The reason that one should make a conscious effort not to shop at walmart

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Walmart either allows people to shop lift or they forgive any incident of it if it totals less than $100. How can a company afford to give away so much? It can afford to do so because it pays its employees so little. So, don't shop at Walmart. It is as simple as that.
I, for one, don't like the idea that they reward illegal activity with their tolerance towards it while they think so little of those shoppers who obey the law.
So, we should make a conscious effort not to sponsor a business that so whores its people.

[Kludge]

K-Mart donates something like 3% of their revenue to charities. How can a company afford to give away so much? It can afford to do so because it pays its employees so little. So, don't shop at K-Mart. It's as simple as that.
I, for one, don't like the idea that they hand out money they could have saved me.
So, we should make a collective effort not to sponsor a business that thinks it can give money better than us.

[gls]

Walmart stopped prosecuting small time shoplifters in order to focus their loss-prevention efforts on the much larger problem of internal employee theft.

[dannno]

Walmart stopped prosecuting small time shoplifters in order to focus their loss-prevention efforts on the much larger problem of internal employee theft.

Well maybe if they paid their employees more...

[gls]

Well maybe if they paid their employees more...

Wal-Mart employees are free to quit if they feel they don't make as much as they are worth. No one is holding a gun to their head; quite the opposite actually.

[angelatc]

Walmart either allows people to shop lift or they forgive any incident of it if it totals less than $100. How can a company afford to give away so much? It can afford to do so because it pays its employees so little. So, don't shop at Walmart. It is as simple as that.
I, for one, don't like the idea that they reward illegal activity with their tolerance towards it while they think so little of those shoppers who obey the law.
So, we should make a conscious effort not to sponsor a business that so whores its people.

On the flip side, WalMart has the most generous return policy in retail. No receipt? No problem.

I did almost all my shopping at Walmart, because they make it so darned cheap and easy with their "Ship To Store" policy. I have 4 turtlenecks being delivered to my house though - I paid .99 each, and another $3.97 to deliver them.

My cousin left Penney's to work at WalMart, because WalMart paid her more.

Screw you and your high priced alternatives. I have no sympathy for people older than 25 who decided that being a WalMart grunt should be a career.

[angelatc]

Well maybe if they paid their employees more...

That's never been proved to be a deterrent. Perhaps if Americans were honest and hardworking, instead of constantly feeling entitled.....

[mediahasyou]

If shoplifting does affect their prices, then I will shop at cheaper stores.

However, that is not the case.

[TruthisTreason]

Wal-Mart saves me money. It leaves me with money to spend on things I wouldn't have if I wasn't saving money by shopping there.

[Firegirl]

I really don't buy that. I have a very close friend who is employed by Wal-Mart to catch shoplifters. She goes to work dressed in regular clothes and walks around the store posing as a customer so she can catch them in the act, follow them through the store, and have security waiting for them at the door. According to her, Wal-Mart presses charges in every single case. Half the time the cops don't want to pursue the case and let them go with a slap on the wrist....

And I agree that nobody forces them to work at Wal-Mart. I wouldn't want to make a career out of it either. But, they offer some great opportunities for young kids in school or people like my mom who want to retire but continue to work part time.

[tmosley]

Providing high value for a minimum of price? Sounds like a free market success to me!

Sure, they do business with a lot of shady characters in far off lands, but all that does is increase competition and provide cheap goods. If those countries want to pollute their environments, then great, we will happily offshore our pollution, so long as it is economical. If it's cheaper to get the goods here, they will get them here. Blame minimum wage laws and environmental regulations for the loss of crappy sweatshop jobs, not the retailers who are forced to buy from foreign companies to outcompete other stores.

Working at Walmart is great for bored teenagers, and for old people who want a little extra money (not to mention having a job to do, rather than languishing in retirement). If you are supporting a family, you need to find a job elsewhere.

[Unspun]

Ha, this thread is absurd. If Wal-Mart persecuted every single shoplifter just think of the team of lawyers it'd have to keep on board just to pursue all that. The legal costs alone aren't worth it, so they stay frugal enough to make sure they can afford to offer the lowest prices, provide good service, and still be able to pay their employees and provide them with jobs even with the knowledge that they can't stop all shoplifters.

[RonPaulMania]

Walmart is a baron of fascism by forcing counties and killing off small business.

Part of the blindness of absolute laissez-faire capitalism is a situation like Wal-Mart. Think you can get a different job and compete with them? Sorry, you too eventually will be consumed.

I admire so many countries from not allowing this to happen, where greed is the Almighty concern.

Think Walmart is cheap? You won't think so when your business is assimilated. They are getting into everything. Remember no one likes their competition, and when it happens to them then they realize the problem and by then it's too late.

Cheaper prices is a joke trade-off and fools everyone. Paper costs $5 made in USA or $3 in China by Walmart. You pay for American labor and keep the money here in this country for your profession.

Walmart is legalized welfarism. We pay their wages through welfare and welfare benefits. There are so many things wrong with this I can't explain.

[brandon]

Walmart either allows people to shop lift or they forgive any incident of it if it totals less than $100. How can a company afford to give away so much? It can afford to do so because it pays its employees so little. So, don't shop at Walmart. It is as simple as that.
I, for one, don't like the idea that they reward illegal activity with their tolerance towards it while they think so little of those shoppers who obey the law.
So, we should make a conscious effort not to sponsor a business that so whores its people.


I'm not sure where you are getting this information....but I don't think this is the way it works. The state prosecutes people for violations of the criminal code. A victim in a crime doesn't have to do anything. If the crime is reported and the suspect is arrested, the state almost always prosecutes, even if the victim requests that the state doesn't.

[Kludge]

Walmart is a baron of fascism by forcing counties and killing off small business.

Part of the blindness of absolute laissez-faire capitalism is a situation like Wal-Mart. Think you can get a different job and compete with them? Sorry, you too eventually will be consumed.

I admire so many countries from not allowing this to happen, where greed is the Almighty concern.

Think Walmart is cheap? You won't think so when your business is assimilated. They are getting into everything. Remember no one likes their competition, and when it happens to them then they realize the problem and by then it's too late.

Cheaper prices is a joke trade-off and fools everyone. Paper costs $5 made in USA or $3 in China by Walmart. You pay for American labor and keep the money here in this country for your profession.

Walmart is legalized welfarism. We pay their wages through welfare and welfare benefits. There are so many things wrong with this I can't explain.

Protectionism is about as sustainable as continually flooding the monetary supply in an effort to "stimulate the economy".

Government is the problem. Government is the creator of Welfare, and government mandates minimum wages to prevent true competition. There's no point in waging a campaign against a head of the Lernaean Hydra while the beast remains living and the head merely regenerates shortly after the "victory". Attacking Walmart based on economic sustainability is simply short-sighted.

[dannno]

Sure, they do business with a lot of shady characters in far off lands, but all that does is increase competition and provide cheap goods. If those countries want to pollute their environments, then great, we will happily offshore our pollution, so long as it is economical.

Screw you and your support of offshoring our pollution. What a terrible attitude.

As consumers, we have a moral imperative to determine who we want to give our money to. The OP does not morally condone a company who doesn't prosecute small theft because he thinks they could be paying their employees more. He isn't asking you to support legislation to stop WalMart from acting the way they are, he is telling you to vote with your dollars.. and people here are actually condemning him for this??

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

K-Mart donates something like 3% of their revenue to charities. How can a company afford to give away so much? It can afford to do so because it pays its employees so little. So, don't shop at K-Mart. It's as simple as that.
I, for one, don't like the idea that they hand out money they could have saved me.
So, we should make a collective effort not to sponsor a business that thinks it can give money better than us.

Donation is a tactic incorporated by tyranny. Why not just have contentment as the existential purpose for all Americans and to hell with the charity.

[dannno]

Part of the blindness of absolute laissez-faire capitalism is a situation like Wal-Mart.

WalMart was NOT created by laissez-faire capitalism!! It was created by our Federal Reserve system and our world-reserve currency and the fact that people are generally willing to ignore their moral prerogative to avoid buying things made by slaves in other countries.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm not sure where you are getting this information....but I don't think this is the way it works. The state prosecutes people for violations of the criminal code. A victim in a crime doesn't have to do anything. If the crime is reported and the suspect is arrested, the state almost always prosecutes, even if the victim requests that the state doesn't.

The fact remains that Walmart tolerates criminal behavior by allowing most people to shop-lift while they don't prosecute anything under $100. They simply take the merchandise away and tell them never to come back to the store.

[danberkeley]

Walmart is a baron of fascism by forcing counties and killing off small business.

Does Wal-Mart use the guns it sells in its stores to kill off small businesses?


Part of the blindness of absolute laissez-faire capitalism is a situation like Wal-Mart. Think you can get a different job and compete with them? Sorry, you too eventually will be consumed.

Yes. Because Wal-Mart operates in a capitalist economy. :rolleyes:


I admire so many countries from not allowing this to happen, where greed is the Almighty concern.

Ha! So who is being fascist now?


Think Walmart is cheap? You won't think so when your business is assimilated. They are getting into everything. Remember no one likes their competition, and when it happens to them then they realize the problem and by then it's too late.

Oh noes! Seems like you are a "victim" of Wal-Mart.


Cheaper prices is a joke trade-off and fools everyone. Paper costs $5 made in USA or $3 in China by Walmart. You pay for American labor and keep the money here in this country for your profession.

Why would I want to overpay for stuff? What gives Americans the right to be paid more?


Walmart is legalized welfarism. We pay their wages through welfare and welfare benefits. There are so many things wrong with this I can't explain.

And being forced to paying workers more isnt welfare? :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ha, this thread is absurd. If Wal-Mart persecuted every single shoplifter just think of the team of lawyers it'd have to keep on board just to pursue all that. The legal costs alone aren't worth it, so they stay frugal enough to make sure they can afford to offer the lowest prices, provide good service, and still be able to pay their employees and provide them with jobs even with the knowledge that they can't stop all shoplifters.

Walmart stays in business by whoring their own employees while they pay for losses by charging those of us who obey the law higher prices to buy their merchandise. In the end, right is right. Please, enough with this twisting of reality with Hilary like socio-psycho babble.

[danberkeley]

The fact remains that Walmart tolerates criminal behavior by allowing most people to shop-lift while they don't prosecute anything under $100. They simply take the merchandise away and tell them never to come back to the store.

Do you pay taxes? Then, you are tolerating criminal behavior. I will never support you ever again! :D

[inibo]

Wal-Mart employees are free to quit if they feel they don't make as much as they are worth. No one is holding a gun to their head; quite the opposite actually.

You're getting way too extreme there, bub. What are you saying, that people should be free to enter into voluntary agreements if they find the terms to be acceptable? That people should be allowed to spend their own money as they see fit? Whoa! Don't you know that that kind of thinking leads to anarchy? :eek: :D

[danberkeley]

Walmart stays in business by whoring their own employees while they pay for losses by charging those of us who obey the law higher prices to buy their merchandise. In the end, right is right. Please, enough with this twisting of reality with Hilary like socio-psycho babble.

What is wrong with voluntary whoredom?

[heavenlyboy34]

You're getting way too extreme there, bub. What are you saying, that people should be free to enter into voluntary agreements if they find the terms to be acceptable? That people should be allowed to spend their own money as they see fit? Whoa! Don't you know that that kind of thinking leads to anarchy? :eek: :D

I lol'd :D

[forsmant]

I got a walking talking lightning mqqueen at wal mart for 25$. The same toy was 40$ at target.

[dannno]

And being forced to paying workers more isnt welfare? :rolleyes:

Walmart actually helps and encourages their employees sign up for medicare and welfare. In fact, the amount of tax money that goes into subsidizing WalMart employees is astronomical.

[Truth Warrior]

Yep, everyone hates Wal*Mart except the customers. :D And some of them ain't too thrilled either, but still shop there. :rolleyes:

[forsmant]

A lot of walmart employees are crap and rude. Paying them more would make them rude expensive crappy employees.

[danberkeley]

Walmart actually helps and encourages their employees sign up for medicare and welfare. In fact, the amount of tax money that goes into subsidizing WalMart employees is astronomical.

And why is that Wal-Mart's fault? It's the government that is creating that situation.

[Ex Post Facto]

I can't afford to shop anywhere else at this time.

[Unspun]

Walmart stays in business by whoring their own employees while they pay for losses by charging those of us who obey the law higher prices to buy their merchandise. In the end, right is right. Please, enough with this twisting of reality with Hilary like socio-psycho babble.

Haha, again--your argument is absurd. If anyone is doing any whoring it's the employees themselves. If they are selling themselves so short, why are they not getting jobs elsewhere? Tell me how much do they make? The average hourly wage is eight bucks. That's more than what I was making at a gas station in high school doing essentially the same work as them. They are getting paid for what they are worth--or more for crying out loud.

So, what are you saying? Last time I checked I didn't see a sign that said, "GO AHEAD. SHOPLIFT. WE DON'T CARE. WE SUPPORT IT." They don't let them just simply take it. If they're caught they tell them to give the items back and never to come back to the store. Surely, no longer having access to the lowest prices in town is punishment enough! But, as I said, if they pursued every single little shoplifter that came into the store and stole something the legal fees would far outweigh the benefit of having less shoplifters because they took a strong stance against them--which the deterrence of prosecution is less effective than you think.

[Unspun]

I can't afford to shop anywhere else at this time.

Pretty much. Being a poor, and frugal, student the best place for me to shop is the cheapest. Wal Mart is it. Plus, it's got everything that I need right there at one place.

[2young2vote]

I shop at walmart because it is cheap..don't they have the right to forgive shoplifting?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Haha, again--your argument is absurd. If anyone is doing any whoring it's the employees themselves. If they are selling themselves so short, why are they not getting jobs elsewhere? Tell me how much do they make? The average hourly wage is eight bucks. That's more than what I was making at a gas station in high school doing essentially the same work as them. They are getting paid for what they are worth--or more for crying out loud.

So, what are you saying? Last time I checked I didn't see a sign that said, "GO AHEAD. SHOPLIFT. WE DON'T CARE. WE SUPPORT IT." They don't let them just simply take it. If they're caught they tell them to give the items back and never to come back to the store. Surely, no longer having access to the lowest prices in town is punishment enough! But, as I said, if they pursued every single little shoplifter that came into the store and stole something the legal fees would far outweigh the benefit of having less shoplifters because they took a strong stance against them--which the deterrence of prosecution is less effective than you think.

They do have a policay of letting shop lifters walk out the door. Next time you go into a Walmart, stop and have a casual chat with the inside security guard.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I shop at walmart because it is cheap..don't they have the right to forgive shoplifting?

I guess we need a membership store that sells to people who don't shop-lift. I don't like paying more to support the criminals who do and I shouldn't have to shop with the bastards who do.

[danberkeley]

I guess we need a membership store that sells to people who don't shop-lift. I don't like paying more to support the criminals who do and I shouldn't have to shop with the bastards who do.

Who is forcing you to shop with bastards who do?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Who is forcing you to shop with bastards who do?

Well, there isn't a membership store for people who don't shop lift yet. So, I assume that I have to shop with the bastards.

[asimplegirl]

Okay, firstly, I have worked at walmart, and in certain areas, they pay much better than any other place. Also, they have not stopped "prosecuting" shoplifters...it mostly depends on where you are. Here, firstly, any petty shoplifting gets your picture taken, as store policy, and they post your picture on a board of thieves. Secondly, depending on what you stole less than 100 dollars, you CAN be charged with simple theft. Depends on how your area works with the store and how lax or strict they are with rules, policies, and laws.

[inibo]

Okay, firstly, I have worked at walmart, and in certain areas, they pay much better than any other place. Also, they have not stopped "prosecuting" shoplifters...it mostly depends on where you are. Here, firstly, any petty shoplifting gets your picture taken, as store policy, and they post your picture on a board of thieves. Secondly, depending on what you stole less than 100 dollars, you CAN be charged with simple theft. Depends on how your area works with the store and how lax or strict they are with rules, policies, and laws.

So did Walmart treat you like a slave? Would you say working there is as bad as it is generally portrayed?

[ihsv]

Scenario:

500 people shoplift one $10 item apiece.
Total value: $5000.00

Walmart spends $1000 (low-end) in legal fees to prosecute each person.
Total costs: $500,000.00

Draw your own conclusions.

[danberkeley]

Well, there isn't a membership store for people who don't shop lift yet. So, I assume that I have to shop with the bastards.

I get an answer to this BS question? I'll come back to this thread when people are ready to debate with facts and logic.

[kathy88]

Wal-Mart employees are free to quit if they feel they don't make as much as they are worth. No one is holding a gun to their head; quite the opposite actually.

unfortunately I know jobless people who would kill for a gig at the big W right now

[kathy88]

I shop at walmart because it is cheap..don't they have the right to forgive shoplifting?


I know someone who was in management at our local walmart. When they initually move into an area, there are 6 price point structures they operate based upon. They start at the lowest, and remain there until most of their competition is either struggling to breathe, or gone. Then they raise the prices to the next level, and so on and so on, until they are at the level which the area can sustain. Since Our local community lost about 12 businesses within 2 years of Walmart's arrival, our Walmart is at the highest pricing level, and is no longer the cheapest place to buy a LOT of stuff. I rarely shop there. Those of you fortunate enough to live in larger areas where the big W still has some competition enjoy lower prices.

[inibo]

My biggest problem with Walmart is that many localities give them tax breaks to locate there. I have no problems with tax breaks, per se, but when they are used selectively to benifit some at the expense of others it is wrong. I don't really blame Walmart for taking advantage of the fact that the local governments do that, Walmart would be stupid not to take advantage of it. But all businesses should have the same level of taxation. Preferable none, but equal regardless.

[Unspun]

Well, there isn't a membership store for people who don't shop lift yet. So, I assume that I have to shop with the bastards.

You're making wild and ridiculous presumptions that everyone at Wal Mart shoplifts, or supports theft of any kind. It really diminishes your argument when you generalize people like that.

And, I'm not denying that the policy exists. It just isn't important, especially when its costs would be far more to litigate each and every shoplifter when that money used for litigation could be used to give me even lower prices. This is a claim in which you can't seem to refute. There is an obvious reason why they don't prosecute shoplifters, they don't just do it because they support thieves. They do it because doing so would waste more resources than not doing so. There is nothing wrong with Wal Mart, and I will continue to shop there unless you can present a less absurd argument for me not to.

Not to mention I can't find anything on Wal Mart not prosecuting people for shoplifting under $100. The only thing I can find is they don't prosecute people who shoplift under age 16 and over the age of 65.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=walmart+shoplifting&spell=1

EDIT: I did find this, although there is clearly an obvious bias.

http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/07/walmarts_shocki.html

So it's under $25, and another article indicated that the under 18 was changed to under 16 in 2007.

[RonPaulMania]

WalMart was NOT created by laissez-faire capitalism!! It was created by our Federal Reserve system and our world-reserve currency and the fact that people are generally willing to ignore their moral prerogative to avoid buying things made by slaves in other countries.

Sorry friend, that's not true. Capitalism is mostly great, but it has flaws, and it's greatest is dehumanizing work. The 2nd problem is Walmart was not created by the Fed, although indirectly so, but even without it banks have centralized before privately.

Men will ignore slave labor because it's cheaper and the "what's in it for me" is the prime motivation. We think about today because tomorrow we could give a damn about. That's also part of capitalism that people don't see, which is the unintended consequences of short-sighted market angles which create more problems down the line, but they are great for "today".

Walmart, and other companies like them, have the same mentality. But the one thing no one on this board could argue for is the fact that the public pays the benefits of Walmart through welfare benefits. Walmart is subsidizing their employees. They kill the little guy in town who owns a hardware store for $45,000 a year to their $18,000 a year working for them, and they destroy the local economy.

Most people love Walmart for the first 2 or 3 years, but look at the towns they destroy afterwards. A movie about it has been made. You can't stop greed in capitalism, as people have always been greedy.

[angelatc]

Working at Walmart is great for bored teenagers, and for old people who want a little extra money (not to mention having a job to do, rather than languishing in retirement). If you are supporting a family, you need to find a job elsewhere.

It isn't "bored teenagers." It is teenagers who need to learn how to hold a job. It teaches responsibility, and it teaches them to value their own money. Heck, the low pay should inspire them to go to college so they won't be stuck there forever.

[pacelli]

I guess we need a membership store that sells to people who don't shop-lift. I don't like paying more to support the criminals who do and I shouldn't have to shop with the bastards who do.

There are plenty of membership stores out there already. Is there any evidence that they have 0 loss?

[angelatc]

Most people love Walmart for the first 2 or 3 years, but look at the towns they destroy afterwards. A movie about it has been made. You can't stop greed in capitalism, as people have always been greedy.

And that movie was completely unbiased.

The that you have to go watch a movie to find out how America feels about WalMart speaks volumes. I have relatives who live in towns that were (and still are) thrilled to finally get their WalMart.

WalMart went into markets where no other retailer wanted to go. They didn't build a single suburban store until the early 90's. They started out in rural America, and people there were thrilled because they suddenly had bigger selections of clothing, electronics that weren't the closeouts from previous seasons, and fair prices to boot.

Yeah, the little guy who had a monopoly and therefore was charging 3 times as much for the same items went out of business. Oh well, that's how business works. And he didn't pay his people squat, either.

[Fox McCloud]

the only problem I have with Walmart is the government subsidies they get (via preferential treatment)...other than that, what's the big deal? The reason they have so much China-crap is because of the US Government--via our ultra-weak, crappy currency.

If we had a good, strong gold-standard currency, we'd still see stuff made in China (the things we just can't beat them at like some particular metal-working, etc), but we'd see a ton of "Made in USA" as well.

Don't blame Walmart for all the china stuff...blame the Fed and it's terrible dollar policy.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You're making wild and ridiculous presumptions that everyone at Wal Mart shoplifts, or supports theft of any kind. It really diminishes your argument when you generalize people like that.

And, I'm not denying that the policy exists. It just isn't important, especially when its costs would be far more to litigate each and every shoplifter when that money used for litigation could be used to give me even lower prices. This is a claim in which you can't seem to refute. There is an obvious reason why they don't prosecute shoplifters, they don't just do it because they support thieves. They do it because doing so would waste more resources than not doing so. There is nothing wrong with Wal Mart, and I will continue to shop there unless you can present a less absurd argument for me not to.

Not to mention I can't find anything on Wal Mart not prosecuting people for shoplifting under $100. The only thing I can find is they don't prosecute people who shoplift under age 16 and over the age of 65.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=walmart+shoplifting&spell=1

EDIT: I did find this, although there is clearly an obvious bias.

http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/07/walmarts_shocki.html

So it's under $25, and another article indicated that the under 18 was changed to under 16 in 2007.

Don't take my word for it. Stop at the entrance of any of their stores and ask the inside security guard what is the store policy. I have done so. Of course, you will need to be tactful in your line of questioning.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

the only problem I have with Walmart is the government subsidies they get (via preferential treatment)...other than that, what's the big deal? The reason they have so much China-crap is because of the US Government--via our ultra-weak, crappy currency.

If we had a good, strong gold-standard currency, we'd still see stuff made in China (the things we just can't beat them at like some particular metal-working, etc), but we'd see a ton of "Made in USA" as well.

Don't blame Walmart for all the china stuff...blame the Fed and it's terrible dollar policy.

Walmart should be fined by the government for positively reinforcing criminal behavior.

Better yet, why not have a membership store with the lowest prices where only the most honest people who have never been caught shop-lifting are allowed in? That could be later expanded to include a section of the store for those individuals who have never committed a felony.

Out front in the parking lot a tent could be set up for shop-lifters where they can buy bottled water, MRE's and ice.

[pacelli]

Walmart should be fined by the government for positively reinforcing criminal behavior.

Better yet, why not have a membership store with the lowest prices where only the most honest people who have never been caught shop-lifting are allowed in? That could be later expanded to include a section of the store for those individuals who have never committed a felony.

Out front in the parking lot a tent could be set up for shop-lifters where they can buy bottled water, MRE's and ice.

So you support a criminal record background check? What about shoplifters who have never been caught? What about people who have committed felonies who have never been caught?

It sounds like you are advocating a heavily-policed membership store, which is in opposition to all of your other posts about the negative impact of the "cognizant" sciences (which, by the way, the term "positive reinforcement" is a product of the "cognizant" sciences).

I'm glad that you are dumbing down your language because now I'm starting to understand your point.

[dannno]

Originally Posted by dannno
Walmart actually helps and encourages their employees sign up for medicare and welfare. In fact, the amount of tax money that goes into subsidizing WalMart employees is astronomical.

And why is that Wal-Mart's fault? It's the government that is creating that situation.

You've completely missed the point. WalMart chooses to exploit this particular government loophole, and because they are the biggest in the industry our deficit is increasing immensely. Therefore I CHOOSE not to shop there. Are you trying to force me to spend my money at WalMart?? The OP is simply pointing out some issues he has with WalMart and saying that we should CHOOOSE not to shop there. He isn't forcing anybody to stop shopping there, so keep doing it if you want.. My point is I think it is morally reprehensible to choose to shop there when they are being subsidized by our government and using slave workers. I will take my business elsewhere, and that is the entire point of this thread, you missed it, and your love affair with capitalism blinds you to the very mechanism which causes it to work well!!! Capitalism doesn't work well when people are ignorant and simply taking their money to the firm with the cheapest goods, it works well when people take their money to the firm with the cheapest goods who is acting in what they feel is a morally responsible way. That's why it works better on a local level, because you know your local grocer, local farmer, etc. Now we are in a situation where people are buying everything from God knows where, and nobody knows if who they are buying it from is acting responsibly, so they just ignore everything and buy the cheapest shit from the shittiest, most ruthless provider.

[danberkeley]

Sorry friend, that's not true. Capitalism is mostly great, but it has flaws, and it's greatest is dehumanizing work. The 2nd problem is Walmart was not created by the Fed, although indirectly so, but even without it banks have centralized before privately.

I guess cummunism made everyone feel hapy and warm in inside, especially in Siberia. :rolleyes: No comment on the Fed part.


Men will ignore slave labor because it's cheaper and the "what's in it for me" is the prime motivation. We think about today because tomorrow we could give a damn about. That's also part of capitalism that people don't see, which is the unintended consequences of short-sighted market angles which create more problems down the line, but they are great for "today".

Now you are making stuff up or you are a commie pinko. I will let you decide.


Walmart, and other companies like them, have the same mentality.

Now you are a psychologist?


But the one thing no one on this board could argue for is the fact that the public pays the benefits of Walmart through welfare benefits.

People have and this proves you are an idiot for not SEEING that. lol And why is it Wal-Mart's fault that its employees voluntarily ask for governmnet services? It is the government that steals the money from taxpayers to fund the welfare benefits.


Walmart is subsidizing their employees. They kill the little guy in town who owns a hardware store for $45,000 a year to their $18,000 a year working for them, and they destroy the local economy.

What? What the hell are you saying?


Most people love Walmart for the first 2 or 3 years, but look at the towns they destroy afterwards. A movie about it has been made. You can't stop greed in capitalism, as people have always been greedy.

Hurricane Wal-Mart!!! Oh noes!!!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So you support a criminal record background check? What about shoplifters who have never been caught? What about people who have committed felonies who have never been caught?

It sounds like you are advocating a heavily-policed membership store, which is in opposition to all of your other posts about the negative impact of the "cognizant" sciences (which, by the way, the term "positive reinforcement" is a product of the "cognizant" sciences).

I'm glad that you are dumbing down your language because now I'm starting to understand your point.

Issue cards that have been approved. When the cards are accepted, let the people in the store. When the government says this can't be done, do it any way.

This isn't about race, creed or color. We all have the equal ability to behave ourselves. When we tolerate criminal behavior, the system itself has to become criminal to stay in business. This in turn perpetuates even worse criminals. Eventually the line has to be drawn or the the lifestyles that we live won't be worth living. It is at that point that we will turn to civil war.

This all happens because we think in terms of responsibility rather than happiness. We are all born with the same desire for happiness as we die with the same desire; while, for all the money in the world and then some, we can't buy even 15 minutes worth of a perfect society that is both equal and responsible in ideal. This is why our nation is going out of business. We don't understand that we aren't happy in order to be responsible. To the contrary, we are responsible because behaving so makes us happy. Happiness is the focus while abstract things like responsibility and liberty are secondary prerequisites necessary to acheive the goal of contentment.

This reasoning reduces down to the Founding-Fathers and the American way.

[danberkeley]

Walmart should be fined by the government for positively reinforcing criminal behavior.

In that case, we should fine Christians and Jews and Muslims, TIbetans, and Buddist, and Taoist, Hindus, and Eastor bunnies that forgive people who commit crimes because they are reinforcing criminal behavior.


Better yet, why not have a membership store with the lowest prices where only the most honest people who have never been caught shop-lifting are allowed in? That could be later expanded to include a section of the store for those individuals who have never committed a felony.

I cant believe that someone is actually bitching about being able to get up to $100 of free stuff from Wal-Mart.

[dannno]

Now you [RonPaulMania] are making stuff up or you are a commie pinko. I will let you decide.


Look, I disagree with this "capitalism has flaws" business he was saying just as much as you, but that comment right there about what he said is absolutely ridiculous.

You don't understand capitalism worth a shit.

Please read the post I made above yours, #55. Capitalism isn't about finding the lowest prices, it's about choosing who you want to buy from based on several criteria including prices and the morality of the company you buy from. If you don't have morals, fine, buy the cheapest shit. If you have morals, then fucking apply them. If you think that is communism you're an idiot.

[danberkeley]

You've completely missed the point. WalMart chooses to exploit this particular government loophole, and because they are the biggest in the industry our deficit is increasing immensely.

What sane business doesnt try to exploit government-created loopholes?


Therefore I CHOOSE not to shop there.

That is your choice.



Are you trying to force me to spend my money at WalMart??

How did you deduce that?


The OP is simply pointing out some issues he has with WalMart and saying that we should CHOOOSE not to shop there. He isn't forcing anybody to stop shopping there, so keep doing it if you want..

Certainly. BUt he does want to force stuff upon Wal-Mart.


My point is I think it is morally reprehensible to choose to shop there when they are being subsidized by our government and using slave workers.

It is not slavery.


I will take my business elsewhere, and that is the entire point of this thread, you missed it, and your love affair with capitalism blinds you to the very mechanism which causes it to work well!!!

Commie pinko!!! :D :rolleyes:


Capitalism doesn't work well when people are ignorant and simply taking their money to the firm with the cheapest goods, it works well when people take their money to the firm with the cheapest goods who is acting in what they feel is a morally responsible way. That's why it works better on a local level, because you know your local grocer, local farmer, etc. Now we are in a situation where people are buying everything from God knows where, and nobody knows if who they are buying it from is acting responsibly, so they just ignore everything and buy the cheapest shit from the shittiest, most ruthless provider.

Please, tell me. Where do you find evidance of this capitalism you speak of? Are you implying that the current economic system in which you and I live in is capitalist?

[danberkeley]

Issue cards that have been approved. When the cards are accepted, let the people in the store. When the government says this can't be done, do it any way.

This isn't about race, creed or color. We all have the equal ability to behave ourselves. When we tolerate criminal behavior, the system itself has to become criminal to stay in business. This in turn perpetuates even worse criminals. Eventually the line has to be drawn or the the lifestyles that we live won't be worth living. It is at that point that we will turn to civil war.

This all happens because we think in terms of responsibility rather than happiness. We are all born with the same desire for happiness as we die with the same desire; while, for all the money in the world and then some, we can't buy even 15 minutes worth of a perfect society that is both equal and responsible in ideal. This is why our nation is going out of business. We don't understand that we aren't happy in order to be responsible. To the contrary, we are responsible because behaving so makes us happy. Happiness is the focus while abstract things like responsibility and liberty are secondary prerequisites necessary to acheive the goal of contentment.

This reasoning reduces down to the Founding-Fathers and the American way.

:confused:

[danberkeley]

Look, I disagree with this "capitalism has flaws" business he was saying just as much as you, but that comment right there about what he said is absolutely ridiculous.

I concede that he may not be a commie pinko.


You don't understand capitalism worth a shit.

I understand what you said.


Capitalism isn't about finding the lowest prices,

In that case, I definately do not exercise capitalist behavior.


it's about choosing who you want to buy from based on several criteria including prices and the morality of the company you buy from. If you don't have morals, fine, buy the cheapest shit. If you have morals, then fucking apply them. If you think that is communism you're an idiot.

I do not think that is communism, therefore, I am not an idiot.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I don't shop at walmart because I hate people, especially the kind who tend to gravitate towards walmart

[dannno]

It is not slavery.


What isn't slavery?? The Chinese government imprisoning innocent civilians and forcing them into hard labor isn't slavery?? WTF are you talking about??




Commie pinko!!! :D :rolleyes:

If you own a company and you put out bids for a job, you don't always take the low bid. You take the bid that is most competitive based on a set of criteria. If you're a moral person, then morality enters into your decision. If you're not, then it probably doesn't.




Please, tell me. Where do you find evidance of this capitalism you speak of? Are you implying that the current economic system in which you and I live in is capitalist?

I agree partially with what you're saying. I think that as citizens we are essentially being forced into buying slave labor goods because of the Federal Reserve and our dollar world currency caused a huge shift over to Chinese labor. I buy slave labor goods knowingly and unknowingly, at times, it doesn't make me happy one bit. That doesn't mean that I cannot choose to not shop at places which have essentially placed the precedent for such activity and take it to the extreme.

In the sense that you can choose to go elsewhere, we do have capitalism. In the sense that sometimes we can't really choose, we do not.

[dannno]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php


Child slave labor revelations sweeping China
By Howard W. French
Published: June 15, 2007

SHANGHAI: Su Jinduo and Su Jinpeng, brother and sister, were traveling home by bus from a vacation visit to Qingdao during the Chinese New Year when they disappeared.

Cheated out of their money when they sought to buy a ticket for the final leg of their journey home, they were taken in by a woman who offered them warm shelter and a meal on a cold winter night, and then later a chance to earn enough money to pay their fare by helping her sell fruit.

The next thing they knew they were being loaded onto a minibus with several other children and taken to a factory in the next province, where they were pressed into service making bricks. Several days later, the boy, who is 16, escaped along with another boy and managed to reach home, enabling his father to rescue his 18-year-old sister a few days later.

This story is one of hundreds like it that have swept China in recent days in an unfolding labor abuse scandal that involves the kidnapping in central China of hundreds of children, and perhaps more, some reportedly as young as 8, who have been forced to work under brutal conditions - scantily clothed, unpaid and often fed little more than water and steamed buns - in the brick kilns of Shanxi Province. There have also been reports of adults being forced to work under similar circumstances.


Also see http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/10/200712.shtml


How China Hides Its Slave Labor From the Free World

Wes Vernon
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003


WASHINGTON – The biggest cover-up in the long parade of Clinton scandals was probably the sell-out to the communist Chinese. Harry Wu had a front-row seat on that tragedy, from the inside of Chinese labor camps.

In his book “Troublemaker,” published by NewsMax.com, Wu compares those living hells (or laogai) to Hitler’s concentration camps.

The trade with China, paid for by Americans who are finding it harder and harder to find merchandise they want that does not bear the “Made in China” label, was already in force when the Clintons came to Washington. After they saw the political benefits to be had for selling out, the relationship took off like a rocket.

Thanks in large measure to the Clinton White House's cover-up, we do not know to this day the full story of Chinese espionage that enabled them to gain access to U.S. nuclear weapons know-how through the theft of highly sensitive classified data on sophisticated warheads or the missile-related technology that was compromised.

But Harry Wu saw the Clinton/Beijing relationship from a deeply human perspective: the blue uniforms and shaved heads in Chinese prison camps.

For years, he had been one of the estimated 50 million blue uniformed “troublemakers” who had worked in the camps under totally inhumane conditions. Some of them literally worked themselves to death.

The forced labor had turned out for the American market such items as rubber-soled shoes, boots, kitchenware, toys, tools, men’s and women’s clothing, and sporting goods.

What really bothered Wu was that in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton had criticized the first President Bush for being too lenient in regard to China’s human-rights behavior. Yet in his first year, he renewed China’s trade benefits. True, he attached some strings to the deal, including insistence that China abide by a 1992 agreement banning the export of prison labor products to the United States.

But much of China’s forced labor is carefully hidden from the Western World. A 1992 “white paper” issued by the Chinese regime in defense of its labor camps raised more questions than it answered, as far as Wu was concerned.

For example, he asks, “[W]hy do they put phony names on their prison camp factories, as if trying to conceal the profitable use of forced labor?”

At one camp of lost souls hunched over their machines, stripped of their identities (in some cases for decades), the security officer was asked if he could guarantee the quality of his products.

“No problem,” he answered. He then cited an example of a German manufacturer who bought steel pipes from the camps, and labeled them as being made in Germany. So the products were good enough for the Germans. “How about that!” he marveled.

'Getting Wise'

A manager at Shanghai’s Laodong Machinery Plant, where hand tools were made, boasted that because the U.S. Congress had recently made “quite a fuss” about the prison camps, he and his bosses had devised a way to get around the problem.

“We always go through the import-export company,” he said, meaning they set up companies to handle the shipment of goods. That way, as Wu explains it, “nobody quite knows where the goods came from. These guys were getting wise to the ways of the world.”

This wording in a law on the books in the U.S. for decades specifically forbids the importation of products made by slave labor. Wu cites a little-known section of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Law. That controversial measure is widely known for having imposed a high tariff in an attempt to protect American jobs during the Great Depression. Critics say it made the Depression worse.

The tariff section of the law was changed by the Reciprocal Trade Act of the 1930s. But the anti-slave-labor section is still “the law of the land.” It specifically bans importing anything made by forced labor. Its final paragraph reads, “Forced labor, as herein used, shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance, and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”

The law is routinely violated or circumvented, in part because of devices used by the Chinese (such as those cited above) to hide the true origins of the products, but also because of political pressure on politicians here at home not to probe to deeply into the matter. As Wu bluntly puts it, “Many American business people do not know - or do not want to know — the implications of purchasing forced-labor products.”

When the Clintons ascended to power in the White House, ignoring those “implications” became de facto policy in Washington. We will discuss that next.

[danberkeley]

What isn't slavery?? The Chinese government imprisoning innocent civilians and forcing them into hard labor isn't slavery?? WTF are you talking about??

Thanks for the clarification!!!!!


If you own a company and you put out bids for a job, you don't always take the low bid. You take the bid that is most competitive based on a set of criteria. If you're a moral person, then morality enters into your decision. If you're not, then it probably doesn't.

So you are saying that the people who shop at Wal-Mart ONLY shop there because of the every-day low prices????



I agree partially with what you're saying. I think that as citizens we are essentially being forced into buying slave labor goods because of the Federal Reserve and our dollar world currency caused a huge shift over to Chinese labor. I buy slave labor goods knowingly and unknowingly, at times, it doesn't make me happy one bit. That doesn't mean that I cannot choose to not shop at places which have essentially placed the precedent for such activity and take it to the extreme.

In the sense that you can choose to go elsewhere, we do have capitalism. In the sense that sometimes we can't really choose, we do not.

This is the point I've been making. The government has screwed up the system so much, that it is no longer legitimately capitalist. Sure we have the option of choosing between Wal-Mart or Target, but that is like choosing who to pay taxes to? The IRS or the SEC. They are both products of a corrupt system that cannot be called capitalism.

[danberkeley]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php

Also see http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/10/200712.shtml

Who is enslaving the Chinese? The Chinese government or Wal-Mart?

[wizardwatson]

If you use FRN's and bank at an FDIC insured FRB, you are doing far more damage to your own liberty by that act than the choice of where you shop is.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

:confused:

Ask a child to draw their interpretation of a person and they will draw a stick figure with the prerequisite of a smile on it. Take away the smile and one takes away the human-being.

[dannno]

Who is enslaving the Chinese? The Chinese government or Wal-Mart?

WalMart could choose not to buy slave labor goods. Nobody is forcing them to buy slave labor goods.



Wal-Mart is responsible for approximately 10 percent of the United States' trade deficit with China.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/27829

[danberkeley]

Ask a child to draw their interpretation of a person and they will draw a stick figure with the prerequisite of a smile on it. Take away the smile and one takes away the human-being.

Take away the logic from an argument and you are left with an illogical argument.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I concede that he may not be a commie pinko.



I understand what you said.



In that case, I definately do not exercise capitalist behavior.



I do not think that is communism, therefore, I am not an idiot.

If it were all about money, then we wouldn't be American Patriots but British Loyalists. Becoming independent U.S. citizens came with the risk that our nation's economy would be left in a shambles when we were left cut off from the triangular trade that we shared with Cuba and England.
As it was once true in the past, are we as Americans today willing to let our economy fall into shambles in order to preserve a Union of the people to live free and independent from tyranny?

[dannno]

If you use FRN's and bank at an FDIC insured FRB, you are doing far more damage to your own liberty by that act than the choice of where you shop is.

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves because they were passed down to him. Due to the debt/bonds that is attached to slaves, he was not able to free them before he died. However, he thought that slavery was reprehensible.

This isn't about just our liberty, this is about liberty for everyone. That doesn't mean our government needs to send our military to China to stop them from enslaving their population, it means we need to take a little responsibility.

As DanBerkeley pointed out, we don't really have much of a choice these days because our system is so screwed up. Same situation Thomas Jefferson was in. I'm not saying that everybody needs to stop buying Chinese goods tomorrow, or that nobody here should ever shop at WalMart.. It's just important to be aware of what you're buying and try to make good decisions. That way when the opportunity comes, you can go out and support the right companies and the right people.

It just bothers me that some people here think that WalMart is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because they are able to get their prices so low.. but at what cost? They don't have to do the things that they are doing.

If a company subsidizes their low prices by trading sex slaves, and they have the lowest prices because they are able to subsidize their business with the sex trade so they can knock out the rest of their competition, you don't have to shop there because you believe in capitalism and they have the lowest prices.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Take away the logic from an argument and you are left with an illogical argument.

Your secularized European complexity can't seem to understand the simplicity involved in what it means to be an American.

[danberkeley]

WalMart could choose not to buy slave labor goods. Nobody is forcing them to buy slave labor goods.

Definately. And no one is forcing UEW (Uncle Emanuel Watkins) to shop alongside shoplifters, so why does he want to fine Wal-Mart for not prosecuting shoplifters through the state?

[danberkeley]

If it were all about money, then we wouldn't be American Patriots but British Loyalists. Becoming independent U.S. citizens came with the risk that our nation's economy would be left in a shambles when we were left cut off from the triangular trade that we shared with Cuba and England.
As it was once true in the past, are we as Americans today willing to let our economy fall into shambles in order to preserve a Union of the people to live free and independent from tyranny?

Our economy is already in shambles, but to answer your question, I will be happy as a child drawing a stick figure if (Lincoln's) Union fell.


Your secularized European complexity can't seem to understand the simplicity involved in what it means to be an American.

So you are saying it is okay for the government to force me to pay taxes?

[dannno]

Definately. And no one is forcing UEW (Uncle Emanuel Watkins) to shop alongside shoplifters, so why does he want to fine Wal-Mart for not prosecuting shoplifters through the state?

He does? I thought the idea of the thread was just to make a conscious effort not to shop there?

Maybe I should sue UEW for false advertising?

[danberkeley]

He does? I thought the idea of the thread was just to make a conscious effort not to shop there?

Maybe I should sue UEW for false advertising?

From post #53:


Walmart should be fined by the government for positively reinforcing criminal behavior.

[wizardwatson]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves because they were passed down to him. Due to the debt/bonds that is attached to slaves, he was not able to free them before he died. However, he thought that slavery was reprehensible.

This isn't about just our liberty, this is about liberty for everyone. That doesn't mean our government needs to send our military to China to stop them from enslaving their population, it means we need to take a little responsibility.

As DanBerkeley pointed out, we don't really have much of a choice these days because our system is so screwed up. Same situation Thomas Jefferson was in. I'm not saying that everybody needs to stop buying Chinese goods tomorrow, or that nobody here should ever shop at WalMart.. It's just important to be aware of what you're buying and try to make good decisions. That way when the opportunity comes, you can go out and support the right companies and the right people.

It just bothers me that some people here think that WalMart is the greatest thing since sliced bread just because they are able to get their prices so low.. but at what cost? They don't have to do the things that they are doing.

I agree with you, I just like to lay out my view of what the priorities should be.

Wal-Mart and Chinese slave labor are just symptoms of the real problem. And as far as solutions, boycotting and punitive actions will just put slave laborers out of work. So we have the choice of either letting slave labor continue where someone is paid at the level of sustenance, or put them out of work all together where they may just starve to death.

It is the top-down monetary policies in both our countries that are at the root of the problem.

[dannno]

I agree with you, I just like to lay out my view of what the priorities should be.

Wal-Mart and Chinese slave labor are just symptoms of the real problem. And as far as solutions, boycotting and punitive actions will just put slave laborers out of work. So we have the choice of either letting slave labor continue where someone is paid at the level of sustenance, or put them out of work all together where they may just starve to death.

It is the top-down monetary policies in both our countries that are at the root of the problem.

Hah, ya, that's true. I actually tried to make that point earlier.. Now I'm just tryin to splain how using a morality gauge within your buying habits isn't communist... but you're right.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Our economy is already in shambles, but to answer your question, I will be happy as a child drawing a stick figure if (Lincoln's) Union fell.



So you are saying it is okay for the government to force me to pay taxes?

I will agree that taxes are created with the intentions of cheating some while favoring others. But our government was also set up not by official members of it but by members playing the part of "the people" who would have to serve under it afterwards. Their purpose was not to just establish a new government but to create a more perfect one. This meant that they believed government was a process which could be forever improved upon while it was also their understanding that its functioning was at best a tyranny or, better yet, a necessary evil. So, taxes are a blight indeed but a corruption that we all have to suffer.

[danberkeley]

I will agree that taxes are created with the intentions of cheating some while favoring others. But our government was also set up not by official members of it but by members playing the part of "the people" who would have to serve under it afterwards. Their purpose was not to just establish a new government but to create a more perfect one. This meant that they believed government was a process which could be forever improved upon while it was also their understanding that its functioning was at best a tyranny or, better yet, a necessary evil. So, taxes are a blight indeed but a corruption that we all have to suffer.

So why was not the "income tax" in the original ratified Constitution? The current government is not a necessary evil. It is not necessary at all and purely evil.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So why was not the "income tax" in the original ratified Constitution? The current government is not a necessary evil. It is not necessary at all and purely evil.

While FORM is perfect in that it is an immovable and indestructible in ideal, INFORM is imperfect in its ability to change and be dynamic. So, to implement the formal ideal, one needs to utilize the informal corrupt system.

In the American system, the FORM, the ideal, is defined in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence -- the people's divorce from tyranny. This declaration is depicted as self-evidently true and an unalienable right shared by all human-beings. The U.S. Constitution, the formal document marrying the people to a more perfect government, later defined the INFORMAL, the necessary evil, required to dispense the formal ideal to the people.

[satchelmcqueen]

Wal-Mart employees are free to quit if they feel they don't make as much as they are worth. No one is holding a gun to their head; quite the opposite actually.

im not advocating theft, but this statement leaves out allot. what if thats the only job in town? how many of us have to keep a low paying job because their isnt a better paying one around? just sayin..

[Mini-Me]

Walmart actually helps and encourages their employees sign up for medicare and welfare. In fact, the amount of tax money that goes into subsidizing WalMart employees is astronomical.

I feel like dannno needs a bit of backup in this thread, because his position - the correct position - seems like it's being largely ignored in favor of the following false dichotomy:
"Wal-Mart is a free market success! It's so great!"
"Wal-Mart is a monster, and it's a perfect example of why laissez-faire free market capitalism leads to low wages and misery, blah blah!"
It seems like a few people are forgetting we don't have a free market economy. Yes, there is a free market aspect to Wal-Mart's success. As far as the free market side of things goes, Wal-Mart is certainly doing a good job of passing many savings onto the consumer in order to compete with other companies (rather than passing them to employees, executives, or shareholders, etc.). This is a good thing!*

However, there is also a government largesse aspect:
Wal-Mart benefits greatly from all of the regulations that favor large corporations over small companies, which includes, well...just about all of them.
As dannno with a mysterious third 'n' in his name said, Wal-Mart fuels a huge drain on taxpayers. Instead of paying for its employees' healthcare benefits, etc. like most ordinary companies, it goes to great lengths to help them get government aid instead. Other companies do not do the same. This may be because other companies have superior morals, or it may be because the government is purposely giving Wal-Mart a competitive advantage by making it easier for their employees to get substantial handouts.
Also, Wal-Mart is a corporate welfare queen. I have a couple links on this in post 20 of this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=163438

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______
*I now feel obligated to write a long pro-market rant explaining WHY this is a good thing. Only bother reading this if you don't get why I said so. ;):
The very point of a free market is efficiency in bringing the most/best goods and services to consumers for the least amount of money (least resources consumed). Competition drives lower prices and technological progress, and technological progress (along with increases in labor productivity, etc.) allows more room for prices to become lower in the first place. Some points of interest:
If an existing company in a given market progresses technologically, it will be able to produce a given product with fewer resources than before. Sometimes this means having to hire less labor, and sometimes it means having to buy less from suppliers. The former naturally results in technology unemployment (a subset of structural unemployment), and the latter results in reduced demand for its suppliers' products, possibly causing unemployment in their own ranks. In any case, to gain a competitive edge over other companies, the more efficient company will lower prices, but not quite by the full amount their technological advances can truly allow for (because that's offset by profit motive and paying for the technological investment).
If a new company with fewer labor requirements than its competitors soaks up market share, it will market similar products for lower prices, forcing its competitors to either lower their own prices as well or go out of business. Its competitors can try lowering prices by lowering profits, wages, etc. (until competition in the job market drives their workers elsewhere of course), but if they want to survive in the long run, they must ultimately achieve the same level of technological sophistication as the first company, costing jobs in the short run. Of course, if they go out of business, that will also cost jobs in the short run.
In either case, over the long run, other companies will eventually match or beat the first company's technology, and time and competition will force more and more of the savings to be passed onto the consumer until the consumer benefits from the entirety of the technological change.
As a side note, the development of the new technology itself necessitates employment (someone has to make it), but on the whole, this is still by itself a net reduction in total labor in the long run. Otherwise, if it costs so much to develop and maintain the technology that the economy as a whole would require MORE labor in the long run to produce the same final products the "new way" than it took to produce them "old way," the technology itself would inherently be a step backward in efficiency, and nobody would use it.

All of that unemployment just sounds horrible, doesn't it? Plus, the newly unemployed people will now be competing for existing jobs, driving wages down further (...but this means companies will be even more efficient, and competition will eventually force them to pass those savings onto consumers in the form of lower prices).

Well, all of this DOES sound disastrous, if it all happens too quickly. After all, let's pretend the economy becomes 10% (or hell, 100%!) more efficient every year in total. If the economy actually grew quickly enough to pick up the slack and employ all of those people immediately (extremely unlikely), this basically means 10% (or 100%) more work can now be done with the same amount of resources. Without any economic growth to pick up the slack, this means the same amount of work can now be done with 90.9090...% (or 50%) of the previous resources. In other words, 9.0909...% of previous workers (or 50%) will now be unemployed. If the economy became that much more efficient at such an insane pace, that wouldn't give the newly unemployed people the time to adjust, find new jobs (and/or learn new skills for existing specialized job vacancies), etc. before falling into poverty. However, even in this extreme unemployment situation, there is still a silver lining: The economy is now able to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, but with much less labor and resources. For a moment, let's pretend demand for products remains the same as before, allowing for sustained production (this wouldn't happen with such a sharp decrease in employment, but just humor me here). Whereas 9.0909...% (or 50%) of previous workers are now unemployed, prices will eventually drop by the same amount in the long run. This means the remaining workers in the economy will eventually be able to buy all of the goods and services that the now unemployed used to be able to buy...or in other words, they'll eventually be able to buy 10% more following a 10% increase in economic efficiency, or they'll be able to buy 100% more following a 100% increase in economic activity. Obviously, the downsides are huge here...:
An unbalanced employment distribution will obviously lead to an unbalanced wealth distribution, and it's extremely unlikely that remaining workers will generously give away all of their new purchasing power to the people who lost all theirs.
Demand will not actually remain the same without economic growth soaking up unemployed workers, since current workers will not need twice as much shampoo as before, etc. This means that without economic growth coming about to compensate for the increased efficiency, decreases in employment will result in decreases in demand, which will result in failed businesses and more unemployment, etc., until unemployed people start finding jobs or forming businesses at a faster rate than people are being unemployed. Keynesians consider this downward spiral to be cause for intervention, but this is IMO because they ignore the significance of the last part, "until unemployed people start finding jobs or forming businesses at a faster rate than people are being unemployed." This last part is extremely important, because in the absence of price controls and other such intervention, it will not take long for a glut of unemployed people (or employed people seeking an entrepreneurial opportunity) to notice and take advantage of the glut of cheap unused properties and natural resources following the demise of old companies...and this will spur a self-perpetuating growth in productivity and employment.
In addition, I did mention that prices will eventually drop by the same amount as employment dropped, in the long run, not right away. This means that the benefit to current workers will be delayed anyway, which is another contributing factor towards the previous demand being difficult to sustain.

Clearly, the short-term downsides to extremely fast increases in economic efficiency can be huge, if the economy is not able to grow fast enough to soak up the resulting unemployment. Thankfully, this generally doesn't happen anyway in a free market:
During the transition period, an explosion in technology means that a whole lot of people will be employed to develop, improve, and maintain the new technologies. I said before in the fourth bullet-point in my first list that technology will eventually reduce the resources being used to create a particular product, but this doesn't give the whole picture. When a company initially invests in new, more efficient technology, the main reason they don't lower their prices as fast as they lay people off - aside from lack of price competition from their less advanced competitors - is because their investment isn't paying for itself yet. Without an increase in demand for their product, a company can't drop prices as fast as they lay people off because they're still paying another company (or a bank) for the long-term money-saving technology. This means that during the meantime that remaining workers aren't seeing massive increases in buying power, technology companies are employing enough people anyway to partially mitigate the net effect on unemployment that the first company's layoffs caused.
Market efficiency is not likely to increase by some insane amount (100%, for instance) in a single year in the first place. So long as extreme numbers of people are not all put out of work due to technology all at the same time, economic growth follows increases in market efficiency rather closely.

So, what causes economic growth, and why does it follow increases in market efficiency? This is key: When the economy as a whole does not need all of the people and natural resources to produce the same goods and services before (and fuel the same consumer demand), this means that all of those extra people and natural resources have been freed up to do other things! Someone else recently made a great example in another thread of how this works. I can't find the quote, but I'll paraphrase: Back in the day, the vast majority of Americans were farmers. Today, because of technology, less than 1% of Americans have to spend their time producing food. Does this mean 99% of Americans are now unemployed? Of course not! Instead of farming, most people can now pay for their food by coming up with and providing other goods and services that make other people's lives more comfortable! This was only made possible because technology replaced human workers, freeing up time and resources. In other words, increased efficiency, technology replacing workers, etc. ultimately results in an improvement in everyone's living standards. All throughout our history, technological progress and other factors have made different people's jobs redundant, and those people were left lost and confused about how they would make ends meet. Time and time again though, an entrepreneur has moved in and employed those people to fulfill another unmet need or want. So long as the economy finds ways to get work done with less labor, someone will find a new way for the unemployed people to be made productive.

So, back to Wal-Mart, kind of:
Forgetting all of the stuff about Wal-Mart being a corporate welfare queen, let's pretend that Wal-Mart was operating in a free market. ;) Because less labor and resources are spent bringing a sweater to a consumer, the consumer must spend less labor and resources to obtain that sweater. That leaves labor and resources to be spent on other things, allowing the people of an economy to increase their total aggregate wealth when they find better things to do with their time now that it no longer takes as much effort to bring a sweater to a consumer. (If nothing else, the consumer does not need to work as long to purchase the sweater.) Increasing the size of the "whole pie" like this is the way that people's living standards improve, NOT redistributing wealth by forcing companies to pay higher than market wages!

The reason is that, by definition, wealth redistribution does not create new wealth; it just redistributes it. Higher wages have to come from somewhere, and that place is actually the pockets of consumers! Now, that's great if socially conscious consumers would rather voluntarily subsidize overpriced jobs than pay low prices, voting with their wallets for companies that sacrifice efficiency for charity, as Uncle Emmanuel Watkins and dannno suggest. It's really just a form of charity on the parts of both the consumers and the higher-paying companies, and there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, that still won't do anything to help the workers at Wal-Mart anyway, and Wal-Mart is unlikely to take reduced business as an incentive to increase their wages and prices. Instead, in the best case scenario, the idea is to put Wal-Mart out of business and instead purposely fund less efficient companies, who will then thrive for their inefficiency and hire more overpaid workers due to the generosity of the consumers. (Of course, this is not to say that paying workers more always means inefficiency; if it leads to an increase in productivity, it means just the opposite, and it's not charity at all but just good business.)

It is important to remember that efficiency is not an evil, and market wages are not an evil, either. To illustrate, let's use the example of minimum wage. When companies are forced to pay over market wage, they must raise their prices to survive. This will drive wages up across the board, because slightly more skilled workers will demand more for their specialization (especially now that prices are increasing), and slightly more skilled workers than them will demand the same, ad infinitum. By default, if real wages are forced above the true market wage and companies cannot reduce those wages, they must raise prices to survive...otherwise, companies will fail and there will be both unemployment and a net decrease in productive capacity. Obviously, the net decrease in productive capacity makes this situation much different from when unemployment follows an increase in market efficiency. Now, if wages become overpriced across the board and companies do raise their prices to compensate for the overly high wages, there will simply not be enough money in circulation to sustain such prices. Normally, in a free market, competition between companies for consumers keeps wages from getting significantly overpriced on a large scale (just like competition between companies for quality workers keeps wages from getting significantly underpriced), so we wouldn't really see this problem become pandemic. However, let's assume some force is preventing prices and wages from deflating together to compensate for this. That force could be price controls (minimum wage), price stickiness following massive monetary deflation (due to a central banking system screwup), etc. When prices are not allowed to decrease, this is the ultimate "price stickiness" scenario, and unless the monetary supply is increased*, the end result will be massive and widespread unemployment, to pretty much the exact degree that remaining jobs are overpaid! If the monetary supply is increased, that of course will create a redistribution in wealth from current dollar holders to the beneficiaries of the newly created money (though it wouldn't create the ordinary price inflation followed by inadequate wage inflation, since it's only being created to sustain already inflated prices in this instance).

Moral of the story:
Increased efficiency and economic growth leads to better living standards for all involved...but wealth redistribution is a zero-sum game! In other words, if Wal-Mart's workers get paid more than their actual market wage (making everyone feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside), that means that someone else must either be subsidizing them, getting paid less in real terms, or not getting paid at all. The more inefficient a market is forced to become, the more it tends away from a win-win situation and the more it tends towards a zero-sum game!

As a side note: Someone here - perhaps TeenForPaul :rolleyes: - said that the free market assumes exponential growth, an unsustainable concept. This is not true, though. The free market merely allows for exponential growth as long as it will last, but it requires no growth whatsoever. Growth is only necessary following an increase in efficiency, and the increase in efficiency actually provides the means for that growth to occur. In contrast, our current economy - with its screwed up monetary system and reliance on perpetual borrowing and spending for fuel - does in fact demand and rely upon continual geometric/exponential growth, and it crashes whenever reality falls far enough short of that goal.

[danberkeley]

While FORM is perfect in that it is an immovable and indestructible in ideal, INFORM is imperfect in its ability to change and be dynamic. So, to implement the formal ideal, one needs to utilize the informal corrupt system.

In the American system, the FORM, the ideal, is defined in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence -- the people's divorce from tyranny. This declaration is depicted as self-evidently true and an unalienable right shared by all human-beings. The U.S. Constitution, the formal document marrying the people to a more perfect government, later defined the INFORMAL, the necessary evil, required to dispense the formal ideal to the people.

Listening to you is like listening to Obama. No wonder we believed you to be an Obama supporter. I keep my answer poignant. I do not need to indulge myself in rhetoric to attempt to prove a point. Btw, you are wrong.


im not advocating theft, but this statement leaves out allot. what if thats the only job in town? how many of us have to keep a low paying job because their isnt a better paying one around? just sayin..

What if Santa goes broke and has tp layoff his employees, and Wal-Mart remains the only employer in town?

[danberkeley]

I feel like dannno needs a bit of backup in this thread, because his position - the correct position - seems like it's being largely ignored in favor of the following false dichotomy:
"Wal-Mart is a free market success! It's so great!"
"Wal-Mart is a monster, and it's a perfect example of why laissez-faire free market capitalism leads to low wages and misery, blah blah!"
It seems like a few people are forgetting we don't have a free market economy. Yes, there is a free market aspect to Wal-Mart's success. As far as the free market side of things goes, Wal-Mart is certainly doing a good job of passing many savings onto the consumer in order to compete with other companies (rather than passing them to employees, executives, or shareholders, etc.). This is a good thing!*

However, there is also a government largesse aspect:
Wal-Mart benefits greatly from all of the regulations that favor large corporations over small companies, which includes, well...just about all of them.
As dannno with a mysterious third 'n' in his name said, Wal-Mart fuels a huge drain on taxpayers. Instead of paying for its employees' healthcare benefits, etc. like most ordinary companies, it goes to great lengths to help them get government aid instead. Other companies do not do the same. This may be because other companies have superior morals, or it may be because the government is purposely giving Wal-Mart a competitive advantage by making it easier for their employees to get substantial handouts.
Also, Wal-Mart is a corporate welfare queen. I have a couple links on this in post 20 of this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=163438

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______
*I now feel obligated to write a long pro-market rant explaining WHY this is a good thing. Only bother reading this if you don't get why I said so. ;):
The very point of a free market is efficiency in bringing the most/best goods and services to consumers for the least amount of money (least resources consumed). Competition drives lower prices and technological progress, and technological progress (along with increases in labor productivity, etc.) allows more room for prices to become lower in the first place. Some points of interest:
If an existing company in a given market progresses technologically, it will be able to produce a given product with fewer resources than before. Sometimes this means having to hire less labor, and sometimes it means having to buy less from suppliers. The former naturally results in technology unemployment (a subset of structural unemployment), and the latter results in reduced demand for its suppliers' products, possibly causing unemployment in their own ranks. In any case, to gain a competitive edge over other companies, the more efficient company will lower prices, but not quite by the full amount their technological advances can truly allow for (because that's offset by profit motive and paying for the technological investment).
If a new company with fewer labor requirements than its competitors soaks up market share, it will market similar products for lower prices, forcing its competitors to either lower their own prices as well or go out of business. Its competitors can try lowering prices by lowering profits, wages, etc. (until competition in the job market drives their workers elsewhere of course), but if they want to survive in the long run, they must ultimately achieve the same level of technological sophistication as the first company, costing jobs in the short run. Of course, if they go out of business, that will also cost jobs in the short run.
In either case, over the long run, other companies will eventually match or beat the first company's technology, and time and competition will force more and more of the savings to be passed onto the consumer until the consumer benefits from the entirety of the technological change.
As a side note, the development of the new technology itself necessitates employment (someone has to make it), but on the whole, this is still by itself a net reduction in total labor in the long run. Otherwise, if it costs so much to develop and maintain the technology that the economy as a whole would require MORE labor in the long run to produce the same final products the "new way" than it took to produce them "old way," the technology itself would inherently be a step backward in efficiency, and nobody would use it.

All of that unemployment just sounds horrible, doesn't it? Plus, the newly unemployed people will now be competing for existing jobs, driving wages down further (...but this means companies will be even more efficient, and competition will eventually force them to pass those savings onto consumers in the form of lower prices).

Well, all of this DOES sound disastrous, if it all happens too quickly. After all, let's pretend the economy becomes 10% (or hell, 100%!) more efficient every year in total. If the economy actually grew quickly enough to pick up the slack and employ all of those people immediately (extremely unlikely), this basically means 10% (or 100%) more work can now be done with the same amount of resources. Without any economic growth to pick up the slack, this means the same amount of work can now be done with 90.9090...% (or 50%) of the previous resources. In other words, 9.0909...% of previous workers (or 50%) will now be unemployed. If the economy became that much more efficient at such an insane pace, that wouldn't give the newly unemployed people the time to adjust, find new jobs (and/or learn new skills for existing specialized job vacancies), etc. before falling into poverty. However, even in this extreme unemployment situation, there is still a silver lining: The economy is now able to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, but with much less labor and resources. For a moment, let's pretend demand for products remains the same as before, allowing for sustained production (this wouldn't happen with such a sharp decrease in employment, but just humor me here). Whereas 9.0909...% (or 50%) of previous workers are now unemployed, prices will eventually drop by the same amount in the long run. This means the remaining workers in the economy will eventually be able to buy all of the goods and services that the now unemployed used to be able to buy...or in other words, they'll eventually be able to buy 10% more following a 10% increase in economic efficiency, or they'll be able to buy 100% more following a 100% increase in economic activity. Obviously, the downsides are huge here...:
An unbalanced employment distribution will obviously lead to an unbalanced wealth distribution, and it's extremely unlikely that remaining workers will generously give away all of their new purchasing power to the people who lost all theirs.
Demand will not actually remain the same without economic growth soaking up unemployed workers, since current workers will not need twice as much shampoo as before, etc. This means that without economic growth coming about to compensate for the increased efficiency, decreases in employment will result in decreases in demand, which will result in failed businesses and more unemployment, etc., until unemployed people start finding jobs or forming businesses at a faster rate than people are being unemployed. Keynesians consider this downward spiral to be cause for intervention, but this is IMO because they ignore the significance of the last part, "until unemployed people start finding jobs or forming businesses at a faster rate than people are being unemployed." This last part is extremely important, because in the absence of price controls and other such intervention, it will not take long for a glut of unemployed people (or employed people seeking an entrepreneurial opportunity) to notice and take advantage of the glut of cheap unused properties and natural resources following the demise of old companies...and this will spur a self-perpetuating growth in productivity and employment.
In addition, I did mention that prices will eventually drop by the same amount as employment dropped, in the long run, not right away. This means that the benefit to current workers will be delayed anyway, which is another contributing factor towards the previous demand being difficult to sustain.

Clearly, the short-term downsides to extremely fast increases in economic efficiency can be huge, if the economy is not able to grow fast enough to soak up the resulting unemployment. Thankfully, this generally doesn't happen anyway in a free market:
During the transition period, an explosion in technology means that a whole lot of people will be employed to develop, improve, and maintain the new technologies. I said before in the fourth bullet-point in my first list that technology will eventually reduce the resources being used to create a particular product, but this doesn't give the whole picture. When a company initially invests in new, more efficient technology, the main reason they don't lower their prices as fast as they lay people off - aside from lack of price competition from their less advanced competitors - is because their investment isn't paying for itself yet. Without an increase in demand for their product, a company can't drop prices as fast as they lay people off because they're still paying another company (or a bank) for the long-term money-saving technology. This means that during the meantime that remaining workers aren't seeing massive increases in buying power, technology companies are employing enough people anyway to partially mitigate the net effect on unemployment that the first company's layoffs caused.
Market efficiency is not likely to increase by some insane amount (100%, for instance) in a single year in the first place. So long as extreme numbers of people are not all put out of work due to technology all at the same time, economic growth follows increases in market efficiency rather closely.

So, what causes economic growth, and why does it follow increases in market efficiency? This is key: When the economy as a whole does not need all of the people and natural resources to produce the same goods and services before (and fuel the same consumer demand), this means that all of those extra people and natural resources have been freed up to do other things! Someone else recently made a great example in another thread of how this works. I can't find the quote, but I'll paraphrase: Back in the day, the vast majority of Americans were farmers. Today, because of technology, less than 1% of Americans have to spend their time producing food. Does this mean 99% of Americans are now unemployed? Of course not! Instead of farming, most people can now pay for their food by coming up with and providing other goods and services that make other people's lives more comfortable! This was only made possible because technology replaced human workers, freeing up time and resources. In other words, increased efficiency, technology replacing workers, etc. ultimately results in an improvement in everyone's living standards. All throughout our history, technological progress and other factors have made different people's jobs redundant, and those people were left lost and confused about how they would make ends meet. Time and time again though, an entrepreneur has moved in and employed those people to fulfill another unmet need or want. So long as the economy finds ways to get work done with less labor, someone will find a new way for the unemployed people to be made productive.

So, back to Wal-Mart, kind of:
Forgetting all of the stuff about Wal-Mart being a corporate welfare queen, let's pretend that Wal-Mart was operating in a free market. ;) Because less labor and resources are spent bringing a sweater to a consumer, the consumer must spend less labor and resources to obtain that sweater. That leaves labor and resources to be spent on other things, allowing the people of an economy to increase their total aggregate wealth when they find better things to do with their time now that it no longer takes as much effort to bring a sweater to a consumer. (If nothing else, the consumer does not need to work as long to purchase the sweater.) Increasing the size of the "whole pie" like this is the way that people's living standards improve, NOT redistributing wealth by forcing companies to pay higher than market wages!

The reason is that, by definition, wealth redistribution does not create new wealth; it just redistributes it. Higher wages have to come from somewhere, and that place is actually the pockets of consumers! Now, that's great if socially conscious consumers would rather voluntarily subsidize overpriced jobs than pay low prices, voting with their wallets for companies that sacrifice efficiency for charity, as Uncle Emmanuel Watkins and dannno suggest. It's really just a form of charity on the parts of both the consumers and the higher-paying companies, and there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, that still won't do anything to help the workers at Wal-Mart anyway, and Wal-Mart is unlikely to take reduced business as an incentive to increase their wages and prices. Instead, in the best case scenario, the idea is to put Wal-Mart out of business and instead purposely fund less efficient companies, who will then thrive for their inefficiency and hire more overpaid workers due to the generosity of the consumers. (Of course, this is not to say that paying workers more always means inefficiency; if it leads to an increase in productivity, it means just the opposite, and it's not charity at all but just good business.)

It is important to remember that efficiency is not an evil, and market wages are not an evil, either. To illustrate, let's use the example of minimum wage. When companies are forced to pay over market wage, they must raise their prices to survive. This will drive wages up across the board, because slightly more skilled workers will demand more for their specialization (especially now that prices are increasing), and slightly more skilled workers than them will demand the same, ad infinitum. By default, if real wages are forced above the true market wage and companies cannot reduce those wages, they must raise prices to survive...otherwise, companies will fail and there will be both unemployment and a net decrease in productive capacity. Obviously, the net decrease in productive capacity makes this situation much different from when unemployment follows an increase in market efficiency. Now, if wages become overpriced across the board and companies do raise their prices to compensate for the overly high wages, there will simply not be enough money in circulation to sustain such prices. Normally, in a free market, competition between companies for consumers keeps wages from getting significantly overpriced on a large scale (just like competition between companies for quality workers keeps wages from getting significantly underpriced), so we wouldn't really see this problem become pandemic. However, let's assume some force is preventing prices and wages from deflating together to compensate for this. That force could be price controls (minimum wage), price stickiness following massive monetary deflation (due to a central banking system screwup), etc. When prices are not allowed to decrease, this is the ultimate "price stickiness" scenario, and unless the monetary supply is increased*, the end result will be massive and widespread unemployment, to pretty much the exact degree that remaining jobs are overpaid! If the monetary supply is increased, that of course will create a redistribution in wealth from current dollar holders to the beneficiaries of the newly created money (though it wouldn't create the ordinary price inflation followed by inadequate wage inflation, since it's only being created to sustain already inflated prices in this instance).

Moral of the story:
Increased efficiency and economic growth leads to better living standards for all involved...but wealth redistribution is a zero-sum game! In other words, if Wal-Mart's workers get paid more than their actual market wage (making everyone feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside), that means that someone else must either be subsidizing them, getting paid less in real terms, or not getting paid at all. The more inefficient a market is forced to become, the more it tends away from a win-win situation and the more it tends towards a zero-sum game!

As a side note: Someone here - perhaps TeenForPaul :rolleyes: - said that the free market assumes exponential growth, an unsustainable concept. This is not true, though. The free market merely allows for exponential growth as long as it will last, but it requires no growth whatsoever. Growth is only necessary following an increase in efficiency, and the increase in efficiency actually provides the means for that growth to occur. In contrast, our current economy - with its screwed up monetary system and reliance on perpetual borrowing and spending for fuel - does in fact demand and rely upon continual geometric/exponential growth, and it crashes whenever reality falls far enough short of that goal.

Finally, someone writes a proper response!!! And it's pro-capitalism, and free markets, and anti-welfare, anti-state, and logical!!!

[pacelli]

*I now feel obligated to write a long pro-market rant explaining WHY this is a good thing. Only bother reading this if you don't get why I said so. ;):


Holy moly, very nice job! You should save all that for another post, I'm sure it'll come up again.

[angelatc]

im not advocating theft, but this statement leaves out allot. what if thats the only job in town? how many of us have to keep a low paying job because their isnt a better paying one around? just sayin..

Different town? How many millions of Mexicans managed to trek thousands and thousands of miles to find a job in a different freaking country? Just sayin......get off your ass and make a move.


I've lived in Ohio, Florida, Texas, Indiana, Illinois and now Michigan specifically because of WORK.

[RonPaulMania]

And that movie was completely unbiased.

The that you have to go watch a movie to find out how America feels about WalMart speaks volumes. I have relatives who live in towns that were (and still are) thrilled to finally get their WalMart.

WalMart went into markets where no other retailer wanted to go. They didn't build a single suburban store until the early 90's. They started out in rural America, and people there were thrilled because they suddenly had bigger selections of clothing, electronics that weren't the closeouts from previous seasons, and fair prices to boot.

Yeah, the little guy who had a monopoly and therefore was charging 3 times as much for the same items went out of business. Oh well, that's how business works. And he didn't pay his people squat, either.

It's a documentary. It speaks volumes they have to make a documentary of towns destroyed. My father was attacked by a major chain. They sold things they never sell just to get him out of business. Afterwards they stopped selling the same things. My dad didn't go out of business, but he had to leave the area and re-open.

The purpose of my post is to show what happens. Most of you guys are probably young and have never been self-employed. You think you have an idea of what you are talking about. Tell me about your business, tell me if you've tried retail as a self-employed person.

The difference between the towns before and after Walmart is where the money gravitates to Walmart and not to the people in the town. More people become slaves to the big corporations, and more laws are enacted to give them more strength because they pay more in corporate tax than the little guy.

You go figure it out, it's welfarism with a nice touch of soft-facism.

[RonPaulMania]

I guess cummunism made everyone feel hapy and warm in inside, especially in Siberia. :rolleyes: No comment on the Fed part.

Do you understand how to make a valid critique? Based on your intellectual capacities exhibited I would say "no" resoundingly. To say one cannot criticize aspects of the free-market are ridiculous. Free-market capitalism is the best system outside of a monarchy (review history for details), and in lieu of the fact there isn't one I'm a free-marketer, but I can legitimately find fault.


I read the rest of your post, but it's so poorly thought out it's not worth my time. Why don't you open up a retail store and compete. Take some money and show me how to do it. Otherwise you should keep quiet about things you believe are real from videos or books.

[AmericasLastHope]

http://www.themillionairesecrets.net/images/2008/08/sam-walton.jpg

[asimplegirl]

So did Walmart treat you like a slave? Would you say working there is as bad as it is generally portrayed?

no, walmart itself was not that bad... i mean, my MIL worked there around 15 years...she did not dislike it...made good money for this area. The biggest problem I had was actually certain people that worked FOR walmart...other employees like myself. But, once their superiors knew the issues, it was taken care of. It was the only job I could have had at that age, with little training working better hours, and getting paid much better than working in a drive through. :)

I do remember that a few times, a union tried to get us to rally the troops to join them, but no one wanted part in it...plus, we always got great bonuses... You get 10% off purchases while you work there, you get health insurance, 401K, cheap membership to Sam's Club, dental plan, roadside service, every holiday you get a large bonus of a coupon for an extra 10% off any purchase that can be coupled with your regular 10% off, and could be saved and used in conjunction with the next few coupons (example: you get one coupon for thanksgiving, one for christmas, one everyday use, used together at christmas time, you get 30% off of a purchase= great deal, lol)... also, if you worked weekends or on thanksgiving or christmas eve, you got time and a half...I'd say it was a real good job.

[Anti Federalist]

Wal Marx is not a representation of a free market success story.

It's success is based solely on it's ability to to import goods manufactured in one of the world's most repressive regimes cheaper and quicker than everybody else.

A state prison opening up a "convict made" furniture store right down the road from your furniture shop is not free market either, especially if the majority of the "convicts" are there based on trumped up, baseless or victimless crimes.

There is no free market business model that can compete with the prison/industrial complex model.

Wal Marx is a reprehensible company with atrocious business polices: it is a modern day, global, "company store".

They get none of my money.

[driller80545]

Mao Mart sucks. Dont go there.

[asimplegirl]

The funny thing is, why not just choose for yourself to only buy American made products?? YOu can do this while shopping ANYWHERE. I do not limit my shoppin to any certain stores, but do limit myself to only buying American made...guess what? THIS CAN EVEN HAPPEN IN WALMART.

Let's try being responsible for ourselves, and making good decisions like adults, instead of outing a company that is based here in America, and provides all oil for it's gas station, Murphy, with only American oil, and provides our country with tons of jobs, even for people that are so uneducated that they would otherwise be relying on our tax dollars to support themselves, okay?

[Anti Federalist]

Mao Mart sucks. Dont go there.

Mao Mart...:D

I'm gonna say that three times and keep it.

[danberkeley]

It's a documentary. It speaks volumes

Oh wow! I'm really gonna watch it now... Actually, i think I already have.


Most of you guys are probably young and have never been self-employed.

Yes. No.


You think you have an idea of what you are talking about.

We do.


Tell me about your business, tell me if you've tried retail as a self-employed person.

Yes.


The difference between the towns before and after Walmart is where the money gravitates to Walmart and not to the people in the town.

Do not emplyees get paid too? Does not the government receive sales taxes? Does not the government receive corporate income taxes?


More people become slaves to the big corporations, and more laws are enacted to give them more strength because they pay more in corporate tax than the little guy.

This is why we should increase corporate income taxes. Sieg heil, Obama!

[danberkeley]

Do you understand how to make a valid critique? Based on your intellectual capacities exhibited I would say "no" resoundingly.

Do you understand sarcasm?



To say one cannot criticize aspects of the free-market are ridiculous.

Who haz said that?




I read the rest of your post, but it's so poorly thought out it's not worth my time.

Did you want an essay?


Why don't you open up a retail store and compete. Take some money and show me how to do it.

Done it.


Otherwise you should keep quiet about things you believe are real from videos or books.

:confused:

[asimplegirl]

The difference between the towns before and after Walmart is where the money gravitates to Walmart and not to the people in the town.

Again, depends on where you live. I live in a small town that built a WalMart before I was born. It is still going strong, and I cannot think of one store that has closed since then. It coexists peacefully with other shops and stores in our town. Then again, people generally don't shop in just one place here either considering WalMart and every other tsore in this town is on one less than one mile street, lol.

[Anti Federalist]

Mini Me wrote:


The very point of a free market is efficiency in bringing the most/best goods and services to consumers for the least amount of money (least resources consumed). Competition drives lower prices and technological progress, and technological progress (along with increases in labor productivity, etc.) allows more room for prices to become lower in the first place. Some points of interest:

Well done post, in general, a concise free market overview.

However...

Trade with China is not free market, in that there is no comparative advantage to be had, other than a prison society with scads of labor to take advantage of.

Taking your quote as an example, and using as an example a product I am familiar with...

Barite (barium sulfate) is an oil drilling "weight" material, it is added to drilling mud to increase weight within a casing bore. Most domestic production occurs in Nevada, almost half of the US use of barite comes from China.

Now, mining and extraction of barite is relatively easy, as is the processing, yet because of a comparative advantage in what amounts to "low tech" prison labor, literally, armies of poor peasants with picks and shovels, it is cheaper to mine barite, process it, ship it halfway around the world, process it again, handle it again and get it to the final user, cheaper than it can be dug out of the ground in Nevada.

Comparative advantages and free markets don't work when slavery, convict labor or indentured servitude enters into the equation.

[Brassmouth]

that's never been proved to be a deterrent. Perhaps if americans were honest and hardworking, instead of constantly feeling entitled.....

qft.

[dannno]

A thread trashing WalMarx appears, asimplegirl suddenly signs up, makes WalMarx look like a company run by the lord Jesus Christ himself, then tries to establish her character on the thread about Santa Claus by getting into a confrontational and ridiculous argument about whether kids can be bad or not.

Am I being paranoid or is "she" workin for WalMarx?

[danberkeley]

A thread trashing WalMarx appears, asimplegirl suddenly signs up, makes WalMarx look like a company run by the lord Jesus Christ himself, then tries to establish her character on the thread about Santa Claus by getting into a confrontational and ridiculous argument about whether kids can be bad or not.

Am I being paranoid or is "she" workin for WalMarx?

Lol. I dont see why someone working for Wal-Mart would have to sign up at RPF to defend Wal-Mart. They got me. :D

[asimplegirl]

Um, no I signed up before this thread was started. Maybe I can see the future, too?

I just simply am tired for people looking for turds in muddy water, and would like us all to grow up and see that we will never be 100% happy- even if we think we will. Be realistic, we live in a lesser of the two evils society. Which would you rather?

I don't think they are wonderful, but I think that if you blame WalMart and not the people buying stuff made in other countries for it being there...well, that's really no better than blaming the gun for the crime. We are all adults here- we have brains. Only buy things made in America. Simple as that.

Fuss about Walmart being around or fuss about people on welfare, pick one...because people that have multiple masters degrees are not working at WalMart..its the people that see that money as worth doing that job for...which would you rather? Those people are paying taxes, getting health coverage, and even a retirement plan. So, as I said, why don't you choose what you'd rather?

Fuss about American companies giving all the jobs to people in other countries or fuss about WalMart giving jobs to average Americans and putting other businesses under... what would you rather?

Fuss about Walmart, but buy your gas somewhere that sales product from another country, when walmart's gas is only form USA. You pick...what would you rather?

Fuss about WalMart not getting people arrested for stealing things less than $100, or fuss about having to support those in prison on petty crimes that could be out working. What would you rather?

I don't know, seems like there are much bigger fish to fry is my case. Think what you wish..as I said, you are an adult.




BTW, I don't work for WalMart, I did one time though, and my MIL retired after working there for over 15 years. I signed up for RPF because I am libertarian, and support Ron Paul. Why would I sign up to defend a company that fired me 6 years ago?

[satchelmcqueen]

Different town? How many millions of Mexicans managed to trek thousands and thousands of miles to find a job in a different freaking country? Just sayin......get off your ass and make a move.


I've lived in Ohio, Florida, Texas, Indiana, Illinois and now Michigan specifically because of WORK.

You dont get what im saying. your way isnt always an option.

and if "get off your ass and make a move" is directed towards me, save it. Ive never sat on my ass like you imply. If you meant people in general, i have to say that you are a lucky one. Even with a job, most people cant just pick up and move. allot of people are stuck in bad places with nowhere to turn and have to take what they can.

[nickcoons]

My point is I think it is morally reprehensible to choose to shop there when they are being subsidized by our government and using slave workers.

So do you also choose not to drive because it would involve using roads that are subsidized by the government?

[nickcoons]

Please read the post I made above yours, #55. Capitalism isn't about finding the lowest prices, it's about choosing who you want to buy from based on several criteria including prices and the morality of the company you buy from.

More generally, it's about buying what you consider to be valuable.. an exchange of value for value. For those that consider the ethical implications of Walmart's policies, they will seek out other companies as an end to purchasing the value they want.

I see nothing wrong with the OP's original point in that he's asking people to choose not to patronize Walmart. Afterall, persuasion through reason is the way of a free society. I just don't agree with his argument.

[Feenix566]

Wal Mart has done more for this country than any other business or organization in my memory. They are the epitome of capitalism. They've offered jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, both here and abroad. They've raised the standard of living of all Americans by virtue of the availability to lower-priced goods. All while sustaining the criticism of every limosine liberal in the country who presume they know whats best for the poor better than the poor do. Wal-Mart haters need to get off their high horses and mind their own damn business. If you don't like Wal Mart, don't work there and don't shop there. It's that simple. I'll keep shopping there, thank you very much. I might even end up working there after I retire.

[asimplegirl]

I just simply am tired for people looking for turds in muddy water, and would like us all to grow up and see that we will never be 100% happy- even if we think we will. Be realistic, we live in a lesser of the two evils society. Which would you rather?

I don't think they are wonderful, but I think that if you blame WalMart and not the people buying stuff made in other countries for it being there...well, that's really no better than blaming the gun for the crime. We are all adults here- we have brains. Only buy things made in America. Simple as that.

Fuss about Walmart being around or fuss about people on welfare, pick one...because people that have multiple masters degrees are not working at WalMart..its the people that see that money as worth doing that job for...which would you rather? Those people are paying taxes, getting health coverage, and even a retirement plan. So, as I said, why don't you choose what you'd rather?

Fuss about American companies giving all the jobs to people in other countries or fuss about WalMart giving jobs to average Americans and putting other businesses under... what would you rather?

Fuss about Walmart, but buy your gas somewhere that sales product from another country, when walmart's gas is only form USA. You pick...what would you rather?

Fuss about WalMart not getting people arrested for stealing things less than $100, or fuss about having to support those in prison on petty crimes that could be out working. What would you rather?

I don't know, seems like there are much bigger fish to fry is my case. Think what you wish..as I said, you are an adult.




Just wanted to repeat myself. I think it says it all.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wal Mart has done more for this country than any other business or organization in my memory. They are the epitome of capitalism. They've offered jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, both here and abroad. They've raised the standard of living of all Americans by virtue of the availability to lower-priced goods. All while sustaining the criticism of every limosine liberal in the country who presume they know whats best for the poor better than the poor do. Wal-Mart haters need to get off their high horses and mind their own damn business. If you don't like Wal Mart, don't work there and don't shop there. It's that simple. I'll keep shopping there, thank you very much. I might even end up working there after I retire.

Living requires profit. The mitochondria, an organelle in a cell with its own DnA because it was once an independent organism, makes this possible. It does so by performing respiration. This function creates the means necessary for the cells to store enough energy to survive beyond just the simple process of reproduction to perform other functions. This process requires breathing however.
Even if the law would tell us not to breath, we would have to defy such an unnatural request in order to function as a multi-celled organism. But while we would have to continue breathing against the law, the order requesting that we not do so would cause us distress. This distress would amount to poverty on our system.
Our government today is requiring business to function against that which creates a profit. In order to survive, businesses have to tolerate criminal behavior. Ultimately, this causes the businesses to be almost as criminal as the criminals themselves while their tolerance of such negative behavior further exascerbates worse criminal behavior.
This policy becomes a disease on the host which in this analogy is the nation.
Business needs to profit. They also need to function without worrying about distress. So, while they need to be submissive to the authority of the United States, they also need to be defiant if behaving so is required of them in order to make a profit. This means that business shouldn't tolerate criminal behavior, regardless, while they should reward their good customers.

[asimplegirl]

You lost me on mitochondria. Sorry.

[Feenix566]

Living requires profit. The mitochondria in the human cell creates a profit by performing respiration. This function creates the means necessary for the cells to store enough energy to survive beyond just the simple process of reproduction to perform other functions. This process requires breathing however.
Even if the law would tell us not to breath, we would have to defy such an unnatural request in order to function as a multi-celled organism. But while we would have to continue breathing against the law, the order requesting that we not do so would cause us distress. This distress would amount to poverty on our system.
Our government today is requiring business to function against that which creates a profit. In order to survive, businesses have to tolerate criminal behavior. Ultimately, this causes the businesses to be almost as criminal as the criminals themselves while their tolerance of such negative behavior further exascerbates worse criminal behavior.
This policy becomes a disease on the host which in this analogy is the nation.
Business need to profit. They also need to function without worrying about distress. So, while they need to be submissive to the authority of the United States, they also need to do that which will create a profit. This means that they shouldn't tolerate criminal behavior, regardless, while they should reward their good customers.

What the hell are you talking about???

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You lost me on mitochondria. Sorry.

Living requires profit (I am talking about this). The mitochondria, an organelle in a cell with its own DnA because it was once an independent organism, makes this possible (Ironically, cancer takes away the respiration process which limits the cells to performing only the reproduction process. This takes away the cells ability to control its reproduction. The body defense system then attacks itself in order to survive). It does so by performing respiration (This is the process that adds more energy to the supply which the cell was created with). This function creates the means necessary for the cells to store enough energy to survive beyond just the simple process of reproduction in order to perform other functions (This would be functions like creating energy for living organisms to move around and energy so that their systems can rebuild their internal structures). This process requires breathing however (Thus respiration).

Even if the law would tell us not to breath, we would have to defy such an unnatural request in order to function as a multi-celled organism (While the government might require that we be unnatural, our nature would have to behave defiantly in order to survive). But while we would have to continue breathing naturally against the law, the order requesting that we not do so would cause us distress (A conscious request that we not breath would cause stress on our unconscious act to do so. Once an organism passes out from the conscious act of not breathing, it would unconsciously revert back to breathing). This distress would amount to poverty on our system (The Eukaryote cell functions because organelles cooperate together).
Our government today is requiring business to function against that which creates a profit (A policy which causes disease). In order to survive, businesses have to tolerate criminal behavior (I don't know. Perhaps this analogy sucks). Ultimately, this causes the businesses to be almost as criminal as the criminals themselves while their tolerance of such negative behavior further exascerbates worse criminal behavior.
This policy becomes a disease on the host which in this analogy is the nation.
Business needs to profit. They also need to function without worrying about distress. So, while they need to be submissive to the authority of the United States, they also need to be defiant if behaving so is required of them in order to make a profit. This means that business shouldn't tolerate criminal behavior, regardless, while they should reward their good customers.

[danberkeley]

Living requires profit. The mitochondria, an organelle in a cell with its own DnA because it was once an independent organism, makes this possible. It does so by performing respiration. This function creates the means necessary for the cells to store enough energy to survive beyond just the simple process of reproduction to perform other functions. This process requires breathing however.
Even if the law would tell us not to breath, we would have to defy such an unnatural request in order to function as a multi-celled organism. But while we would have to continue breathing against the law, the order requesting that we not do so would cause us distress. This distress would amount to poverty on our system.
Our government today is requiring business to function against that which creates a profit. In order to survive, businesses have to tolerate criminal behavior. Ultimately, this causes the businesses to be almost as criminal as the criminals themselves while their tolerance of such negative behavior further exascerbates worse criminal behavior.
This policy becomes a disease on the host which in this analogy is the nation.
Business needs to profit. They also need to function without worrying about distress. So, while they need to be submissive to the authority of the United States, they also need to be defiant if behaving so is required of them in order to make a profit. This means that business shouldn't tolerate criminal behavior, regardless, while they should reward their good customers.

The trees are blue, therefore, fish eat kangaroos.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The trees are blue, therefore, fish eat kangaroos.

"Living requires profit" is the thesis statement in the little essay. The process of Mitochondria respiration within the cells of living organisms is an example given supporting the thesis statement. Certainly a process that creates the profit necessary for allowing the higher living organisms to both survive and thrive is substantial enough to consider.
Ironically, as already mentioned, when the functions of cells are limited to just the process of reprodution, this amounts to cancer. So, the mitochondria supplies excess energy for further functioning of the cell like supplying energy to the host body and rebuilding the organs necessary for it to be a dynamic living organism. Structure is made possible because there exists a process within each cell telling it not to reproduce by division. When it loses that process, cancer happens. The body's defense mechanism then attacks itself in an effort to save itself from itself.
The conclusion is that our nation suffers from a cancer. Walmart has become part of that cancer as its policies have become almost as criminal as the criminals it tolerates. While its business policies have become perverted, Walmart penalizes its own good workers and its own good customers to pay for it.
This just won't work. I don't care how irrational it might sound to you. Stop and think about it. It is you who are trying to rationally substantiate criminal behavior.

[danberkeley]

...
The conclusion is that our nation suffers from a cancer. Walmart has become part of that cancer as its policies have become almost as criminal as the criminals it tolerates. While its business policies have become perverted, Walmart penalizes its own good workers and its own good customers to pay for it.
This just won't work. I don't care how irrational it might sound to you. Stop and think about it. It is you who are trying to rationally substantiate criminal behavior.

Wal-Mart is free to do what it wants with its property. If it decides to not file charges shoplifters via the state, that is its choice. How can you justify having the state force Wal-Mart to file charges, via the state, against shoplifters, if by doing so, the state is violating the rights of Wal-Mart? And, if Wal-Mart does not file charges against shoplifters, the state will also steal from Wal-Mart by fining it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wal-Mart is free to do what it wants with its property. If it decides to not file charges shoplifters via the state, that is its choice. How can you justify having the state force Wal-Mart to file charges, via the state, against shoplifters, if by doing so, the state is violating the rights of Wal-Mart? And, if Wal-Mart does not file charges against shoplifters, the state will also steal from Wal-Mart by fining it.

Okay. Your line of reasoning is a result of disillusionment.
We tend to draw lines incorrectly when dividing ourselves up into partisan political parties. One way we do this is by dividing ourselves into rich and poor people when the people most victimized by tyranny are the wealthy.
Similarly, another way we incorrectly divide ourselves politically is by drawing a line between the people and that of business. Business has never been a product created by tyranny. To the contrary, the business of survival was at one time persecuted and taxed by tyranny while the first and second born were selected from each family to work for it, this being a tyranny made up of the king and the pope, respectively speaking.
The king and the pope owned all the land so any business of survival was deemed illigal.
So, while Walmart may think it is doing what is in its best interest when cooperating with tyranny against the people, it is really putting itself out of business. What is truly in the best interest of Walmart is to do what is in the best interest of the people which is the business Walmart is in.
Tyranny doesn't need a business. It doesn't even need money. Tyranny has something greater than money which is power.
So, Walmart needs to do what is in the best interest of the people which means that the company needs to do whatever is necessary to reward its good employees and good customers by prosecuting criminals who shop-lift.

[danberkeley]

Okay. Your line of reasoning is a result of disillusionment.
We tend to draw lines incorrectly when dividing ourselves up into partisan political parties. One way we do this is by dividing ourselves into rich and poor people when the people most victimized by tyranny are the wealthy.
Similarly, another way we incorrectly divide ourselves politically is by drawing a line between the people and that of business. Business has never been a product created by tyranny. To the contrary, the business of survival was at one time persecuted and taxed by tyranny while the first and second born were selected from each family to work for it, this being a tyranny made up of the king and the pope, respectively speaking.
The king and the pope owned all the land so any business of survival was deemed illigal.
So, while Walmart may think it is doing what is in its best interest when cooperating with tyranny against the people, it is really putting itself out of business. What is truly in the best interest of Walmart is to do what is in the best interest of the people which is the business Walmart is in.
Tyranny doesn't need a business. It doesn't even need money. Tyranny has something greater than money which is power.
So, Walmart needs to do what is in the best interest of the people which means that the company needs to do whatever is necessary to reward its good employees and good customers by prosecuting criminals who shop-lift.

So you are saying that state tyranny is okay because it will benefit Wal-Mart's employees and good customers?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So you are saying that state tyranny is okay because it will benefit Wal-Mart's employees and good customers?

The long term consequences Walmart will one day have to face will be a result of the short term decisions it is making now in regards to how it is penalizing its good employees and good customers in order to pay for the tolerance it shows towards the criminal behavior of those who shop-lift.

[danberkeley]

The long term consequences Walmart will one day face will be a result of the short term decisions it is making in regards to penalizing its good employees and good customers in order to pay for its tolerance of the criminal behavior of shop-lifters.

Your management speak aside, do you propose that the state force Wal-Mart to pay its employees more, only sell American-made products, and sell only to customers that do not steal from it?

[angelatc]

It's a documentary. It speaks volumes they have to make a documentary of towns destroyed. My father was attacked by a major chain. They sold things they never sell just to get him out of business. Afterwards they stopped selling the same things. My dad didn't go out of business, but he had to leave the area and re-open.

The purpose of my post is to show what happens. Most of you guys are probably young and have never been self-employed. You think you have an idea of what you are talking about. Tell me about your business, tell me if you've tried retail as a self-employed person.



We absolutely ran a small retail operation.

But I certainly never blamed increased competition for our failure. I blamed our failed business plan. It's called "personal responsibility."

[dannno]

Hmmm, I thought you wanted us to just stop shopping there?

WalMart has the right to give away their merchandise if they want, but as consumers we have the right to recognize this action as hurting their employees salaries among other things, which is bad for the local community, and added together with the rest of their actions discontinue supporting WalMart.

[dannno]

But I certainly never blamed increased competition for our failure. I blamed our failed business plan. It's called "personal responsibility."

Seriously, why weren't you enslaving small children? That is an important aspect of any business plan these days. What were you thinking? How could you possibly be successful without exploiting some third world slavery criminal establishment?

[angelatc]

The funny thing is, why not just choose for yourself to only buy American made products?? YOu can do this while shopping ANYWHERE. I do not limit my shoppin to any certain stores, but do limit myself to only buying American made...guess what? THIS CAN EVEN HAPPEN IN WALMART.



WalMart makes it pretty easy. Here they have big signs that say "Made In America!" and it is actually the only store that I can find things that aren't made overseas.

[angelatc]

Seriously, why weren't you enslaving small children? That is an important aspect of any business plan these days. What were you thinking? How could you possibly be successful without exploiting some third world slavery criminal establishment?

Heh. Oddly enough, the best worker we had was the teenage son of a music mogul multi-millionaire, who demanded that his son earn a paycheck in the real world.

Note that son drove a much nicer car that I will ever be able to afford, but the man was doing something right. The kid worked a grunt job every day for just over minimum wage and never compalined an iota.

[dannno]

WalMart makes it pretty easy. Here they have big signs that say "Made In America!" and it is actually the only store that I can find things that aren't made overseas.

That's because they brought the American 'thing' makers to their knees by going overseas first. They caused everybody to have to lower their standards to compete, but they got really fat first so they are now able to dominate American made goods as well.

[angelatc]

Hmmm, I thought you wanted us to just stop shopping there?

WalMart has the right to give away their merchandise if they want, but as consumers we have the right to recognize this action as hurting their employees salaries among other things, which is bad for the local community, and added together with the rest of their actions discontinue supporting WalMart.

Did you not read the post from the woman who used to work there? She was perfectly content.

My SIL left Penney's to go to WalMart because WalMart paid more.

You people need to lay off the Kool Aid. The people who work at WalMart are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

[angelatc]

That's because they brought the American 'thing' makers to their knees by going overseas first. They caused everybody to have to lower their standards to compete, but they got really fat first so they are now able to dominate American made goods as well.

They started out selling in markets that the "established" retailers wouldn't touch. Then won the game. I say Congratulations, and thanks for selling stuff so cheap.

[dannno]

Heh. Oddly enough, the best worker we had was the teenage son of a music mogul multi-millionaire, who demanded that his son earn a paycheck in the real world.

Note that son drove a much nicer car that I will ever be able to afford, but the man was doing something right. The kid worked a grunt job every day for just over minimum wage and never compalined an iota.

Heh, ironically minimum wage isn't enough for most people who actually need a salary, so you found a kid who didn't need money to work for you..that was pretty lucky

(not that raising minimum wage would ever help the situation..obviously we shouldn't have it, or a Fed, or income taxes, etc)

[dannno]

Did you not read the post from the woman who used to work there? She was perfectly content.


She also JUST started posting here.. (speaking of koolaid ;))

[angelatc]

That's because they brought the American 'thing' makers to their knees by going overseas first. They caused everybody to have to lower their standards to compete, but they got really fat first so they are now able to dominate American made goods as well.

ANd I've told this tale repeatedly. My husband and I had another business idea. The only retailer in the whole country that would put it on their shelves without a $10,000 per store stocking fee was WalMart.

WalMart's buyers are the most honest in retail. They are allowed to accept no gifts from the salespeople, and they do their business in a common room in front of video cameras.

Most other chains have buyers that get paid thousands of dollars in bribes to get their products on the shelves, in addition to the "slotting fees."

That's another significant reason that WalMart has lower prices - the vendors don't have to pay so much "protection" money to management.

[danberkeley]

Seriously, why weren't you enslaving small children? That is an important aspect of any business plan these days. What were you thinking? How could you possibly be successful without exploiting some third world slavery criminal establishment?

lol.


We absolutely ran a small retail operation.

But I certainly never blamed increased competition for our failure. I blamed our failed business plan. It's called "personal responsibility."

Omg. I cant believe I havent mentioned "personal responsibility" yet. I assumed it was implied and obvious via my arguments. It seems as if Uncle's Marxist training have prevented him from detecting it. :D


Hmmm, I thought you wanted us to just stop shopping there?

Nope. And that's not even what I'm arguing with him about.


WalMart has the right to give away their merchandise if they want, but as consumers we have the right to recognize this action as hurting their employees salaries among other things, which is bad for the local community, and added together with the rest of their actions discontinue supporting WalMart.

You bring up a good point. Should the government prevent Wal-Mart from donating or otherwise giving away its merchandise because it is somehow immoral and will somehow harm non-theif customers?

[dannno]

They started out selling in markets that the "established" retailers wouldn't touch. Then won the game. I say Congratulations, and thanks for selling stuff so cheap.

Well they also won the game by doing things that a lot of people wouldn't be willing to do if they knew what they were doing. And they pioneered it and made it easy for other companies to do the same.

I'm not saying that WalMart is an inefficient beastly piece of government red tape.. obviously they run a tight (slave) ship...


I agree these are some good business practices.



WalMart's buyers are the most honest in retail. They are allowed to accept no gifts from the salespeople, and they do their business in a common room in front of video cameras.

Most other chains have buyers that get paid thousands of dollars in bribes to get their products on the shelves, in addition to the "slotting fees."

That's another significant reason that WalMart has lower prices - the vendors don't have to pay so much "protection" money to management.

[angelatc]

She also JUST started posting here.. (speaking of koolaid ;))


What does that even mean?

[angelatc]

Well they also won the game by doing things that a lot of people wouldn't be willing to do if they knew what they were doing.

I'm not saying that WalMart is an inefficient beastly piece of government red tape.. obviously they run a tight (slave) ship...

You can't tell me a single thing that WalMart does that I don't know about - I promise you that.

Are you saying that the people who work there aren't intelligent enough to decide these things for themselves? Because that sounds like liberalism, not libertarianism.

[angelatc]

Well they also won the game by doing things that a lot of people wouldn't be willing to do if they knew what they were doing. And they pioneered it and made it easy for other companies to do the same.



Pffft.

What they pioneered was a mastery of the JIT inventory system. They were so bloody effective at maximizing their distribution system that the other retailers never stood a chance. They are certainly not the only chain that ever got corporate welfare.

[angelatc]

You bring up a good point. Should the government prevent Wal-Mart from donating or otherwise giving away its merchandise because it is somehow immoral and will somehow harm non-theif customers?

It also isn't fair to other retailers.

Charity should also be illegal. If churches give food away for free, the grocery stores will all go out of business.

[danberkeley]

It also isn't fair to other retailers.

Charity should also be illegal. If churches give food away for free, the grocery stores will all go out of business.

I guess I will continue to not give money to homeless people and other beggars. :cool:

[dannno]

You can't tell me a single thing that WalMart does that I don't know about - I promise you that.

Are you saying that the people who work there aren't intelligent enough to decide these things for themselves? Because that sounds like liberalism, not libertarianism.

I'm pretty sure based on what I've read about WalMart and what you have told about their business model that they could have been successful without all child slave labor in China.. without all of the excessive corporate subsidies..without pushing low-wage workers into welfare and medicare.

They had a successful business model and that's great. Had they done a handful of immoral things, they would be like any other store. The problem is they went overboard. Had they really limited their immoral practices, I would have a lot of respect for them. Their prices wouldn't be as low, but they would still be a big market player.

[dannno]

What does that even mean?

It means checkout the Santa Claus thread and tell me asimplegirl is a real person and not a person trying to establish themselves on a new messageboard with an ulterior motive.

You know WalMart pays people to scan internet messageboards for negative topics on WalMart just so they can signup and tell everybody about their great experiences with WalMart.

[Pepsi]

One time I was at Wal Mart, and no one was there working the check out lines. Granted it was at night, but no one there.

[dannno]

One time I was at Wal Mart, and no one was there working the check out lines. Granted it was at night, but no one there.

Well the lights in WalMart and other retailers operate on a frequency, which means the lights are on half of the time and off half of the time.

It always freaks me out that you can only see half the stuff going on inside those stores.

[heavenlyboy34]

It means checkout the Santa Claus thread and tell me asimplegirl is a real person and not a person trying to establish themselves on a new messageboard with an ulterior motive.

You know WalMart pays people to scan internet messageboards for negative topics on WalMart just so they can signup and tell everybody about their great experiences with WalMart.

Another conspiracy! :eek:

[danberkeley]

Well the lights in WalMart and other retailers operate on a frequency, which means the lights are on half of the time and off half of the time.

It always freaks me out that you can only see half the stuff going on inside those stores.

Awsome!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Your management speak aside, do you propose that the state force Wal-Mart to pay its employees more, only sell American-made products, and sell only to customers that do not steal from it?

The endeavor of survival is a business of the people, not tyranny. Tyranny does not need business or Walmart because it doesn't need money. One doesn't need money when one has the power to counterfeit it.
How is this management-speak?

[danberkeley]

The endeavor of survival is a business of the people, not tyranny. Tyranny does not need business or Walmart because it doesn't need money. One doesn't need money when one has the power to counterfeit it.
How is this management-speak?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_speak
http://www.joke-archives.com/workplace/managementspeak.html

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_speak
http://www.joke-archives.com/workplace/managementspeak.html

But the endeavor of survival was at one time the illegal business of the people. And, yes, the king and the pope did own all the land while the first born and the second born from each family were typically employed by each respectively while the rest of the children were left to tend to the illegal business of survival. And, yes indeed, this illegal business got penalized with a tax.
Please translate this business-speak in normal prose.

[Mini-Me]

Another conspiracy! :eek:
Although I think it's unfair and premature to accuse asimplegirl of being a shill, it would be extraordinarily silly to question dannno's statement about Wal-Mart hiring people to protect their rep on the Internet. ;) It's not a "conspiracy theory" so much as it is common sense. After all, big companies have entire departments devoted to managing public relations. If you were running the PR department of Wal-Mart, a multi-hundred-billion dollar international business with almost unrivaled name recognition, would you NOT consider it a good idea to hire a few Internet warriors? It's only a "conspiracy" in the sense that people act deliberately and with a purpose. Shills and astroturfers certainly exist, and to doubt this would be pure foolishness.

[asimplegirl]

Oh, I agree that they could do MUCH better with their employees, and they could and should stop allowing assembly and such from happening in other countries, but so should other companies. We only buy American made products... that is probably the hardest thing I have ever done...we just don't seem to sell much American stuff here.


It means checkout the Santa Claus thread and tell me asimplegirl is a real person and not a person trying to establish themselves on a new messageboard with an ulterior motive.

A real person?lol

Yes, I am new here, but not so new that I show up after this thread was created... and again, I got FIRED from WalMart like 6 years ago, I was a college student...it was an easy enough job, paid better than anywhere else. The whole point I was making is we should choose which priorities are more important to us- that is all.

And what good will the Santa Clause thread do? What exactly does Santa have to do WalMart? I actually don;t even shop at WalMart anymore- haven't since I started needing to go outside of our town during the week for something unrelated, and WalMart was not the best option anymore.

I actually abhor spending a ton, and that is why I don't LIKE WalMart.

[AutoDas]

Don't worry asimplegirl, everyone here is just a figment of dannno's imagination.

[asimplegirl]

good- i was beginning to question my existence. :)

[noxagol]

I work at wal-mart and I get paid just fine.

I am a cart pusher. I make 9.25 an hour. I have worked for wal-mart for 3 years now. I get 80 hours paid vacation, 20 hours personal time, 40 hours sick time. I have HSA insurance, where I get up to 900 dollars from walmart through the year (I've had it for one year and I already have 2500 saved up in it). I got 1200$ in bonuses from walmart. I have the lowest paying job in the entire company.

I fail to see how walmart pays its people so little.

[Kludge]

I work at wal-mart and I get paid just fine.

Wait... Before we go back to serious discussion... Do they make you do jumping jacks and cheer for Walmart as they showed in a news clip I was watching last year?

[angelatc]

Heh, ironically minimum wage isn't enough for most people who actually need a salary, so you found a kid who didn't need money to work for you..that was pretty lucky

(not that raising minimum wage would ever help the situation..obviously we shouldn't have it, or a Fed, or income taxes, etc)

Minimum wage isn't supposed to be enough for people that actually need a living wage. Minimum serves no real purpose other than to make liberals feel good, and to drive small businesses out of business.

I do admit we were lucky to have him - he was a very good worker. And he just stopped in and filled out an application. It wasn't like his father helped him even get a job.

[angelatc]

I'm pretty sure based on what I've read about WalMart and what you have told about their business model that they could have been successful without all child slave labor in China.. without all of the excessive corporate subsidies..without pushing low-wage workers into welfare and medicare.

They had a successful business model and that's great. Had they done a handful of immoral things, they would be like any other store. The problem is they went overboard. Had they really limited their immoral practices, I would have a lot of respect for them. Their prices wouldn't be as low, but they would still be a big market player.

Rolls eyes. Child labor is a natural part of the business cycle. When the people in China earn enough money, child labor will begin to cease. And after that, it will become illegal.

I don't like corporate subsidies, but a business who didn't accept them couldn't compete. It is the government who is to blame for handing them out.

Same thing with "pushing" workers onto welfare. It isn't the responsibility of your employer to provide for your life. And if the state programs are available, it is silly not to encourage people to utilize them.

The worst thing that happened to the free market health care system was employer paid insurance. If more companies refused to pay for insurance as a benefit, the costs and prices would come down.

[angelatc]

Wait... Before we go back to serious discussion... Do they make you do jumping jacks and cheer for Walmart as they showed in a news clip I was watching last year?

You still remember it? Or did you tape it, and now you watch it over and over. :)

Or is it a PPV thing?

I am actually considering getting a part time job at either Meijer's or Wal-Mart. I don't really care how much money I start out at because I know I can earn as much as I choose to, and move up as far as I want, if I apply myself.

But I just want to work somewhere close to home, and both of those places are being built right up the road from me.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I work at wal-mart and I get paid just fine.

I am a cart pusher. I make 9.25 an hour. I have worked for wal-mart for 3 years now. I get 80 hours paid vacation, 20 hours personal time, 40 hours sick time. I have HSA insurance, where I get up to 900 dollars from walmart through the year (I've had it for one year and I already have 2500 saved up in it). I got 1200$ in bonuses from walmart. I have the lowest paying job in the entire company.

I fail to see how walmart pays its people so little.

Great. I have some questions for you then.
Is a cart pusher the person who collects and pushes the carts back into the store?
Where is your store located?
Is your wage typical nationally? Are you working in a state that is pro-labor union? I mean, Walmart certainly bases its pay on each region depending on the economy where it is located because it has stores worldwide.
In an open shop state which is typically anti-labor union, contracting out labor is a common practice. The contracting out of labor allows certain kinds of jobs to be "whored" out thus keeping their wage potential low.
As the United States continues to convince the majority to buy into an empty box, expect more and more people to have to settle for minimum wage jobs. I'm not saying this is bad.
Of course, we can trust that Walmart will keep paying their employees as well as they do even after they run all the other stores in the nation out of business and rid it of all its high paying jobs.

[asimplegirl]

Well, when I worked at WalMart in college, I worked at the PIneville, Louisiana store, and my starting pay as an untrained cashier who had never held a job before was 7.00 an hour, with all the perks listed above...

Okay, sorry for this, but stepson is driving me nuts to type something here, so just pretend it does not exist:

ilovedaddyandmama*****isascientist

Funny, huh? I had to spell scientist for him.

[Mini-Me]

I don't like corporate subsidies, but a business who didn't accept them couldn't compete. It is the government who is to blame for handing them out.

This is only half true, though. It's true that as long as the government has the power to give these subsidies, they will exist, and those who take advantage of them will always have an unfair advantage (practically forcing others to take advantage as well). However, you're glossing over two things:
Corporate welfare is not available to all businesses, just to the big ones with enough political clout. So yes, companies like Target are just as guilty here as Wal-Mart...but it's not like mom and pop shops have the option of handouts like megacorps do, anyway.
Large corporations and the people behind them are in no way blameless for the existence of corporate welfare, either! While a government with power over the markets inevitably enables corporate welfare and it is futile to attack the problem without gutting government, it still only really exists because corporate lobbyists deliberately subverted the purpose of government by buying the laws in the first place. Companies like Wal-Mart are not the ones who are taking advantage of these subsidies because other companies are, and they therefore have to. Companies like Wal-Mart are the ones who bought the politicians in the first place.

[Firegirl]

I work at wal-mart and I get paid just fine.

I am a cart pusher. I make 9.25 an hour. I have worked for wal-mart for 3 years now. I get 80 hours paid vacation, 20 hours personal time, 40 hours sick time. I have HSA insurance, where I get up to 900 dollars from walmart through the year (I've had it for one year and I already have 2500 saved up in it). I got 1200$ in bonuses from walmart. I have the lowest paying job in the entire company.

I fail to see how walmart pays its people so little.

CRAP. I'm going to work at Wal-Mart just for the vacation package. I've worked for 10 years as a Systems Administrator and have never found a job willing to give me more than 1 week paid vacation and 6 days sick leave. WTF!

[RonPaulMania]

When a company buys products from a country that purposely suppress the value of their dollar, uses child labor, and other means to suppress the free-market that should be considered a model of free-marketeers?

You guys are insane.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, when I worked at WalMart in college, I worked at the PIneville, Louisiana store, and my starting pay as an untrained cashier who had never held a job before was 7.00 an hour, with all the perks listed above...

Okay, sorry for this, but stepson is driving me nuts to type something here, so just pretend it does not exist:

ilovedaddyandmama*****isascientist

Funny, huh? I had to spell scientist for him.

Yes. Walmart obviously does a lot of things right. They certainly don't over pay their executives while they seem to save a lot of money by being housed in cheap office space while based in a crappy little town in Arkansas.
Still, Walmart has become a monster because it no longer speaks directly to the people and its customers but communicates with them through lawyers.
This is the way mega corporate entities poison society into bankruptcy.
In comparison, small companies grow faster, are more inventive, pay their employees more, while they pay more in taxes. They tend to be more intimate with their employees and their customers. More likely to attend the same Church.
So, break up the corporate behemoths.

[mrwiizrd]

might be time for some of you to take in alternate perspective on Wally World (Language Warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzV0L-f1Fdk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqp5KTygcog

[angelatc]

When a company buys products from a country that purposely suppress the value of their dollar, uses child labor, and other means to suppress the free-market that should be considered a model of free-marketeers?

You guys are insane.

ALl companies do that. THere aren't any big stores that don't have 90% of their merchandise imported from China, and another 10% from other 3rd world countries, textiles in particular.

You're the insane one.

[angelatc]

Yes. Walmart obviously does a lot of things right. They certainly don't over pay their executives while they seem to save a lot of money by being housed in cheap office space while based in a crappy little town in Arkansas.
Still, Walmart has become a monster because it no longer speaks directly to the people and its customers but communicates with them through lawyers.

Now you're just making things up and it is nonsensical to boot! I went to WalMart Saturday and the store was packed.

A guy said hello to me at the door, several employees in various aisles asked if I was finding what I wanted, and because every single lane was open I joined a checkout queue in the #2 position.

They seem to be hearing me loud and clear.

[angelatc]

It means checkout the Santa Claus thread and tell me asimplegirl is a real person and not a person trying to establish themselves on a new messageboard with an ulterior motive.

You know WalMart pays people to scan internet messageboards for negative topics on WalMart just so they can signup and tell everybody about their great experiences with WalMart.

Oh, she's part of a conspiracy. I get it now.

You can't refute what she said, so she is obviously just a shill.

Obviously.

[dannno]

Oh, she's part of a conspiracy. I get it now.

You can't refute what she said, so she is obviously just a shill.

Obviously.

I did think it was a little curious she was a new member shilling for walmart, but didn't really consider it until I read the Santa Claus thread.. after this one. I could be wrong, I'm just sayin.. read it for yourself if you want.

[angelatc]

'm not saying that WalMart is an inefficient beastly piece of government red tape.. obviously they run a tight (slave) ship...

Slave ship? Slaves don't get paid market wages last time I checked.

You're saying that you don't like WalMart because the media tells you they're evil.

WalMart isn't your friend, they're a business. They don't do a darned thing that every other major retailer does.

Everything WalMart does is in the name sound business practices.

They run a tight ship because they want to deliver items to us at the lowest price. You're implying that the buyers should be getting bribes at our expense? THe employees should be allowed to shoplift?

The only reason any free market theory works is because it demands that everybody acts in their own self-interest. How anybody can argue for a free market and against WalMart on the same forums is beyond me.

If you want to argue that WalMart isn't operating in a free market, then that's fair, but it isn't WalMart's fault. It is the fault of the greedy politicians that kowtow to them. If the governments unilaterally said "no" when WalMart asked for concessions, they would have to say "no" to every retailer who wanted a special deal.

Chicago said "No," and WalMart built their store just over the city line. So the smaller city ended up with millions in tax revenue, and jobs. And people living in a southside low income neighborhood suddenly had a place to shop that wasn't a small overpriced crappy little store with bars on the windows.

ANother WalMart story - my friend's BIL got a lump sum settlement for an auto accident. He decided to buy a house, but the money wasn't all that much, so he bought a small place that adjoined a commercial zone. Specifically he was right next to a welding shop, which was next to some used autoparts junkyard type place.

But he was happy because he no longer had to pay rent.

Then WalMart wanted to build there, and they needed his property for the parking lot. He steeled himself for the battle because he "knew" they were going to try to weasel him out of the property. The first offer was for 3 times the amount he had decided he was going to ask for, so no lawyers were even required.

And then he bought another nice little house, paid cash, in a more traditional neighborhood.

[mconder]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their stuff is shit made for the poor to middle class. I prefer fine things. If I buy shoes, I normally spend around $200 and they last me for 3-5 years of every day use. I buy high end electronics, because I have a discerning ear and expect that my audio will not sound like the inside of a trash can. If I buy chocolate, I buy Belgian or German. Sure, I may buy trash bags or some household item for which there is not a superior substitute at Wal-Mart, but by and large I avoid it because it's products don't offer the lifestyle I have become accustomed to. I don't care if Wal-Mart ignores theft of their own property or gives to some unsavory causes, if they offered good products, I would shop there regardless. It is their money and property they are wasting after all. As far as the employees and those who shop there are concerned, they need to get a life. Not to be rude or anything, but that is pretty sad that someone can live on $9.25 in hour. It's also sad that people want to shop their and fill their lives with that trash. Who am I to judge though, apparently there is a market for both Wal-Mart jobs and it's products. So...enjoy your shit living people! You deserve it. It's the best shit on earth crappy wages can buy! I'm sorry if I sound like a page out of Atlas Shrugged, but seriously, low employee pay is the last reason I should stop shopping at Wal-Mart.

On a side note, Target actually has some decent stuff from time to time.

[mconder]

Slave ship? Slaves don't get paid market wages last time I checked.

In fact, they are probably being paid above market wages die to minimum wage law.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

might be time for some of you to take in alternate perspective on Wally World (Language Warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzV0L-f1Fdk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqp5KTygcog

Why would some of us agree with the exclusion of you? If you ain't gonna join in with the rest of us dumb jack-asses, I ain't gonna hee-haw.

[mrwiizrd]

Why would some of us agree with the exclusion of you? If you ain't gonna join in with the rest of us dumb jack-asses, I ain't gonna hee-haw.

I must have missed something, because I have no clue what you are referring to.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Now you're just making things up and it is nonsensical to boot! I went to WalMart Saturday and the store was packed.

A guy said hello to me at the door, several employees in various aisles asked if I was finding what I wanted, and because every single lane was open I joined a checkout queue in the #2 position.

They seem to be hearing me loud and clear.

Walmart doesn't manage. It dismanages. I will agree they put on good appearances. Still, when an issue arises, Walmart management hushes up, side steps and calls their lawyers.
There is a better way. It happened when AT&T got broken up. What happened? Well, a multi-billion dollar industry transformed into a huge multi-trillion dollar technology.
We need to put an end to the Federal lobbying that corporate behemoths perpetuate onto the American people. There ain't nothing left to buy from that empty box.
Instead, give local inventiveness a chance and she will transform herself from a naughty, polluting whore into a good, helpful wife.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I must have missed something, because I have no clue what you are referring to.

Comedy just won't work when it expresses the antagonist as sophisticated. Solution? Don't mix comedy and politics.

[dannno]

Slave ship? Slaves don't get paid market wages last time I checked.


Slave prisoners don't get market wages. They are prisoners. Did you read the articles I posted? It has nothing to do with the media.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

In fact, they are probably being paid above market wages die to minimum wage law.

Per individual, more money was being spent by southern plantation owners taking care of their slaves than northern industrialists were spending paying each of their workers.

[dannno]

Why are people here advocating slavery??

Who cares if slaves get paid more (which is bologna), the point is that they aren't allowed to leave if they want to.

[dannno]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php


Child slave labor revelations sweeping China
By Howard W. French
Published: June 15, 2007

SHANGHAI: Su Jinduo and Su Jinpeng, brother and sister, were traveling home by bus from a vacation visit to Qingdao during the Chinese New Year when they disappeared.

Cheated out of their money when they sought to buy a ticket for the final leg of their journey home, they were taken in by a woman who offered them warm shelter and a meal on a cold winter night, and then later a chance to earn enough money to pay their fare by helping her sell fruit.

The next thing they knew they were being loaded onto a minibus with several other children and taken to a factory in the next province, where they were pressed into service making bricks. Several days later, the boy, who is 16, escaped along with another boy and managed to reach home, enabling his father to rescue his 18-year-old sister a few days later.

This story is one of hundreds like it that have swept China in recent days in an unfolding labor abuse scandal that involves the kidnapping in central China of hundreds of children, and perhaps more, some reportedly as young as 8, who have been forced to work under brutal conditions - scantily clothed, unpaid and often fed little more than water and steamed buns - in the brick kilns of Shanxi Province. There have also been reports of adults being forced to work under similar circumstances.


Also see http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/10/200712.shtml


How China Hides Its Slave Labor From the Free World

Wes Vernon
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003


WASHINGTON – The biggest cover-up in the long parade of Clinton scandals was probably the sell-out to the communist Chinese. Harry Wu had a front-row seat on that tragedy, from the inside of Chinese labor camps.

In his book “Troublemaker,” published by NewsMax.com, Wu compares those living hells (or laogai) to Hitler’s concentration camps.

The trade with China, paid for by Americans who are finding it harder and harder to find merchandise they want that does not bear the “Made in China” label, was already in force when the Clintons came to Washington. After they saw the political benefits to be had for selling out, the relationship took off like a rocket.

Thanks in large measure to the Clinton White House's cover-up, we do not know to this day the full story of Chinese espionage that enabled them to gain access to U.S. nuclear weapons know-how through the theft of highly sensitive classified data on sophisticated warheads or the missile-related technology that was compromised.

But Harry Wu saw the Clinton/Beijing relationship from a deeply human perspective: the blue uniforms and shaved heads in Chinese prison camps.

For years, he had been one of the estimated 50 million blue uniformed “troublemakers” who had worked in the camps under totally inhumane conditions. Some of them literally worked themselves to death.

The forced labor had turned out for the American market such items as rubber-soled shoes, boots, kitchenware, toys, tools, men’s and women’s clothing, and sporting goods.

What really bothered Wu was that in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton had criticized the first President Bush for being too lenient in regard to China’s human-rights behavior. Yet in his first year, he renewed China’s trade benefits. True, he attached some strings to the deal, including insistence that China abide by a 1992 agreement banning the export of prison labor products to the United States.

But much of China’s forced labor is carefully hidden from the Western World. A 1992 “white paper” issued by the Chinese regime in defense of its labor camps raised more questions than it answered, as far as Wu was concerned.

For example, he asks, “[W]hy do they put phony names on their prison camp factories, as if trying to conceal the profitable use of forced labor?”

At one camp of lost souls hunched over their machines, stripped of their identities (in some cases for decades), the security officer was asked if he could guarantee the quality of his products.

“No problem,” he answered. He then cited an example of a German manufacturer who bought steel pipes from the camps, and labeled them as being made in Germany. So the products were good enough for the Germans. “How about that!” he marveled.

'Getting Wise'

A manager at Shanghai’s Laodong Machinery Plant, where hand tools were made, boasted that because the U.S. Congress had recently made “quite a fuss” about the prison camps, he and his bosses had devised a way to get around the problem.

“We always go through the import-export company,” he said, meaning they set up companies to handle the shipment of goods. That way, as Wu explains it, “nobody quite knows where the goods came from. These guys were getting wise to the ways of the world.”

This wording in a law on the books in the U.S. for decades specifically forbids the importation of products made by slave labor. Wu cites a little-known section of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Law. That controversial measure is widely known for having imposed a high tariff in an attempt to protect American jobs during the Great Depression. Critics say it made the Depression worse.

The tariff section of the law was changed by the Reciprocal Trade Act of the 1930s. But the anti-slave-labor section is still “the law of the land.” It specifically bans importing anything made by forced labor. Its final paragraph reads, “Forced labor, as herein used, shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance, and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”

The law is routinely violated or circumvented, in part because of devices used by the Chinese (such as those cited above) to hide the true origins of the products, but also because of political pressure on politicians here at home not to probe to deeply into the matter. As Wu bluntly puts it, “Many American business people do not know - or do not want to know — the implications of purchasing forced-labor products.”

When the Clintons ascended to power in the White House, ignoring those “implications” became de facto policy in Washington. We will discuss that next.

[mrwiizrd]

Comedy just won't work when it expresses the antagonist as sophisticated. Solution? Don't mix comedy and politics.

That's your opinion, bud. I personally think Penn & Teller do a fantastic job of presenting an alternate viewpoint in a very entertaining manner, and along the way they refute a good deal of baseless rhetoric championed by those who wish to further their own agenda.

I could care less if you choose to shop at Wally World or not, but I like to stick my head out the window and check for myself before I believe someone trying to tell me that the sky is falling.

[ThePieSwindler]

Lol, another long-ass Wal-Mart thread. Maybe theres morally self-righteous reasons to not shop at Wal-mart, but this is the best the OP could come up with? Because they "let people get away with stealing" (which wasn't even cited, and someone who actually works for wal-mart contradicted 5 posts later). Then the OP realizes its not a sufficient enough reason on its own..so lets throw in the age old "they dont pay their workers enough" argument. Well shit, what is "enough"? Apparently people are willing to work there for "not enough". Oh but i forgot, they are forced to because Wal-Mart the leviathan consumes entire local economies.

There are valid arguments (that i dont agree with, but can understand nonetheless) the dislike walmart but... do we have to create these kind of threads every few weeks?

[Crash Martinez]

If Walmart has a policy of forgiving shoplifters, that's essentially the same as a policy of setting the price of everything in the store at $0.00. Clearly, laissez-faire capitalism would serve to remedy that problem quite rapidly: Every customer should simply accept the policy-established price and agree to pay $0 for Walmart's products. It's not stealing if they actually have a policy to allow it! Then, when Walmart loses all its money by supplying goods at 100% lower than market value and 100% loss to them, they will be immediately forced out of business.

This is of course absurd. Any company with a policy of allowing shoplifting cannot in fact become the victim of shoplifting, because the would-be shoplifter is instead merely taking advantage of stated company policy. I sincerely doubt that Walmart has a policy by which they would be forced out of business by natural market operation within minutes. And most of all, I can't see how one's decision to shop there or not would make any difference one way or the other. If we all boycotted Walmart, then what? They'd be forced to lower their prices? Well, you can't go any lower than $0.00! If they already have a policy of allowing shoplifting, their prices are as low as they get! What, we boycott Walmart until they resort to a policy of paying shoplifters just to make sure someone is carrying their merch out the door??? hahaha!!

[danberkeley]

Yes. Walmart obviously does a lot of things right. They certainly don't over pay their executives while they seem to save a lot of money by being housed in cheap office space while based in a crappy little town in Arkansas.

Evil Wal-Mart! They should move to a non-crappy town with expensive office space. :D


Still, Walmart has become a monster because it no longer speaks directly to the people and its customers but communicates with them through lawyers.

WTF does that even mean?


This is the way mega corporate entities poison society into bankruptcy.

WTF... does that mean?


In comparison, small companies grow faster, are more inventive, pay their employees more, while they pay more in taxes. They tend to be more intimate with their employees and their customers. More likely to attend the same Church.

So?

[danberkeley]

Walmart doesn't manage. It dismanages.

:confused:


I will agree they put on good appearances. Still, when an issue arises, Walmart management hushes up, side steps and calls their lawyers.
There is a better way. It happened when AT&T got broken up. What happened? Well, a multi-billion dollar industry transformed into a huge multi-trillion dollar technology.
We need to put an end to the Federal lobbying that corporate behemoths perpetuate onto the American people. There ain't nothing left to buy from that empty box.
Instead, give local inventiveness a chance and she will transform herself from a naughty, polluting whore into a good, helpful wife.

FAIL!


Per individual, more money was being spent by southern plantation owners taking care of their slaves than northern industrialists were spending paying each of their workers.

Yes. Slavery was becoming very inefficient.


From DANNO


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/15/news/china.php


Quote:
Child slave labor revelations sweeping China
By Howard W. French
Published: June 15, 2007

SHANGHAI: Su Jinduo and Su Jinpeng, brother and sister, were traveling home by bus from a vacation visit to Qingdao during the Chinese New Year when they disappeared.

Cheated out of their money when they sought to buy a ticket for the final leg of their journey home, they were taken in by a woman who offered them warm shelter and a meal on a cold winter night, and then later a chance to earn enough money to pay their fare by helping her sell fruit.

The next thing they knew they were being loaded onto a minibus with several other children and taken to a factory in the next province, where they were pressed into service making bricks. Several days later, the boy, who is 16, escaped along with another boy and managed to reach home, enabling his father to rescue his 18-year-old sister a few days later.

This story is one of hundreds like it that have swept China in recent days in an unfolding labor abuse scandal that involves the kidnapping in central China of hundreds of children, and perhaps more, some reportedly as young as 8, who have been forced to work under brutal conditions - scantily clothed, unpaid and often fed little more than water and steamed buns - in the brick kilns of Shanxi Province. There have also been reports of adults being forced to work under similar circumstances.


Also see http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...635144,00.html


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/200712.shtml


Quote:
How China Hides Its Slave Labor From the Free World

Wes Vernon
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003


WASHINGTON – The biggest cover-up in the long parade of Clinton scandals was probably the sell-out to the communist Chinese. Harry Wu had a front-row seat on that tragedy, from the inside of Chinese labor camps.

In his book “Troublemaker,” published by NewsMax.com, Wu compares those living hells (or laogai) to Hitler’s concentration camps.

The trade with China, paid for by Americans who are finding it harder and harder to find merchandise they want that does not bear the “Made in China” label, was already in force when the Clintons came to Washington. After they saw the political benefits to be had for selling out, the relationship took off like a rocket.

Thanks in large measure to the Clinton White House's cover-up, we do not know to this day the full story of Chinese espionage that enabled them to gain access to U.S. nuclear weapons know-how through the theft of highly sensitive classified data on sophisticated warheads or the missile-related technology that was compromised.

But Harry Wu saw the Clinton/Beijing relationship from a deeply human perspective: the blue uniforms and shaved heads in Chinese prison camps.

For years, he had been one of the estimated 50 million blue uniformed “troublemakers” who had worked in the camps under totally inhumane conditions. Some of them literally worked themselves to death.

The forced labor had turned out for the American market such items as rubber-soled shoes, boots, kitchenware, toys, tools, men’s and women’s clothing, and sporting goods.

What really bothered Wu was that in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton had criticized the first President Bush for being too lenient in regard to China’s human-rights behavior. Yet in his first year, he renewed China’s trade benefits. True, he attached some strings to the deal, including insistence that China abide by a 1992 agreement banning the export of prison labor products to the United States.

But much of China’s forced labor is carefully hidden from the Western World. A 1992 “white paper” issued by the Chinese regime in defense of its labor camps raised more questions than it answered, as far as Wu was concerned.

For example, he asks, “[W]hy do they put phony names on their prison camp factories, as if trying to conceal the profitable use of forced labor?”

At one camp of lost souls hunched over their machines, stripped of their identities (in some cases for decades), the security officer was asked if he could guarantee the quality of his products.

“No problem,” he answered. He then cited an example of a German manufacturer who bought steel pipes from the camps, and labeled them as being made in Germany. So the products were good enough for the Germans. “How about that!” he marveled.

'Getting Wise'

A manager at Shanghai’s Laodong Machinery Plant, where hand tools were made, boasted that because the U.S. Congress had recently made “quite a fuss” about the prison camps, he and his bosses had devised a way to get around the problem.

“We always go through the import-export company,” he said, meaning they set up companies to handle the shipment of goods. That way, as Wu explains it, “nobody quite knows where the goods came from. These guys were getting wise to the ways of the world.”

This wording in a law on the books in the U.S. for decades specifically forbids the importation of products made by slave labor. Wu cites a little-known section of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Law. That controversial measure is widely known for having imposed a high tariff in an attempt to protect American jobs during the Great Depression. Critics say it made the Depression worse.

The tariff section of the law was changed by the Reciprocal Trade Act of the 1930s. But the anti-slave-labor section is still “the law of the land.” It specifically bans importing anything made by forced labor. Its final paragraph reads, “Forced labor, as herein used, shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance, and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”

The law is routinely violated or circumvented, in part because of devices used by the Chinese (such as those cited above) to hide the true origins of the products, but also because of political pressure on politicians here at home not to probe to deeply into the matter. As Wu bluntly puts it, “Many American business people do not know - or do not want to know — the implications of purchasing forced-labor products.”

When the Clintons ascended to power in the White House, ignoring those “implications” became de facto policy in Washington. We will discuss that next.

Am I missing something here? I do not see Wal-Mart mentioned in either excerpt.

[Mini-Me]

Slave prisoners don't get market wages. They are prisoners. Did you read the articles I posted? It has nothing to do with the media.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she didn't realize you were talking about actual slavery on a literal level. Plus, it's difficult to ascertain whether Wal-Mart is actually doing business with people who enslave their workers. It's easy to assume they do, but China is a big country with literally over a billion people, so it's tough to tell. It certainly doesn't help that these people are covering up their tracks and purposely making it difficult to determine, though...I'd really like to read an article by Ron Paul and/or the Austrians on the implications of free trade with countries with a large proportion of involuntary or enslaved workers. This may be a different situation from free trade with third world countries in general, and on a moral level, I think it's important to really understand whether trade with such countries ultimately benefits their people or benefits their elite and perpetuates the people's slavery. If we were to have a unilateral free trade policy, knowing this would at least give us the information we need to make moral purchasing decisions on the individual level.

[cheapseats]

Lol, another long-ass Wal-Mart thread. Maybe theres morally self-righteous reasons to not shop at Wal-mart...the leviathan...consumes entire local economies.[/QUOTES]

Aye, and feeds others.


[QUOTE]There are valid arguments...but...

...they are ultimately pissing at the moon trying to make it more yellow. They are the stuff of academic debates that should be had with impassioned leisure during one's college years. That's one of the reasons that college is so important. I know, I know, no taxpayer money on a well-educated citizenry.

If AIG et al are too big to fail, Wal*Mart -- which is notably NOT on the brink of collapse -- is too big for a beleaguered and impoverished population to take down.

There ARE strategic boycotts that COULD be waged without prevailing upon people who are in NEED of low prices to further suck it up for the home team.

I've been advocating these for over two years to no avail.

There is an expression on the Recovery Circuit about when an alcoholic or addict is finally beaten into a state of reasonableness, about them becoming as open-minded as only the dying can be. Anyone actually ready to roll up their sleeves and get 'er done?

Divide and conquer. Divide and conquer. Separate one from the herd.

[asimplegirl]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their stuff is shit made for the poor to middle class. I prefer fine things. If I buy shoes, I normally spend around $200 and they last me for 3-5 years of every day use. I buy high end electronics, because I have a discerning ear and expect that my audio will not sound like the inside of a trash can. If I buy chocolate, I buy Belgian or German. Sure, I may buy trash bags or some household item for which there is not a superior substitute at Wal-Mart, but by and large I avoid it because it's products don't offer the lifestyle I have become accustomed to. I don't care if Wal-Mart ignores theft of their own property or gives to some unsavory causes, if they offered good products, I would shop there regardless. It is their money and property they are wasting after all. As far as the employees and those who shop there are concerned, they need to get a life. Not to be rude or anything, but that is pretty sad that someone can live on $9.25 in hour. It's also sad that people want to shop their and fill their lives with that trash. Who am I to judge though, apparently there is a market for both Wal-Mart jobs and it's products. So...enjoy your shit living people! You deserve it. It's the best shit on earth crappy wages can buy! I'm sorry if I sound like a page out of Atlas Shrugged, but seriously, low employee pay is the last reason I should stop shopping at Wal-Mart.

On a side note, Target actually has some decent stuff from time to time.

I cannot believe that no one has responded to this horseshit of a post.

First of all I cannot believe that someone would think they were better than another person because of the amount of money they bring in- you are a classist fool.

Secondly all that money obviously doesn't buy spell check...I may not have as much income as you, but I can discern the difference between "their" and "there".

Thirdly, even some of us "low class" people know that you don't buy EVERYTHING at WalMart...apparently, you are under the assumption that all people that make less money than you ONLY shop at WalMart.

You know, as much money as you claim to have, you have no tact and obviously not a care in the world over you you may hurt with your assumptions and judgments. I can guarantee you that with the amount of money I make, you'd think I was some poor fool, who had nothing on earth to live for...but you would be wrong. While you struggle through your day, stressed out, rushing, rushing, rushing to make another dollar, I am sitting back in my home, with no regard for the time, doing as I wish, with a happy family that can do whatever they want- and because we know how to budget and are mature enough to carry out such budgeting, we can still have whatever we want without doing without our other needs and wants.

Some of us take pride in not be some idiot that is going to bring himself to the grave working, and buying... being another person who MUST rely the economy and government, and those above him to keep his home and have steady income to fund that "lifestyle they have become accustomed to". While you worry about slaving away for someone who gives not two shits about you, and whether or not you can keep your fine chocolates and Starbucks, those of us "under you", and sitting back in amusement.

If you'd get off your high horse long enough, to would realize that people like YOU are the laughingstock of America. I can go into a store with you, and no one could tell a difference in class. I also wear nice clothing, drive a decent vehicle that I OWN, buy good healthy food..actually all organic and natural, which some assume to be only affordable to the high class. I have good grammar, well behaved children will be with me, and a husband who opens doors for women and is respectful to those around him. We are put together, and act as such. When we go home, we walk into a home that we OWN, and have never paid a note for, on land that we OWN, with furniture that has never stressed us...it is all OWNED.

Living within your means, and not being so childish that you need tons of money to be able to survive does not make someone any lower than you.

[angelatc]

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she didn't realize you were talking about actual slavery on a literal level.


It's hard to keep up, but either way I don't give a rat's ass. The road to capitalism is always paved with slave and child labor. Eventually the slaves will unionize, and the parents will make enough money to allow them the option to send their kids to school instead.

And then, after the issue is settled, the government will outlaw both those things.



Plus, it's difficult to ascertain whether Wal-Mart is actually doing business with people who enslave their workers. It's easy to assume they do, but China is a big country with literally over a billion people, so it's tough to tell. It certainly doesn't help that these people are covering up their tracks and purposely making it difficult to determine, though...I'd really like to read an article by Ron Paul and/or the Austrians on the implications of free trade with countries with a large proportion of involuntary or enslaved workers. This may be a different situation from free trade with third world countries in general, and on a moral level, I think it's important to really understand whether trade with such countries ultimately benefits their people or benefits their elite and perpetuates the people's slavery. If we were to have a unilateral free trade policy, knowing this would at least give us the information we need to make moral purchasing decisions on the individual level.

We can't endorse free trade, then decide only to allow free trade with countries that meet some arbitrary minimum social standard. It isn't free trade any longer.

Plus you can't decide that it isn't good for third world children to work in factories, when it might be just provide a long term catalyst out of poverty. American children paid their dues, and we are a stronger country because of it.

[libertarian4321]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their stuff is shit made for the poor to middle class. I prefer fine things. If I buy shoes, I normally spend around $200 and they last me for 3-5 years of every day use.

I assume you're kidding about this, but just in case you aren't:

If I buy a $20 pair of shoes from Walmart, and they only last one year (not likely- they'll probably last longer than that, but just for the sake of argument), I buy 5 pairs in 5 years, for a cost of $100. You paid $200 PLUS "opportunity cost" (the interest you could have made on that money). Ergo, you're "fine" shoes end up costing you more than double the cost of the cheapies.



If I buy chocolate, I buy Belgian or German.

What, can't afford Swiss?

In any event, they get their beans from the same place everyone else does. BTW, there is plenty of bad chocolate made in all of those countries. The chocolate market in Europe- that includes Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany is dominated by companies owned by that famous "european" chocolatier KRAFT FOOD


Who am I to judge though, apparently there is a market for both Wal-Mart jobs and it's products.

Ya think? I guess when you become the largest company in the world, its a pretty safe bet that there is a market for your company, lol.

BTW, its not just the "poor" and middle class that shop at Walmart (or Target or Kmart)- plenty of millionaires do as well.

Most people who have money don't like to blow it just because they have it- most wealthy people tend to be pretty frugal (though those who ostentatiously display their wealth get all the "press"). If I can get a product at Target for $x, and the same product is $(x+30%) at a more "high end" store, the only thing I accomplish by going to the high end store is "burning" my money.

Overpaying for something isn't a sign of success, its a sign of stupidity- conspicuous consumption is probably more common among "wanna bes" than people with real money.

[angelatc]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their stuff is shit made for the poor to middle class. I prefer fine things. If I buy shoes, I normally spend around $200 and they last me for 3-5 years of every day use.

That's nice, but I would get tired of wearing the same damned pair of shoes every day for 3+ years.



I buy high end electronics, because I have a discerning ear and expect that my audio will not sound like the inside of a trash can.

Since, IMHO, CD's and then MP3's ruined audio forever, that's a moot point for me.



If I buy chocolate, I buy Belgian or German. Sure, I may buy trash bags or some household item for which there is not a superior substitute at Wal-Mart, but by and large I avoid it because it's products don't offer the lifestyle I have become accustomed to. I don't care if Wal-Mart ignores theft of their own property or gives to some unsavory causes, if they offered good products, I would shop there regardless. It is their money and property they are wasting after all. As far as the employees and those who shop there are concerned, they need to get a life. Not to be rude or anything, but that is pretty sad that someone can live on $9.25 in hour. It's also sad that people want to shop their and fill their lives with that trash. Who am I to judge though, apparently there is a market for both Wal-Mart jobs and it's products. So...enjoy your shit living people! You deserve it. It's the best shit on earth crappy wages can buy! I'm sorry if I sound like a page out of Atlas Shrugged, but seriously, low employee pay is the last reason I should stop shopping at Wal-Mart.

On a side note, Target actually has some decent stuff from time to time.

It isn't sad that somebody can live on $9.25 an hour. It is commendable. What is sad are people like you. You sound like a snob, and a judgemental one at that. I secretly hope you choke on your German chocolate. And Target absolutely sucks. I have never understood the affinity that the "high-enders" have for Target. I have never purchased anything there that I was happy with. They aren't cheap, but they have that perception.

The world doesn't need people like you, that's for sure.

I'd much rather buy cheap things and put my excess cash into investments, but it is people like you who keep our economy going, I guess. Thanks for the bubble, asshole.

[LibertyEagle]

Since, IMHO, CD's and then MP3's ruined audio forever, that's a moot point for me.



YES, YES, YES!!! I totally agree. :)

[angelatc]

BTW, its not just the "poor" and middle class that shop at Walmart (or Target or Kmart)- plenty of millionaires do as well.


Hee! My husband, who is in the grocery business, saw a co-worker get fired when the boss ran into said colleague at the mall and saw that their groceries all came from WalMart.

[angelatc]

YES, YES, YES!!! I totally agree. :)

Hell has frozen over, it would appear. :)

[angelatc]

Thirdly, even some of us "low class" people know that you don't buy EVERYTHING at WalMart...apparently, you are under the assumption that all people that make less money than you ONLY shop at WalMart.
.

Yes, that's a valid point. I never bothered to shop for work clothes at WalMart, and I wouldn't buy my husband's suits there!

But underwear? Why pay more for the exact same brands?

Personally, I rarely shopped at WalMart because I tend to buy a lot of things second hand. *AND* I hate big stores. I really just want to run in and run out. WalMart was so big that I ended up impulse shopping and blowing any savings I would have made.

But now WalMart has that ship-to-store thingy, and it's very cool. I can shop online, and then just pick up the stuff at WalMart. And they have that system in Beta for their grocery items. I have no doubt they'll figure out a way to work coupons into the system, then I'll be in heaven!

[danberkeley]

I cannot believe that no one has responded to this horseshit of a post.

We respect everyone's right to not have to respond to "horseshit" posts.


First of all I cannot believe that someone would think they were better than another person because of the amount of money they bring in- you are a classist fool.

We respect everyone's right to "think they were better than another person because of the amount of money they bring in".


Secondly all that money obviously doesn't buy spell check...I may not have as much income as you, but I can discern the difference between "their" and "there".

We respect everyone's right to express some degree of illiteratecy.

:p

[LittleLightShining]

I'd much rather buy cheap things and put my excess cash into investments, but it is people like you who keep our economy going, I guess. Thanks for the bubble, asshole.*giggles*

[inibo]

might be time for some of you to take in alternate perspective on Wally World (Language Warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzV0L-f1Fdk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqp5KTygcog

Jeez Louise, I love those guys.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If Walmart has a policy of forgiving shoplifters, that's essentially the same as a policy of setting the price of everything in the store at $0.00. Clearly, laissez-faire capitalism would serve to remedy that problem quite rapidly: Every customer should simply accept the policy-established price and agree to pay $0 for Walmart's products. It's not stealing if they actually have a policy to allow it! Then, when Walmart loses all its money by supplying goods at 100% lower than market value and 100% loss to them, they will be immediately forced out of business.

This is of course absurd. Any company with a policy of allowing shoplifting cannot in fact become the victim of shoplifting, because the would-be shoplifter is instead merely taking advantage of stated company policy. I sincerely doubt that Walmart has a policy by which they would be forced out of business by natural market operation within minutes. And most of all, I can't see how one's decision to shop there or not would make any difference one way or the other. If we all boycotted Walmart, then what? They'd be forced to lower their prices? Well, you can't go any lower than $0.00! If they already have a policy of allowing shoplifting, their prices are as low as they get! What, we boycott Walmart until they resort to a policy of paying shoplifters just to make sure someone is carrying their merch out the door??? hahaha!!


One shouldn't boycott Walmart. One shouldn't shop there. A lot of us have turned to shopping at dollar stores instead. I've actually found better quality products at $.99 cent stores. Those $1.00 and $.99 cent stores really compete at providing the customer the highest quality product at the lowest price.

[Crash Martinez]

One shouldn't boycott Walmart. One shouldn't shop there.

:confused: Paging Dr. Webster...

[danberkeley]

A lot of us have turned to shopping at dollar stores instead. I've actually found better quality products at $.99 cent stores. Those $1.00 and $.99 cent stores really compete at providing the customer the highest quality product at the lowest price.

That's impossible! Wal-Mart undercuts EVERYONE! You are being delusional. :D

[Crash Martinez]

Anyway, Unkie, so what you're saying is that the REAL "reason that one should make a conscious effort not to shop at walmart" is because they can get better deals elsewhere? Well duh. Why bother wasting a thread on why we should shop for the best bargain? We're all capitalists here! ...or are we?

[Anti Federalist]

We're all capitalists here! ...or are we?

I'm a "free marketeer" as opposed to a "capitalist". There is a subtle, but distinct, difference, at least in the way the words are used now.

Point is: Wal Marx in no way embodies free market ideals.

The analogy, already made, is a state run prison setting up an "inmate labor" shop right down the road from your shop, making the exact same product.

Free market business models cannot compete with state sponsored prison labor, indentured servitude or slavery.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

:confused: Paging Dr. Webster...

I don't shop at Walmart myself. I'm not boycotting them though. Nothing dramatic like that. I simply don't shop there. They really can't match the prices of $1.00 stores while I've recently turned to shopping at the $.99 cent stores as they have surprising quality while a penny less. I bought an electric razor for
$.99 cents the other day. Wow!
Why shop for Chinese products at Walmart when I can get the same products at a $.99 cent store?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Anyway, Unkie, so what you're saying is that the REAL "reason that one should make a conscious effort not to shop at walmart" is because they can get better deals elsewhere? Well duh. Why bother wasting a thread on why we should shop for the best bargain? We're all capitalists here! ...or are we?

What is bigger, Martinez? The U.S. or Walmart? The U.S. or the F.B.I.? The U.S. or Microsoft? The U.S. or the U.S. Marines? The U.S. is like the major DnA for the nucleus of a Eukaryote cell while all these little things like Walmart, the F.B.I. and Microsoft are like viruses threatening it. Now, they can be a benefit to the host body, yes.
But sometimes certain organizations need to be put in their place when they get too big for their britches. Just ask AT&T.
Is Walmart bigger than the U.S.? No.

[asimplegirl]

See, this is where they suck me in...they price match anyone. anyone...unless it is one of those, "with our card" sales.. I just cannot beat that...I haven't been in a while because of the crowds, and I have to go at like 2 in the morning to be able to go through the aisles, but I have to say, I have a hard time finding a reason not to buy the products I am going to buy anyway at WalMart..

[libertarian4321]

See, this is where they suck me in...they price match anyone. anyone...unless it is one of those, "with our card" sales.. I just cannot beat that...I haven't been in a while because of the crowds, and I have to go at like 2 in the morning to be able to go through the aisles, but I have to say, I have a hard time finding a reason not to buy the products I am going to buy anyway at WalMart..

That doesn't work for me.

Why screw with "matching" (you have to show the competitors ad, etc) when you can just go to the competitor?

On top of avoiding the hassle of "proving" the other guy has a lower price, its just less trouble to go to Target (or whatever)- less cars in the lot, less people in the stores, etc.

So I rarely go to Walmart- not because I'm on an anti-Walmart jihad, but just because going to Walmart is a nasty experience and I can do just as well at their competitors.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That doesn't work for me.

Why screw with "matching" (you have to show the competitors ad, etc) when you can just go to the competitor?

On top of avoiding the hassle of "proving" the other guy has a lower price, its just less trouble to go to Target (or whatever)- less cars in the lot, less people in the stores, etc.

So I rarely go to Walmart- not because I'm on an anti-Walmart jihad, but just because going to Walmart is a nasty experience and I can do just as well at their competitors.

Strange you should mention the nastiness. When shopping at Walmart, I've noticed that people generally empty the trash out of the interior of their car onto the exterior of Walmart's parking lot.