for the bare minimum nearly every week since I was hired, only about 32 or so hours instead of the typical 40. |
     |
Sohei said: deathangel521 said: walmart intentionally keeps itself understaffed and pressures it's employees to work unpaid overtime to keep their jobs source? if that was truly so, the federal government would be all over them by now. not completely inaccurate, though most likely not accurate everywhere either. is actually mentioned in ShaolinRibiero's video around 6:10 |
| I don't get it... wouldn't a Walmart employee want them to stay understaffed? More hours for me means more money for me, biotch! Maybe I'm completely missing something. Never worked a store before, always stuck with the entertainment industry. kei-clone said: not completely inaccurate, though most likely not accurate everywhere either. is actually mentioned in ShaolinRibiero's video around 6:10 I'll be damned... guess I zoned out on the woman. |
|
ShaolinRibiero said: Copied and pasted; So let me get this straight....millions of people saving money, and thousands of people in poor urban areas being employed thanks to Walmart is bad....because a few thousand other people will be unemployed? Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we have the government subsidize 100 people for making paper airplanes all day, paying them 60k/year? Then, when someone mentions that this is a waste of 6 million dollars a year in taxpayer money, you can tell them the same thing, "Oh....but what about the 100 people who will be employed?? Stop it with your evil corporation!!!" Also, anyone who wants to learn more about the supposedly evil Walmart, do yourself a great big favor and watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8 seems i'm being replied to here. I don't think Walmart is all evil. I do think they do spread themselves into areas where they are neither wanted nor needed. If a town is suffering from lack of jobs, then sure open up a walmart there no one would complain except for a few zealots perhaps. But no need to open one up in or near a place already bustling with activity and is doing fine on its own. When you do that, then jobs will be displaced an replaced with lower paying jobs at walmart, and it also possibly lowers the property values around the area depending on its location (think friendly Main St. that people would not mind living near replaced with gigantic noisy infrastructure that people would quickly move away from) Your video gives examples of the former example, and my video is representative of the latter example. both are valid to a certain extent. The point is walmart is not wanted everywhere, and the fact that it tries to spread like the plague is one of the reasons it's getting its bad rap. Casinos also give jobs to quite a few people, but there's a reason they are usually isolated from other places, because they don't belong in every neighborhood. |
kei-clone said: seems i'm being replied to here. I don't think Walmart is all evil. I do think they do spread themselves into areas where they are neither wanted nor needed. If a town is suffering from lack of jobs, then sure open up a walmart there no one would complain except for a few zealots perhaps. But no need to open one up in or near a place already bustling with activity and is doing fine on its own. And who are you to decide that? Who is the government to decide that? If they're TRULY not wanted or needed in a certain neighborhood, you know what will happen? The company will lose money, and they'll go out of business. Simple. The funny thing is, with the exception of the lawsuits mentioned in the video I posted, all the arguments against Walmart are essentially arguments against capitalism. And the majority of the latter are so ludicrous, bizarre, and inaccurate, even a socialist economist would reject the vast majority of them. kei-clone said: When you do that, then jobs will be displaced an replaced with lower paying jobs at walmart, Once again, you're arguing against a basic part of capitalism, not anything specific to Walmart. If a $12/hour job at the local supermarket is replaced by a $10/hour job at Walmart, you know what that means? It means that the original wage was too high, and the markets have corrected themselves to take this into account. Have you ever taken an economics class? Have you heard of the first capitalist, Adam Smith, and "the invisible hand"? I'm not trying to be patronizing here, either, but he answered all your questions and concerns about free markets back in the 1760's. Since all of your criticism so far has been against capitalism, not Walmart, if you're genuinely interested in learning about this, I could provide you with some links. kei-clone said: The point is walmart is not wanted everywhere, and the fact that it tries to spread like the plague is one of the reasons it's getting its bad rap. Casinos also give jobs to quite a few people, but there's a reason they are usually isolated from other places, because they don't belong in every neighborhood. Already answered above, but you have a funny definition of "not wanted"; if a store with the operating costs and exorbitant local, state, and federal taxes that Walmart has manages to be profitable by attracting a huge portion of the area's consumers, I'd say that makes them wanted, no? |
| My social studies teacher told my class that Walmart is the the biggest baddest monster corporation devil spawn. Not by those exact words but along those lines. He's told us that he's strictly against going there (though he never did tell us to not go there--just stating his own personal beliefs without pushing them on his students) even if he's wearing Nike Shoes. I'll choose to trust him and stay away from the devil store that hides behind that wonderful smiley mascot. Though who knows. I've never been to Walmart before. Maybe once I personally experience the incredibly low prices, i'll be sucked in. |
"I've read so much manga that at times my mind works in comic panels and dramatically expressed chibis. I'm both ashamed and amused by this." |
| Wal-Mart and stores like it are bad for small businesses, but hey...when money is tight and you have to feed your family you go to the cheapest locations. I know it sucks to hurt other businesses like that but people have to look out for themselves too. Then again I don't shop at Wal-Mart, just because its so far away. |
| @ShaolinRibiero Yes I am very familiar with Adam Smith's work and capitalist theory. It seems your central argument has just been that all the arguments presented against Walmart are against core capitalism. Well I'd like to remind you that we do not live in a pure capitalist society, nor do we strive to be one. There are good reasons for this, the easiest to point out is that there are other factors at work in our government besides economics. therefore, while valid to bring up, you cannot simply refute the points being brought up as solely "against capitalism" otherwise you'd be able to use this argument against anti-monopoly laws, Federal Trade rules, and many other staples of modern societies that are based on capitalist theory. So before we continue let's clarify that: capitalist != good anti-capitalist != bad ShaolinRibiero said: And who are you to decide that? Who is the government to decide that? If they're TRULY not wanted or needed in a certain neighborhood, you know what will happen? The company will lose money, and they'll go out of business. Simple. Nope, not as simple as that. You ask who am I to decide what's wanted and what's not. Well, I shop at walmart myself in a neighborhood I don't permanently live in, so I personally don't decide anything. I assume, of course, that you are referring to those who live in the vicinity of an incoming Walmart. Any business or organization that moves into an area brings not only economic consequences, but also social and sometimes political consequences. Earlier you completely ignored my example of the casinos, which is too bad because it illustrates my point quite well. Imagine a casino pops up a few blocks from your house, or even better, a strip club. Assuming you live in an area with decent population it is very likely that those business would become very profitable, and according to capitalist theory that would allow you to conclude that those business would be wanted no? Except those business are most likely being sustained by those who live further away from the area, those who can be economically affected (positively) but are not negatively socially affected. Those living further away need not suffer from decrease in property value of a nearby stripclub. However, those who do live nearby would have a problem. You ask who are they to decide? Well, it is their community, their town, and thus if enough of them feel a strip club/casino/Walmart negatively affects their living circumstances, they are fully within their rights to decide whether the incoming business is wanted or not. This is outside plain economic theory at this point, and only once you look outside economics you can realize that a profitable business does not equal a wanted business. The examples shown in the P&T video are probably examples where a few people got too much power, got a bit overzealous with the wrong reasoning, and weren't looking out for the best interests of their neighborhood. As I've been saying before, it's not black and white. Walmart is not all evil, but nor should Walmart force itself everywhere if it's not wanted. In short, if a proper grassroots effort is organized within those most directly affected by an incoming organization, those people, and through their local government if necessary, are fully qualified to say whether something is wanted in their neighborhood or not, "invisible hand" notwithstanding. |
kei-cloneJan 7, 2009 1:19 PM
kei-clone said: @ShaolinRibiero Yes I am very familiar with Adam Smith's work and capitalist theory. It seems your central argument has just been that all the arguments presented against Walmart are against core capitalism. Well I'd like to remind you that we do not live in a pure capitalist society, nor do we strive to be one. There are good reasons for this, the easiest to point out is that there are other factors at work in our government besides economics. therefore, while valid to bring up, you cannot simply refute the points being brought up as solely "against capitalism" otherwise you'd be able to use this argument against anti-monopoly laws, Federal Trade rules, and many other staples of modern societies that are based on capitalist theory. I'm not refuting anything. I'm pointing out that none of your arguments have anything to do with Walmart per se, and everything to do with capitalism. Also, whether you believe in capitalist or socialist economics, there are certain parts of your post which ignore basic realities in BOTH systems, such as your belief that markets don't correct for salaries that are either too low or too high. kei-clone said: So before we continue let's clarify that: capitalist != good anti-capitalist != bad It's really off-topic, but as someone who has a degree in economics, and whose done research with capitalist econ professors, and whose mother has a PhD in socialist economics, I can tell you that in THIS CONTEXT, capitalism and free markets are indeed very good, and your arguments against them show a lack of understanding of supply and demand. kei-clone said: You ask who am I to decide what's wanted and what's not. Well, I shop at walmart myself in a neighborhood I don't permanently live in, so I personally don't decide anything. I assume, of course, that you are referring to those who live in the vicinity of an incoming Walmart. Any business or organization that moves into an area brings not only economic consequences, but also social and sometimes political consequences. Earlier you completely ignored my example of the casinos, which is too bad because it illustrates my point quite well. Imagine a casino pops up a few blocks from your house, or even better, a strip club. Assuming you live in an area with decent population it is very likely that those business would become very profitable, and according to capitalist theory that would allow you to conclude that those business would be wanted no? Except those business are most likely being sustained by those who live further away from the area, those who can be economically affected (positively) but are not negatively socially affected. Those living further away need not suffer from decrease in property value of a nearby stripclub. However, those who do live nearby would have a problem. You ask who are they to decide? Well, it is their community, their town, and thus if enough of them feel a strip club/casino/Walmart negatively affects their living circumstances, they are fully within their rights to decide whether the incoming business is wanted or not. This is outside plain economic theory at this point, and only once you look outside economics you can realize that a profitable business does not equal a wanted business. What? You're comparing Walmart to....a strip club or casino? Is this a joke, or are you actually being serious? Wow. This might be the most insane comparison I've ever read. By that logic, I should compare my local Rite-Aid store/pharmacy to a drug den, and all my local restaurants and supermarkets to liquor stores, and say "How dare there be pharmacies, restaurants, and supermarkets in this area??? THEY ARE NOT WANTED" It makes at least as much sense. kei-clone said: As I've been saying before, it's not black and white. Walmart is not all evil, but nor should Walmart force itself everywhere if it's not wanted. So a store that clearly adds value to its community, and exchanges tangible, positive goods for money to its customers (as opposed to your strip clubs or casinos), and which you even admit to shopping at yourself, is still "not wanted"? Wow. The funny thing about anti-Walmart arguments is how over-the-top they are; here you are, comparing a perfectly legal retailer to a strip club or casino, for instance. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |