Walmart.. Good or Bad? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

WRESTLINGFAN

11-23-2006, 06:02 AM

CNBC showed a documentary about Walmart a few months ago. It showed alot about the company ie the history, day to day operations and other aspects of the company. It showed the good points like low prices, thousands of products etc. They also showed the bad like how their "associates" lack quality health care coverage, how mom and pop stores are being run out of business. Seeing the entire documentary I will be honest that Walmart is great for the customer but I am on the fence when it comes to the overall big picture of Walmart

mdr55

11-23-2006, 06:06 AM

It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there.  Bad for you if you work there.

sailor

11-23-2006, 06:10 AM

walmart is evil.  other large, discount stores (target for one) are much better for everyone involved.

Bulldogcakes

11-23-2006, 06:11 AM

mdr55 wrote: It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there. Bad for you if you work there. People are free to quit their jobs whenever they want if they're not happy there. Nobody forces them to work there.BTW-How many people LOVE their jobs anyway?The real reason why WalMart is the target for attack (and described as "evil") that they are is they generally support Republican candidates and causes. Its all political, and the issues raised are the usual left/right issues.       

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-23-06 @ 10:13 AM

Death Metal Moe

11-23-2006, 06:14 AM

I shop there.  Sorry, guess I'm fueling the machine.  Where else can I get prices like that?  I try not to buy the shit products, but sure, I'll pick up a 10 dollar pair of shoes if they look kinda cool.  I don't like that they may drive some businesses out of the area either, but I'm not going to pay double the price for some of the same products just to keep a small local store open.  My money only goes so far.

furie

11-23-2006, 06:14 AM

they help keep inflation down

TheMojoPin

11-23-2006, 06:25 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: mdr55 wrote: It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there. Bad for you if you work there.People are free to quit their jobs whenever they want if they're not happy there. Nobody forces them to work there.BTW-How many people LOVE their jobs anyway?The real reason why WalMart is the target for attack (and described as "evil") that they are is they generally support Republican candidates and causes. Its all political, and the issues raised are the usual left/right issues.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-23-06 @ 10:13 AM You're kidding, right?  If not, that's one of the most willfully ignornat statements about an incredibly well researched economic and sociological case study.

Sheeplovr

11-23-2006, 06:27 AM

very very very very bad

Fez4PrezN2008

11-23-2006, 06:33 AM

Wal-mart can pee in my butt... err, wait a minute.... I mean I pee in Wal-mart's butt.... yeah, that's it...

furie

11-23-2006, 06:33 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: mdr55 wrote: It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there. Bad for you if you work there. People are free to quit their jobs whenever they want if they're not happy there. Nobody forces them to work there.BTW-How many people LOVE their jobs anyway?The real reason why WalMart is the target for attack (and described as "evil") that they are is they generally support Republican candidates and causes. Its all political, and the issues raised are the usual left/right issues.

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-23-06 @ 10:13 AM

and do what? most people who work at wal-mart don't have a lot of options. and in middle America, with manufacturing all but gone, they don't have many opportunities.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-23-2006, 06:35 AM

A couple of months ago Walmart opened in White Plains, NY, Near where Target is. People were worried that Walmart was going to run Target out of town but all it looks to me are price wars between the 2 stores. So far Walmart looks like a success there

Bulldogcakes

11-23-2006, 06:39 AM

furie wrote:and do what? most people who work at wal-mart don't have a lot of options. and in middle America, with manufacturing all but gone, they don't have many opportunities.  Right, Wal Mart puts stores in places where there are no other jobs and people have no money to shop there. That sounds right to me.

Bulldogcakes

11-23-2006, 06:40 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: mdr55 wrote: It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there. Bad for you if you work there.People are free to quit their jobs whenever they want if they're not happy there. Nobody forces them to work there.BTW-How many people LOVE their jobs anyway?The real reason why WalMart is the target for attack (and described as "evil") that they are is they generally support Republican candidates and causes. Its all political, and the issues raised are the usual left/right issues. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-23-06 @ 10:13 AM You're kidding, right? If not, that's one of the most willfully ignornat statements about an incredibly well researched economic and sociological case study. Cubs suck.

jagsfans

11-23-2006, 06:41 AM

I hear over and over how awful Wal Mart is for workers and that is primarily from Union people upset that Wal Mart has successfuly blocked unions as is their right to do.  My wife worked at Wal Mart until she started her own business and of course it sucks, but they pay a liveable wage for a fair amount of work.  On the argument that they push Mom and Pop stores out of business, too fucking bad.  If you can't compete in the open market who's fucking fault is that.  Ever Mom and Pop store I know closes their doors @ 6 PM and is closed on Sunday and whenever else they feel like it. I go to Wal Mart because they are open when shopping is convenient for me.

torker

11-23-2006, 06:52 AM

Close all the Wal-Marts and force all those living within the boarders of the United States to drive American automobiles.

BYOBKenobi

11-23-2006, 07:47 AM

This is how it works:They buy stuff cheap, then become the majority of the suppliers' businesses, then leverage that position just like every single human being on the planet would.The suppliers try to make things cheap because they can sell a shit load more in walmart than they could on <a href="http://www.mywhackyindividualproduct'swebsite.biz/">www.mywhackyindividualproduct'swebsite.biz</a> Prevailing rate!  That means that everyone pays what people are paid in that region for the work they do.  If I moved to the middle of PA then I wouldn't make NYC money.  If I am a factory worker in China I'm not going to make NY money either.  You can't judge what people are being paid against american wages.  Just because our min wage is... I have no clue at this point... $5 doesn't mean we have to pay chinese $5 an hour.  That's a very ethnocentric view.  If we paid them the equivalent of $5 american dollars they might draw doctors out of their offices to work putting together toys.Whenever you're dealing with labor, it's paid what it requires to get the quality of labor desired by upper management.  If you're looking for mechanics and by paying 20,000 a year you're getting top of the line mechanics, you're not going to try to fill a vacancy at 40,000 because you know you'll eventually find someone to fill the slot at 20,000.  If walmart pays min wage, and people are taking those jobs, then they won't raise it.You can say there are no jobs available because walmart's stormtroopers went out and killed every job, but I don't buy it. (this is where I can guarantee that someone will argue with me, but oh well) Walmart is not evil.  Walmart is capitalism.  They buy the cheapest they can get.  They get cheap labor and they sell me a really nice polo shirt in a XXL for $7.  That's what I care about.  They don't throw bricks through mom and pop stores' windows and run them out of town.  They are an extremely efficient business, which in turn, runs off sloppy business.Home Depot did the same thing to hardware stores, but that was more specific, so people didn't freak out about home depot being evil.

furie

11-23-2006, 07:49 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: furie wrote:and do what? most people who work at wal-mart don't have a lot of options. and in middle America, with manufacturing all but gone, they don't have many opportunities. Right, Wal Mart puts stores in places where there are no other jobs and people have no money to shop there. That sounds right to me.

i knew you'd come around

bobrobot

11-23-2006, 07:54 AM

WAL-MART BAAAD!!!<div style="text-align: center"><img src="http://eric.b.olsen.tripod.com/images/frank1.jpg" border="0" width="200" height="241" /></div>

reeshy

11-23-2006, 07:58 AM

I like walmart.....I pick up red-neck chicks there!!!!!!

Stankfoot

11-23-2006, 08:20 AM

Walmart BAD!!  They offer medical coverage to their employees that most can't afford so we (the taxpayer) end up picking up the tab. Those $10 shoes are costing you more than you think!I heard a conservative radio talk show host say once "Since when do people think their employer has to provide medical benefits?". Later he admitted that he was a member of a union that provided HIS medical coverage! What a hypoctrite!It cracks me up when the Republicans tout the unemployment statistics; Ford cuts 35,000 jobs that a person can support a family on and they are replaced with WALMART jobs that are barely (if at all) above the poverty line.

TheMojoPin

11-23-2006, 08:26 AM

The biggest problem with Wal-Mart is that they're so big they tend to set or even dictate the employment standards of retail compnaies trying to compete with them.  Wal-Mart's take on unions, hiring practices, employment violations, salaries, healthcare, etc. ends up setting the tone for other companies...in short, "if Wal-Mart can do it, so can/should we."  Wal-Mart IS captialism, especially in how it abuses capitalism.  Any economic system can be exploited harmfully and negatively, and Wal-Mart is doing it to the maximum.  They're basically capitalism out of control.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-23-2006, 08:31 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: The biggest problem with Wal-Mart is that they're so big they tend to set or even dictate the employment standards of retail compnaies trying to compete with them.  Wal-Mart's take on unions, hiring practices, employment violations, salaries, healthcare, etc. ends up setting the tone for other companies...in short, "if Wal-Mart can do it, so can/should we."  Wal-Mart IS captialism, especially in how it abuses capitalism.  Any economic system can be exploited harmfully and negatively, and Wal-Mart is doing it to the maximum.  They're basically capitalism out of control. Youre right about that. Near the end of the documentary it was stated that Walmart one day might become so big that it can self destruct. Kind of like what happened to the Roman Empire in some sense. But for now people still keep going back and shopping there

BYOBKenobi

11-23-2006, 08:32 AM

Stankfoot wrote: Walmart BAD!!  They offer medical coverage to their employees that most can't afford so we (the taxpayer) end up picking up the tab. Those $10 shoes are costing you more than you think!I heard a conservative radio talk show host say once "Since when do people think their employer has to provide medical benefits?". Later he admitted that he was a member of a union that provided HIS medical coverage! What a hypoctrite!It cracks me up when the Republicans tout the unemployment statistics; Ford cuts 35,000 jobs that a person can support a family on and they are replaced with WALMART jobs that are barely (if at all) above the poverty line.My employer doesn't pick up my benefits.  Anyone who owns their own business has to pay for them.  It's amazing how "republican" or "libertarian" you become when you stop working for people and start doing stuff for yourself.  Benefits are expensive, but you know what?  If there's a walmart in town, there's probably a UPS hub too.  UPS will give you full benefits for working 4 hours a day.  If you're being slaughtered by benefit costs (for me it's like 100 a month I believe, but I'm still not able to aford them yet) then you can take a part time job that will take care of them

TheMojoPin

11-23-2006, 08:34 AM

Hey, you can't beat those prices.Personally, I don't shop there.  It's not some arrogant, "oh, fuck Wal-Mart" deal...I just don't.  Places like that and K-Mart just depress me.  I do shop at Target from time to time, but that's mostly when I have to use the pharmacy, but usually if I want cheap clothes I just go to a place like Kohl's.  I just have little to no reason to ever go into a Wal-Mart.And with being able to buy shit online, I can't beat Wal-Mart's prices 99% of the time.

Yerdaddy

11-23-2006, 09:15 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: mdr55 wrote: It goes like this: Good for you if you shop there. Bad for you if you work there.People are free to quit their jobs whenever they want if they're not happy there. Nobody forces them to work there.BTW-How many people LOVE their jobs anyway?The real reason why WalMart is the target for attack (and described as "evil") that they are is they generally support Republican candidates and causes. Its all political, and the issues raised are the usual left/right issues.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-23-06 @ 10:13 AM I was a liberal activist and that's the first time I've ever head that Walmart supports republican candidates.

Bulldogcakes

11-23-2006, 09:34 AM

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/10/Business/The_politics_of_red__.shtml" title="There I go, talking out of my ass again. ">There I go, talking out of my ass again. </a> BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Sam Walton, founder of the world's biggest retail empire, had little interest in politics. He often contributed to both sides in elections in case he would need a favor. These days, his heirs and a new generation managing the country's largest private employer find themselves knee-deep in partisan politics. A growing public relations war over Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has developed its own special red state-blue state political dimension. The spin doctors are describing Wal-Mart either as a company that embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work, or a greedy corporation that thrives off corporate welfare and its workers' relative poverty. For organized labor, a bulwark of the Democratic Party, attacking nonunion Wal-Mart targets the company and Walton's heirs, who have been writing big checks to the Bush White House, Republican candidates and conservative causes. Took me two seconds. I can find 50 more if you like.

Kevin

11-23-2006, 09:36 AM

TheMojoPin

11-23-2006, 09:48 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/10/Business/The_politics_of_red__.shtml" title="There I go, talking out of my ass again. ">There I go, talking out of my ass again. </a>BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Sam Walton, founder of the world's biggest retail empire, had little interest in politics. He often contributed to both sides in elections in case he would need a favor. These days, his heirs and a new generation managing the country's largest private employer find themselves knee-deep in partisan politics.A growing public relations war over Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has developed its own special red state-blue state political dimension. The spin doctors are describing Wal-Mart either as a company that embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work, or a greedy corporation that thrives off corporate welfare and its workers' relative poverty. For organized labor, a bulwark of the Democratic Party, attacking nonunion Wal-Mart targets the company and Walton's heirs, who have been writing big checks to the Bush White House, Republican candidates and conservative causes.  Took me two seconds. I can find 50 more if you like.  But how does that explain away the legitimate and expansive analysis of Wal-mart's business practices?  You're really chalking ALL of the criticism of them up to partisan politics?

Bulldogcakes

11-23-2006, 09:50 AM

TheMojoPin wrote:But how does that explain away the legitimate and expansive analysis of Wal-mart's business practices? You're really chalking ALL of the criticism of them up to partisan politics? Yes. And the Cubs still suck.

TheMojoPin

11-23-2006, 09:51 AM

You're verging on ludicrously paranoid with the former and coming across sagely and wise with the latter.  Thanks, Two-Face.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-23-2006, 09:52 AM

Politics is always associated w/ Walmart. NY's junior senator once sat on the Walmart Bd of Directors <img src="http://www.fantascienza.com/magazine/imgbank/NEWS/hillary-clinton.jpg" border="0" alt="jk" title="jk" width="250" height="185" />

Yerdaddy

11-23-2006, 10:11 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/10/Business/The_politics_of_red__.shtml" title="There I go, talking out of my ass again. ">There I go, talking out of my ass again. </a>BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Sam Walton, founder of the world's biggest retail empire, had little interest in politics. He often contributed to both sides in elections in case he would need a favor. These days, his heirs and a new generation managing the country's largest private employer find themselves knee-deep in partisan politics.A growing public relations war over Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has developed its own special red state-blue state political dimension. The spin doctors are describing Wal-Mart either as a company that embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work, or a greedy corporation that thrives off corporate welfare and its workers' relative poverty. For organized labor, a bulwark of the Democratic Party, attacking nonunion Wal-Mart targets the company and Walton's heirs, who have been writing big checks to the Bush White House, Republican candidates and conservative causes.  Took me two seconds. I can find 50 more if you like.  I didn't say there wasn't partisan criticizm, I said I've never heard of it, and I never have. The issues I've always heard Walmart criticized for were specific issues that effected people: sweatshops, child labor, American small businesses, employee benefits, anti-union practices, worker safety issues... I read a story in Denver where Walmart had chained it's workers inside the store at night to keep them from going outside to smoke. An employee had some kind of heart problem - angina or something - and there were no managers at the store with a key to let the guy out to get to the hospital. There was a follow-up that the state government investigated and found this was common practice across Colorado. I worked for Walmart's chief competitor - Costco - for 15 years and had friends who had been upper managers at Walmart and described horror stories about how no anti-employee practices were punished by the corporate headquarters - not even crimes. I read about Walmart building a store a few hundred meters from Teutehuican temple in Mexico - despite the protests of the local people and government who said it takes away from the tourist appeal of the site, and thus their livelyhoods - not to mention IT'S fucking Teutehuican! Who the fuck wants to travel down there, climb the thing and see a Walmart? The thing that struck me the most was one of the locals quoted saying, "I shop at the Walmart 10 kilometers away. I don't see why they would need another one here." I got even more stories from Washington too.Point is, if you're trying to dismiss all the criticism of Walmart as partisan, you're 99% wrong.

bionicyeti

11-23-2006, 10:17 AM

I don't think Walmart is the problem. They are the supply. The socially irresponsible, environmentally irresponsible, the... "I need a tv and dvd player in every room, I need more fucking crap that will just end up at a garage sale in 5 years anyway if it doesn't break first" mentality is the demand.I think the problem is that we live in a disposable society. We've been conditioned to expect shit not to last. We buy 40 dollar dvd players (lawnmovers, TV's, furniture, etc...) made in china and when it breaks we say, "well it's a 40 dollar dvd player" and go buy another one.Anyway, walmart only exists because there is a demand for cheap shit. If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism.IMO, in a perfect world walmart would of never existed in the first place.

Yerdaddy

11-23-2006, 10:27 AM

If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism.This is bound to come up sooner or later and it's going to be meant seriously. It's bullshit. If you're against Walmart you're against capitalism divorced from normal standards of ethical conduct. Capitalism is the best economic system to date, but it is not a legitimate excuse for acting in a way that we would not approve of from an individual.

SatCam

11-23-2006, 10:36 AM

If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism.

What does that even mean? You can support walmart's right to stay in business (capitalism) but you can still be against how they operate (morality)

BYOBKenobi

11-23-2006, 10:56 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism. This is bound to come up sooner or later and it's going to be meant seriously. It's bullshit. If you're against Walmart you're against capitalism divorced from normal standards of ethical conduct. Capitalism is the best economic system to date, but it is not a legitimate excuse for acting in a way that we would not approve of from an individual.I approve of this on the individual level.  If I offer you a service for a price and someone else offers the same thing at a lower price and you go with him I'm not going to question why.  That's what I deal with on a regular basis.Unfortunately, most americans are so ethnocentric that they can't see the reality that "sweatshop" labor is in fact legitimate because these "sweatshops" are regulated by their  particular government and these companies that use foriegn labor know the laws and follow them.  If China doesn't want 10 year olds working making shoes, make it illegal in CHINA to be 10 making shoes.Taking advantage of and exploiting are two different things.  If walmart was going to China and catching kids with a big net and forcing them to work then that's bad.  If they are opening a factory that is run by Chinese to the best standards that China has to offer labor, then that's great.

Tenbatsuzen

11-23-2006, 10:59 AM

The Wal-Marts around here are generally white-trash-a-riffic.The Targets at least have a facade of being somewhat upscale.But target endorses David Blaine.Until further evidence surfaces, I'm calling it a push.

Yerdaddy

11-23-2006, 12:32 PM

BYOBKenobi wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism. This is bound to come up sooner or later and it's going to be meant seriously. It's bullshit. If you're against Walmart you're against capitalism divorced from normal standards of ethical conduct. Capitalism is the best economic system to date, but it is not a legitimate excuse for acting in a way that we would not approve of from an individual.I approve of this on the individual level.  If I offer you a service for a price and someone else offers the same thing at a lower price and you go with him I'm not going to question why.  That's what I deal with on a regular basis.Unfortunately, most americans are so ethnocentric that they can't see the reality that "sweatshop" labor is in fact legitimate because these "sweatshops" are regulated by their  particular government and these companies that use foriegn labor know the laws and follow them.  If China doesn't want 10 year olds working making shoes, make it illegal in CHINA to be 10 making shoes.Taking advantage of and exploiting are two different things.  If walmart was going to China and catching kids with a big net and forcing them to work then that's bad.  If they are opening a factory that is run by Chinese to the best standards that China has to offer labor, then that's great.You're confusing moral and legal here, and you're only incorporating half of what a market is in your description of the moral equation. (Has anyone noticed my spelling getting worse lately? Assuming anyone reads my bullshit, that is.)China is an authoritarian system with little respect for the human, social and political rights of it's people. Therefore it's legal code is not an accurate guage for it's moral conduct, which is the question here, "good or bad" not "legal or not legal". The Chinese government permitting or even allowing sweatshop conditions does not mean that running a sweatshop, (long hours with little pay, poor and unsafe working conditions, often sexual exploitation, child labor, often versions of indentured servitude - all of these characteristics I've seen in past work on Indonesian sweatshops), is moral. The other point that needs to be made is that a market = buyers AND sellers. Both have a role in the market sweatshops serve. Walmart is a known buyer of sweatshop goods. They knowingly provide a market for goods made from exploited labor. By doing so they provide the economic incentive for people to open and operate sweatshops - even, and sometimes especially, when other, more socially responsible companies refuse to provide that market incentive. Therefore, Walmart bears partial moral responsibility for knowingly providing the motive for exploitation. [Please, nobody go into the argument of "without these jobs people would have no jobs"; "they have a choice to work there or not", etc. That's off topic, and it's not that simple, of course. Also, don't assume I'm proposing shutting down factories, boycotting this or that, or blah blah blah. Based on working with labor rights activists from Indonesia, I don't endorse companies pulling out of countries that allow sweatshops. In most cases, that is the only jobs available to people. That's why they do them - in most cases. The Indonesians asked me to push for labor rights standards in trade agreements and individual company codes of conduct which would set private standards of acceptable conditions in order to purchase from factories. Shit like that. Things that Walmart was one of the last American companies to even pretend to do.]Anyway, the best comparison I can think of for this issue is this: knowingly possessing stolen merchandise in

foodcourtdruide

11-23-2006, 06:42 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: If you're against walmart, you're against capitalism. This is bound to come up sooner or later and it's going to be meant seriously. It's bullshit. If you're against Walmart you're against capitalism divorced from normal standards of ethical conduct. Capitalism is the best economic system to date, but it is not a legitimate excuse for acting in a way that we would not approve of from an individual.I don't know if I agree with this statement, or at least the broadness of it. I think Capitalism works in the United States because it is not true Capitalism. We have a sort of Social Capitalism. True capitalism has proven to not work (ie pre-Roosevelt U.S.). BTW, Yerdaddy, I read your posts religiously. You're brilliant!

foodcourtdruide

11-23-2006, 06:49 PM

Stankfoot wrote: Walmart BAD!!  They offer medical coverage to their employees that most can't afford so we (the taxpayer) end up picking up the tab. Those $10 shoes are costing you more than you think!I heard a conservative radio talk show host say once "Since when do people think their employer has to provide medical benefits?". Later he admitted that he was a member of a union that provided HIS medical coverage! What a hypoctrite!It cracks me up when the Republicans tout the unemployment statistics; Ford cuts 35,000 jobs that a person can support a family on and they are replaced with WALMART jobs that are barely (if at all) above the poverty line.<white space snipped><sarcasm>Why don't they just go get another job! Because it's so easy! </sarcasm>If it's so easy to get another job, then why are they working at Walmart for crappy pay in the first place? Walmart's existance marginalizes the existance of other companies. Therefore, if Walmart has unfair labor practices, it leaves unskilled workers with no choice but to accept them. And whether you like it or not, our society cannot function without unskilled workers. It is ignorance and arrogance of the upper class (skilled workers, urbanites) that says "Just let them find another job!".

PapaBear

11-23-2006, 07:07 PM

I worked at Wal Mart for almost 2 years from '99 to '01. The insurance did suck, but the pay was no worse than any other retail job. I started at $7.50, and was making 10 within a year. I never understood the lawsuit about them not promoting women, either. My department manager was a woman. The department district manager was a woman. The department regional manager was a woman.I will admit however, they've gotten worse for their employees since I left. The most recent policy they made about being late is total shit, designed to cause long term employees with health problems, to get fired.

K.C.

11-23-2006, 07:49 PM

I think the "WalMart treats its employees bad" thing is a bit overblown in that I don't think they treat them any worse than most retail jobs. The biggest two problems are what they mean to the economy, and whether or not they use ethical business practices. In terms of the economy, they undercut so many businesses that they are destroying small businesses and manufacturing jobs by the bundle and it's costing a lot of people good jobs, or at least jobs that are better than the ones WalMart provides. The ethical issue is that their low prices and the products they offer come off the back of horribly exploited third world workers. Although in fairness, Wal-Mart isn't the only place guilty of that. There's many, many more. The bottom line is it's the responsibility of the consumer. WalMart doesn't hide the fact that they're an evil, greedy corporation. It's the people that are enticed by the low-prices now that they can't see they're potentially harming themselves and people in their community in terms of the future. I personally don't think I've ever shopped there...and I doubt I ever will. I've been making a very conscious effort as of late to support as many of the local businesses in my area as I can, not just in terms of shopping, but restaurants, etc.  

This message was edited by K.C. on 11-23-06 @ 11:49 PM

Yerdaddy

11-24-2006, 01:27 AM

PapaBear wrote: I worked at Wal Mart for almost 2 years from '99 to '01. The insurance did suck, but the pay was no worse than any other retail job. I started at $7.50, and was making 10 within a year. I never understood the lawsuit about them not promoting women, either. My department manager was a woman. The department district manager was a woman. The department regional manager was a woman.I will admit however, they've gotten worse for their employees since I left. The most recent policy they made about being late is total shit, designed to cause long term employees with health problems, to get fired.<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061124/21162_id.html?.v=1" target="_blank">Those lucky enough to work at Costco average $17 per hour, a far cry from Walmart's average of $9.26 per hour</a>.

Stankfoot

11-24-2006, 03:00 AM

BYOBKenobi wrote: Unfortunately, most americans are so ethnocentric that they can't see the reality that "sweatshop" labor is in fact legitimate because these "sweatshops" are regulated by their particular government and these companies that use foriegn labor know the laws and follow them. If China doesn't want 10 year olds working making shoes, make it illegal in CHINA to be 10 making shoes.Taking advantage of and exploiting are two different things. If walmart was going to China and catching kids with a big net and forcing them to work then that's bad. If they are opening a factory that is run by Chinese to the best standards that China has to offer labor, then that's great. <img src="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/stankfoot/cold.jpg" border="0" />

SatCam

11-24-2006, 07:31 AM

True capitalism has proven to not work (ie pre-Roosevelt U.S.).

Pre-Roosevelt capitalism lasted for almost 150 years, while it's only been about 70 years after Roosevelt instituted reforms. I don't think it's fair to compare the two just yet

Jujubees2

11-24-2006, 07:31 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: PapaBear wrote: I worked at Wal Mart for almost 2 years from '99 to '01. The insurance did suck, but the pay was no worse than any other retail job. I started at $7.50, and was making 10 within a year. I never understood the lawsuit about them not promoting women, either. My department manager was a woman. The department district manager was a woman. The department regional manager was a woman.I will admit however, they've gotten worse for their employees since I left. The most recent policy they made about being late is total shit, designed to cause long term employees with health problems, to get fired.<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061124/21162_id.html?.v=1" target="_blank">Those lucky enough to work at Costco average $17 per hour, a far cry from Walmart's average of $9.26 per hour</a>. While I'm not a member of Costco, I did see a piece on their President, Jim Sinegal, on ABC news one night. He's a very down-to-earth person who you would never think is president of such a large corporation.  He also treats his employees great.  His salary is among the lowest of any President for a major company ($350,000/year). "I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary," he said. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779">http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779</a>

reillyluck

11-24-2006, 07:33 AM

Walmart....BAD!Cheap prices = Cheap shit.

Yerdaddy

11-24-2006, 10:23 AM

Jujubees2 wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: PapaBear wrote: I worked at Wal Mart for almost 2 years from '99 to '01. The insurance did suck, but the pay was no worse than any other retail job. I started at $7.50, and was making 10 within a year. I never understood the lawsuit about them not promoting women, either. My department manager was a woman. The department district manager was a woman. The department regional manager was a woman.I will admit however, they've gotten worse for their employees since I left. The most recent policy they made about being late is total shit, designed to cause long term employees with health problems, to get fired.<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/061124/21162_id.html?.v=1" target="_blank">Those lucky enough to work at Costco average $17 per hour, a far cry from Walmart's average of $9.26 per hour</a>. While I'm not a member of Costco, I did see a piece on their President, Jim Sinegal, on ABC news one night. He's a very down-to-earth person who you would never think is president of such a large corporation.  He also treats his employees great.  His salary is among the lowest of any President for a major company ($350,000/year). "I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary," he said. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779">http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779</a> I was working there for a couple years - I think I was a cahsier at the time - and Sinegal comes into the store about twice a year. I met him once when I had some problem with a manager and he approached me and solved in in about two minutes. This was probably a year earlier, probably about 1989 because I had my sweet mullet flowing at the time. He says "Hi Aaron. How are you?" I say "Fine. How ya doing?" and we keep walking. Then I think "Wait. I never wear a nametag. How'd he know my name?" And I wasn't wearing one. So, as he's leaving, we pass each other. I decided to check. I said "Hey Jimbo. How'd you know my name?" He smiles and says, "Cuz you're the guy who never wears a nametag. And get a haircut!" and he walks out of the store. I'm freaking out a little bit with that. For about a week we, in the mullet brigade were all told we had to cut our hair and that it was store policy - straight from corporate. I went to a buddy who was management and asked him about it because I was a little worried that the CEO of my company, a guy worth about $2 billion in company stock at the time, might just be a little bit pissed at me. My buddy tells me that one of the managers, who had a beautiful mullet, asked Jim about this mysterious policy and that Jim replied, "I don't give a damn if you all have afros if you do your jobs and follow the dress code." Jim must have figured our store manager was making up the rule and that we were all sweating about it and he was just fucking with me. Respect! If you work for Jim and you suffer a devistating personal tradgedy Jim's the kind of guy who's digging out his wallet for someone he's never met. I've heard so many stories about that kind of thing I wouldn't even know where to start. Jim's the man.

A.J.

11-24-2006, 10:34 AM

Losing your mullet in '89 would have been the REAL tragedy -- believe me, I know.

lintpit

11-24-2006, 03:00 PM

I read somewhere that 40% of all of china's retail sales are in export to Walmart. We shop there, but do so grudgingly.

Bulldogcakes

11-24-2006, 03:27 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/10/Business/The_politics_of_red__.shtml" title="There I go, talking out of my ass again. ">There I go, talking out of my ass again. </a>BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Sam Walton, founder of the world's biggest retail empire, had little interest in politics. He often contributed to both sides in elections in case he would need a favor. These days, his heirs and a new generation managing the country's largest private employer find themselves knee-deep in partisan politics.A growing public relations war over Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has developed its own special red state-blue state political dimension. The spin doctors are describing Wal-Mart either as a company that embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit and rewards hard work, or a greedy corporation that thrives off corporate welfare and its workers' relative poverty. For organized labor, a bulwark of the Democratic Party, attacking nonunion Wal-Mart targets the company and Walton's heirs, who have been writing big checks to the Bush White House, Republican candidates and conservative causes. Took me two seconds. I can find 50 more if you like. I didn't say there wasn't partisan criticizm, I said I've never heard of it, and I never have. The issues I've always heard Walmart criticized for were specific issues that effected people: sweatshops, child labor, American small businesses, employee benefits, anti-union practices, worker safety issues... I read a story in Denver where Walmart had chained it's workers inside the store at night to keep them from going outside to smoke. An employee had some kind of heart problem - angina or something - and there were no managers at the store with a key to let the guy out to get to the hospital. There was a follow-up that the state government investigated and found this was common practice across Colorado. I worked for Walmart's chief competitor - Costco - for 15 years and had friends who had been upper managers at Walmart and described horror stories about how no anti-employee practices were punished by the corporate headquarters - not even crimes. I read about Walmart building a store a few hundred meters from Teutehuican temple in Mexico - despite the protests of the local people and government who said it takes away from the tourist appeal of the site, and thus their livelyhoods - not to mention IT'S fucking Teutehuican! Who the fuck wants to travel down there, climb the thing and see a Walmart? The thing that struck me the most was one of the locals quoted saying, "I shop at the Walmart 10 kilometers away. I don't see why they would need another one here." I got even more stories from Washington too.Point is, if you're trying to dismiss all the criticism of Walmart as partisan, you're 99% wrong.  Costco, of course, has no employee complaints. Its Disneyland with a paycheck. Without some credible 3rd party determination on the validity of those complaints that means absolutely nothing to me. And should mean nothing to anyone else who doesn't jump to conclusions based on their pre-concieved notions about Walmart.  [quote]WalMart is anti-union, which is something I (and many Republicans) agree with them about whole heartedly. And thats the root of the right/left nature of this divide. Unions raise costs, make companies inefficient and can often eventually put them out of business altogether. Walmart is a low cost supplier and makes it their mission to eliminate all unecessary costs, and unions will ruin their business model. I'm not arrogant enough to tell anyone else how to run their business, I'll let the marketplace decide who survives, who thrives and who dies. Folks on the Left distrust the marketplace, dislike business and corporations generally (th

TheMojoPin

11-24-2006, 03:54 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: One thing I've learned about debating folks on the Left, is when you prove them wrong, they start overstating their case ("Ridiculous! Paranoid! 99% WRONG!!) which comes off as desperate to me. If that's all you're getting from Yerdaddy's posts, then you're just choosing to ignore the rest of what he's saying.In short, you've decided that this is a partisan issue, period.  You're throwing out declarations like "this is all about unions" as if that's totally true and there's no doubt about it.  And you know what?  That IS ridiculous.  Even just with this thread, people have tossed out a myriad of reasons as to why they do or don't have an "issue" with Wal-Mart, yet you continually respond as if none of those posts and opinions exist and you KNOW who has a problem and why, and there's no other possible reason besides your own.And who did you "prove wrong?"  You posted a link that shows that a lot of the people that run Wal-Mart often support Republican causes and/or politicians...how does that even come close to proving that any issues people have with Wal-Mart are based only in partisanship, as you have so boldly and stubbornly declared?

goreds2

11-24-2006, 06:21 PM

I think everyone has heard some Walmart's have started $4 prescription programs.  After a couple of months, GIANT EAGLE is starting a $4 program.  I would guess that other retailers will be doing this in the future. It seems to me that Walmart initiated to at least try to put drug companies in their place when it comes to them overpricing the consumer and especially senior citizens.  Bravo to WALMART.

SatCam

11-24-2006, 06:59 PM

goreds2 wrote: I think everyone has heard some Walmart's have started $4 prescription programs. After a couple of months, GIANT EAGLE is starting a $4 program. I would guess that other retailers will be doing this in the future. It seems to me that Walmart initiated to at least try to put drug companies in their place when it comes to them overpricing the consumer and especially senior citizens. Bravo to WALMART. 

Umm... not exactly. Generic drugs were already cheap, so the only effect they would have would be on other retailers, not on the drug companies. It's just an attempt to drive other pharmacies out of business. I work in a pharmacy and we haven't lost any business to walmart

And for the record, pharmacies may cater to senior citizens in customer service, but when it comes to prices, they're no charity.

goreds2

11-24-2006, 07:24 PM

SatCam wrote: goreds2 wrote: I think everyone has heard some Walmart's have started $4 prescription programs. After a couple of months, GIANT EAGLE is starting a $4 program. I would guess that other retailers will be doing this in the future. It seems to me that Walmart initiated to at least try to put drug companies in their place when it comes to them overpricing the consumer and especially senior citizens. Bravo to WALMART.   Umm... not exactly. Generic drugs were already cheap, so the only effect they would have would be on other retailers, not on the drug companies. It's just an attempt to drive other pharmacies out of business. I work in a pharmacy and we haven't lost any business to walmart And for the record, pharmacies may cater to senior citizens in customer service, but when it comes to prices, they're no charity. You know more than I do about drug companies.  No argument there.  I am learning from this conversation.     Do you think with the generic drug prices being lowered that it may prompt the "Name Brand Companies" to lower prices?    

This message was edited by goreds2 on 11-25-06 @ 12:03 AM

HBox

11-24-2006, 07:39 PM

goreds2 wrote: SatCam wrote: goreds2 wrote: I think everyone has heard some Walmart's have started $4 prescription programs. After a couple of months, GIANT EAGLE is starting a $4 program. I would guess that other retailers will be doing this in the future. It seems to me that Walmart initiated to at least try to put drug companies in their place when it comes to them overpricing the consumer and especially senior citizens. Bravo to WALMART.   Umm... not exactly. Generic drugs were already cheap, so the only effect they would have would be on other retailers, not on the drug companies. It's just an attempt to drive other pharmacies out of business. I work in a pharmacy and we haven't lost any business to walmart And for the record, pharmacies may cater to senior citizens in customer service, but when it comes to prices, they're no charity. You know more than I do about drug companies. No argument there. I am learning from this conversation. Do you think with the generic drug prices being lowered that it may prompt the "Name Brand Companies" to lower prices?   The biggest price problem is when drug companies have an active patent on a drug and therefore have the exclusive right to make a drug. No other company is allowed to make the drug and so there is no competition.The bigger problem is when one of the patent on one of those drugs are about to expire and the drug company develops a new but essentially same drug with a slightly different formulation that offers little to no new benefits. They then market the hell out of it to doctors and paitents. All of a sudden a large portion of patients who were on the previous drug that was about to go generic are on the new, patented drug. Nexium is an example of this.

This message was edited by HBox on 11-24-06 @ 11:40 PM

epo

11-24-2006, 11:53 PM

I just never shopped there because:<ol><li>Products suck.</li><li>Aisles smell like piss.</li><li>Bad for the local economy.</li></ol>I let <a href="http://walmartwatch.com/">websites like this do the work for me</a>.

Yerdaddy

11-25-2006, 01:19 AM

Costco, of course, has no employee complaints. Its Disneyland with a paycheck. Without some credible 3rd party determination on the validity of those complaints that means absolutely nothing to me. And should mean nothing to anyone else who doesn't jump to conclusions based on their pre-concieved notions about Walmart.  WalMart is anti-union, which is something I (and many Republicans) agree with them about whole heartedly. And thats the root of the right/left nature of this divide. Unions raise costs, make companies inefficient and can often eventually put them out of business altogether. Walmart is a low cost supplier and makes it their mission to eliminate all unecessary costs, and unions will ruin their business model. I'm not arrogant enough to tell anyone else how to run their business, I'll let the marketplace decide who survives, who thrives and who dies. Folks on the Left distrust the marketplace, dislike business and corporations generally (the bigger, the more evil) and think that businesses exist to provide paychecks and benefits to employees. They do not. They exist to provide services for their customers. And when businesses forget that they fade and die.   Walmart is one of the most honestly run businesses in the US. You know why? Most companies pay as little as possible for their supplies and charge as much as they can get away with. WalMart passes along the savings to their customers. More people benefit from that business model than the high-cost union model, especially in the global economy.     One thing I've learned about debating folks on the Left, is when you prove them wrong, they start overstating their case ("Ridiculous! Paranoid! 99% WRONG!!) which comes off as desperate to me.You know me well enough not to dismiss me as a liberal, just like I don't dismiss you as a conservative. In fact I've only praised you as a traditional conservative. Now you're acting like I've never sourced a point and demanding I do so now in order to have credibility? Then you characterize me as anti-capitalism after I've specifically praised capitalism in this thread and stated why. What is it about business and the environment that make you go so defensive? Why are these such articles of faith for you, above debate?

kellermcgee21

11-26-2006, 01:36 PM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/26/walmart.bombs.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories">http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/26/walmart.bombs.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories</a> <img src="http://www.loveparade-shop.com/catalog/images/small/FTP_shirt_oliv.gif" border="0" width="160" height="204" />

Bulldogcakes

11-26-2006, 02:08 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:You know me well enough not to dismiss me as a liberal, just like I don't dismiss you as a conservative. In fact I've only praised you as a traditional conservative. Now you're acting like I've never sourced a point and demanding I do so now in order to have credibility? Then you characterize me as anti-capitalism after I've specifically praised capitalism in this thread and stated why. What is it about business and the environment that make you go so defensive? Why are these such articles of faith for you, above debate?You read more into my post as being directed at you than I did when I wrote it. The only time I was referring to you directly was with the quote at the end. Which to be honest, I was a little annoyed about at the time. Anyhoo, I dont think you're anti-capitalism just because you dont like Walmart. I think youre anti cap. . .  nah too easy. Seriously, you obviously like a more european style socialist/capitalist model. But in the global economy I dont think thats even an option anymore. Unless Americans want to accept a much more intrusive government and lower standard of living. Which they dont. I'm all for people being good corporate citizens, I like to think I'm one myself. But when you attack Walmart and hold up Costco as an example, I'll just say that Walmart is about 6 times larger than Costco in sales (340B/60B). In terms of sales and success in the marketplace, its game-set-match Walmart. If I was running a retail store, I'd be looking at Walmarts model before Costcos.  Why do I get so defensive? Well, why do you get so defensive on free speech issues? Its what makes up who we are politically.

ralphbxny

11-28-2006, 12:52 PM

Walmart is bad...unless its the only place open for beer then I love it!

TheMojoPin

11-28-2006, 01:16 PM

I'm all for people being good corporate citizens, I like to think I'm one myself. But when you attack Walmart and hold up Costco as an example, I'll just say that Walmart is about 6 times larger than Costco in sales (340B/60B). In terms of sales and success in the marketplace, its game-set-match Walmart. If I was running a retail store, I'd be looking at Walmarts model before Costcos.Wait, wait, wait, WAIT...correct me if I'm wrong, but is your basic point here is that Wal-Mart is utlimately in the clear or not comparable to Costco in terms of business and social standards simply because they make more money?  It's hyperbole, but that's a horrible and disgusting argument you're trying to use to justify Wal-Mart's business practices.  Money talks indeed...Just because something is very successful doesn't make it right.

Yerdaddy

11-28-2006, 03:08 PM

Seriously, you obviously like a more european style socialist/capitalist model.Yeah, but I'm only in it for the chicks.<img src="http://blindpig.blogs.com/outside_the_perimeter/images/ckf1.jpg" border="0" width="480" height="640" />Seriously, what makes it obvious what economic system I'm for?Listen, we both got offended in this thread and it was silly. I understand why you were offended by my 99% wrong comment. It was arrogant of me, and I'm sorry. You do realize why I was snippy though: because you were defensive about your absolutist assertion. I said I've never heard about political contributions of Walmart and you acted like I was lying. Then you've ignored the substance of every criticism of Walmart in this thread, dismissively distorted my positions and statements, demanded sources for examples I listed to show that your absolutist position was wrong, and stated to me my economic philosophy all in order to avoid serious debate. I point this out not to say you're a bad person or that you do this all the time. You aren't and you don't. But you are defensive about the issues of business/capitalism and the environment. You are intollerant of viewpoints different from your own on these issues and I think it needs to be said only because every time a thread addresses them I dread even opening it. I know what to expect every time; you're going to refer to me - directly or indirectly - as a communist, even after I've specifically defended capitalism, and you're going to go on the attack. It sucks. I'd avoid the threads to keep the peace, but I'm too much of a politics junkie, and I don't think anyone should back down from unfair arguments. Whatever the reasons for all this is, it doesn't change the fact that I like you and respect you. But as long as it happens, we're going to have to get in the mud. And Mojo's going to be in there waiting and you know what he's going to be wearing.

TheMojoPin

11-28-2006, 03:10 PM

YOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Bulldogcakes

11-28-2006, 04:30 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:  I'm all for people being good corporate citizens, I like to think I'm one myself. But when you attack Walmart and hold up Costco as an example, I'll just say that Walmart is about 6 times larger than Costco in sales (340B/60B). In terms of sales and success in the marketplace, its game-set-match Walmart. If I was running a retail store, I'd be looking at Walmarts model before Costcos. Wait, wait, wait, WAIT...correct me if I'm wrong, but is your basic point here is that Wal-Mart is utlimately in the clear or not comparable to Costco in terms of business and social standards simply because they make more money? It's hyperbole, but that's a horrible and disgusting argument you're trying to use to justify Wal-Mart's business practices. Money talks indeed...Just because something is very successful doesn't make it right.On Wall Street it does. And if you've followed any of the more "socially conscious" firms over years, (Ben and Jerrys, Apple Computer) then generally do poorly on Wall St. You know why? Instead of running their business in a rational way, doing what is in their interests, they mix their politics in where it doesn't belong. I'm not criticizing their politics one way or the other, but when you make business decisions based on things other than whats good for your business, you can predict the results pretty easily. Not to get all Gordon Geko on you, but "right" has nothing to do with it. I dont expect businesses to be paragons of virtue, I expect them to run their business. Of course, they must act within the law, but other than that their only job is make money for their firm. If I want ethics, I'll see a priest.

Bulldogcakes

11-28-2006, 04:54 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:  Seriously, you obviously like a more european style socialist/capitalist model. Seriously, what makes it obvious what economic system I'm for?Listen, we both got offended in this thread and it was silly. I understand why you were offended by my 99% wrong comment. It was arrogant of me, and I'm sorry.  First of all, you dont have to apologize. But I appeciate it and offer the same back since you seem to think I was being dismissive in the prior posts. As I just posted in reponse to Mojo, I think business is one dicipline and ethics is another. So its not me trying to be high handed or rude, I just think their seperate issues altogether. You do realize why I was snippy though: because you were defensive about your absolutist assertion. I said I've never heard about political contributions of Walmart and you acted like I was lying. Then you've ignored the substance of every criticism of Walmart in this thread, dismissively distorted my positions and statements, demanded sources for examples I listed to show that your absolutist position was wrong, and stated to me my economic philosophy all in order to avoid serious debate. I point this out not to say you're a bad person or that you do this all the time. You aren't and you don't. But you are defensive about the issues of business/capitalism and the environment. You are intollerant of viewpoints different from your own on these issues and I think it needs to be said only because every time a thread addresses them I dread even opening it. I know what to expect every time; you're going to refer to me - directly or indirectly - as a communist, even after I've specifically defended capitalism, and you're going to go on the attack. It sucks. I'd avoid the threads to keep the peace, but I'm too much of a politics junkie, and I don't think anyone should back down from unfair arguments. Whatever the reasons for all this is, it doesn't change the fact that I like you and respect you. But as long as it happens, we're going to have to get in the mud. And Mojo's going to be in there waiting and you know what he's going to be wearing.  I really have to find a better word than "socialist". I got into the same trouble with Mojo about this once before. I mean socialist in the European style big government-high taxes-heavily regulated business model, and not meaning Communist (or code for it) at all. I mean it to say I trust the marketplace to work things out (and accept its outcomes)  more than you do, and I assume that you want the government to step in and fix things . IMO they generally just make things worse, even when they have good intentions. No, ESPECIALLY when they have good intentions. Again, see above response to Mojo's last post for my thinking about that. And let me just say this, I dont doubt for a second that you're a good guy and mean well. When people from different political persuasions do these dances, they're bound to step on each other's toes. Its like I'm doing a mambo and youre doing a samba. Thats no suprise to me. Fuck! Now I have this picture in my head of Mojo wearing sunglasses, a cape, and nothing else but a glow in the dark condom. UGH!!

TheMojoPin

11-28-2006, 05:38 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  I'm all for people being good corporate citizens, I like to think I'm one myself. But when you attack Walmart and hold up Costco as an example, I'll just say that Walmart is about 6 times larger than Costco in sales (340B/60B). In terms of sales and success in the marketplace, its game-set-match Walmart. If I was running a retail store, I'd be looking at Walmarts model before Costcos.  Wait, wait, wait, WAIT...correct me if I'm wrong, but is your basic point here is that Wal-Mart is utlimately in the clear or not comparable to Costco in terms of business and social standards simply because they make more money? It's hyperbole, but that's a horrible and disgusting argument you're trying to use to justify Wal-Mart's business practices. Money talks indeed...Just because something is very successful doesn't make it right.On Wall Street it does. And if you've followed any of the more "socially conscious" firms over years, (Ben and Jerrys, Apple Computer) then generally do poorly on Wall St. You know why? Instead of running their business in a rational way, doing what is in their interests, they mix their politics in where it doesn't belong. I'm not criticizing their politics one way or the other, but when you make business decisions based on things other than whats good for your business, you can predict the results pretty easily. Not to get all Gordon Geko on you, but "right" has nothing to do with it. I dont expect businesses to be paragons of virtue, I expect them to run their business. Of course, they must act within the law, but other than that their only job is make money for their firm. If I want ethics, I'll see a priest.  You can still seek to improve your business practices and work environment/structure and succeed.  It's not like the "progressive" companies you listed are failing.  Making as much money as possible doesn't somehow magically erase any possibly damage or harm being done on a variety of levels.  By that logic, if it was somehow more profitable to make cars that have a spike on the steering wheel, that should be OK?  The drug dealer on the corner is working for people who make more than the local pharmacy or drug store...that's fine?  Those are obviously extreme examples and far from the reality of Wal-Mart, but the bottom line is you can't dismiss business ethics and employer standards just for the sake of profits.  How is that any better than the out of control business and social practices of the big US businesses up until the Great Depression?  Do you think those companies were wrong in how they took advantage of and abused their workers and the communities around them?

Bulldogcakes

11-28-2006, 06:00 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:On Wall Street it does. And if you've followed any of the more "socially conscious" firms over years, (Ben and Jerrys, Apple Computer) then generally do poorly on Wall St. You know why? Instead of running their business in a rational way, doing what is in their interests, they mix their politics in where it doesn't belong. I'm not criticizing their politics one way or the other, but when you make business decisions based on things other than whats good for your business, you can predict the results pretty easily. Not to get all Gordon Geko on you, but "right" has nothing to do with it. I dont expect businesses to be paragons of virtue, I expect them to run their business. Of course, they must act within the law, but other than that their only job is make money for their firm. If I want ethics, I'll see a priest. You can still seek to improve your business practices and work environment/structure and succeed. It's not like the "progressive" companies you listed are failing. Making as much money as possible doesn't somehow magically erase any possibly damage or harm being done on a variety of levels. By that logic, if it was somehow more profitable to make cars that have a spike on the steering wheel, that should be OK? The drug dealer on the corner is working for people who make more than the local pharmacy or drug store...that's fine? Those are obviously extreme examples and far from the reality of Wal-Mart, but the bottom line is you can't dismiss business ethics and employer standards just for the sake of profits. How is that any better than the out of control business and social practices of the big US businesses up until the Great Depression? Do you think those companies were wrong in how they took advantage of and abused their workers and the communities around them?The bold is my reponse to the first half of your post.   As far as the Great Depression goes, that was close to 80 years ago and so many reforms of Wall St and the banking system have taken place since then thats its really not applicable when talking about WalMart in 2006. about abuse, if you're referring to things like the Triangle Waist factory fire, again they must act within the law, no one is disputing that.

TheMojoPin

11-28-2006, 06:58 PM

The Triangle fire was just the epitome of the problems, but there were practically countless issues also out there that ultimately needed to be addressed.  Things can be made illegal or declared "wrong," right?  Just because something isn't technically illegal at the time doesn't make it right, nor does it mean it won't eventually be illegal.  Just because something is legal or profitable at any given moment doesn't give someone a mandate or cart blanche to do it at the cost to who knows how many others.Again, I don't think they should be shut down or anything like that...I just think some of their practices raise legitimate labor and social concerns that possibly need more attention or further action.  I don't think anything or anyone gets off the hook just because of how much money is made.  That's a dangerous and foolhardy mentality.And I brought up the illegal issues despite your comment to illustrate how blurred the line is.  You're saying that your only concern in this kind of issue is whether or not something is illegal?  That's ultimately just semantics.  Humanity has to ultimately come into play since you can't get around involving people in these matters.  If money and making as much of it as possible, everyone else be damned is ultimately the only concern, why bother with any kind of rules or regulations in regards to business?  Where do you draw the line as to what should be regulated?

suggums

11-28-2006, 07:05 PM

lee harvey oswald was a patsy in a much greater conspiracy. discuss

Yerdaddy

11-30-2006, 04:18 AM

I'm back to this topic because I'm too tired and stupid right now to analyze today's Iraq news.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?ex=1279252800&en=8b3103305fea6d68&ei =5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss" target="_blank">Costco's stock price has risen more than 10 percent in the last 12 months, while Wal-Mart's has slipped 5 percent. Costco shares sell for almost 23 times expected earnings; at Wal-Mart the multiple is about 19.</a> This is July of last year. I still can't open wikipedia on these computers to get more recent sources. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/business/30walmart.html?ei=5094&en=a9be4a6926826a27&hp=&ex= 1164949200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">Today's NYT piece</a> might give a better sense of Walmart's "success". I'm linking to it now so I can find it, but I'll read it later. By the way, I have criticized Costco. I hated working there. I think the company has grown so fast that any jackass can make middle-management and those guys make alot of people miserable. But I am living this life on the road because of my employee benefits after 14 years with the company and the success of my shares in the Company. I sae this Frontline piece on Walmart while looking for something else - <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/" target="_blank">"Is Walmart good for America?"</a> Again - linking now, watching later. I also found a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45855-2004Nov12.html?nav=rss_liveonline/style/tv/frontline" target="_blank">Q&A with it's producer</a> while searching for the piece. Ain't read it. Can't be assed.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 11-30-06 @ 8:25 AM

pittphantoms

11-30-2006, 05:52 AM

I once had my boss tell me "I work so I don't have to shop at Wal-Mart".  That pretty much sums it up for me too.  I hate how the stores are created to be confusing so that you spend more time in there, and I really think the stores are dirty. I definately do not wear any clothes from Wal-Mart.I used to work at Target when I was younger, and they treat their employees very well, at least at the store I worked at.  There also was plenty of advancement opportunities for those that had any interest.  I also think they have some nice things for the house.  I moved twice in the last year and pretty much have decorated with Ikea and Target things. I have heard from a lot of people one of the worst places to work in the US is Best Buy.  I have actually never heard a good thing about working there.  I know there are just about as many anit-Best Buy websites as there are anti-Wal-Mart sites.

goreds2

11-30-2006, 04:00 PM

<a href="http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8lnl8po0&.html">http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8lnl8po0&.html</a>

Recyclerz

04-22-2012, 08:46 AM

I doubt many people on the Board have much experience with, or have even heard of, the FCPA, (if you have a normal job there is no real reason you should), but if the media has any sense of real news anymore this Walmart story should diminish the jabber about hooker prices in Colombia for awhile.

NY Times: WalMart you got some 'Splaining to do! (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?_r=1&hp)

Short version: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a law that prevents any company doing business in the US from bribing foreign government officials. (Most industrialized countries have similar laws.) The Times story lays out a compelling case that not only did WalMart management do this but tried to cover it up once some internal folks started pointing the practice out. Siemens had a similar situation a few years ago and wound up with several top managers in prison and paying $3 billion in fines & penalties.

If you've ever wanted to live in Arkansas and run a global discount retailing operation get your resume polished up because there are going to be plenty of openings pretty soon.

WalMart: Save money. Live better. Don't drop the soap.

cougarjake13

04-22-2012, 09:34 AM

Nice

Bob Impact

04-22-2012, 12:47 PM

Many large companies have issues with FCPA violations, not all of which are quite that clear cut, in many cases they're caused by a foreign company that is acquired in a country where bribery is more common place. Not saying this is what happened with Wal-Mart at all, in fact as the article presents the story they're pretty clearly in the wrong... just saying that these charges aren't all that rare and generally aren't related to a choice made at the US headquarters to bribe people.

sailor

04-22-2012, 03:57 PM

I would assume bribery and corruption are the norm in Mexico.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-22-2012, 05:31 PM

They should sell body armor and bulletproof vests in Walmart de Mexico

IamFogHat

04-22-2012, 05:37 PM

They should sell body armor and bulletproof vests in Walmart de Mexico

That's both as not clever and irrelevant as the post you started with that I read.
BTW, do you really not listen to the show? If so why are you here, friend?

WRESTLINGFAN

04-22-2012, 05:42 PM

I listen to the replays mostly

And BTW Mexico has had about 30K murders since 2006. Its a violent country

IamFogHat

04-22-2012, 05:55 PM

I listen to the replays mostly

And BTW Mexico has had about 30K murders since 2006. Its a violent country

Ok, people, he listens to replays, why was someone attacking him the other day? And I mean purely about the listening part.

underdog

04-22-2012, 06:09 PM

Ok, people, he listens to replays, why was someone attacking him the other day? And I mean purely about the listening part.

Someone was questioning it because he has nothing to say about the show ever, it seems. Furtherman was really just wondering if this was his only outlet, or if he spews this garbage across the internet.

IamFogHat

04-22-2012, 06:17 PM

Someone was questioning it because he has nothing to say about the show ever, it seems. Furtherman was really just wondering if this was his only outlet, or if he spews this garbage across the internet.

Ohhh, I thought he had explictedly told us he doesn't listen to the show.

underdog

04-22-2012, 06:32 PM

Ohhh, I thought he had explictedly told us he doesn't listen to the show.

No, I think it was just an assumption or rumor.

underdog

04-22-2012, 06:33 PM

I could be wrong though.

IamFogHat

04-22-2012, 06:36 PM

I could be wrong though.

You're often wrong.

underdog

04-22-2012, 06:42 PM

You're often wrong.

True.

But not with my choice of servers! Take that, justjon!

spoon

04-22-2012, 10:42 PM

True.

But not with my choice of servers! Take that, justjon!

come on, he won't be back here for another 2 years

the resulting checks are direct deposited into his mouth though

WRESTLINGFAN

04-23-2012, 05:16 AM

Did anyone short Walmart? Its down 4.5% in pre market trading

Bob Impact

04-23-2012, 06:22 AM

I listen to the replays mostly

And BTW Mexico has had about 30K murders since 2006. Its a violent country

Which is driven by violence in the northern states (primarily Chihuahua, Coahuila, Tamaulipas and the one with Monterrey as it's capital who's name escapes me at the moment, Nuevo Leon maybe) associated with the US lead war on drugs. The murder rate is actually significantly down vs the late 90s.

disneyspy

04-23-2012, 12:01 PM

fun fact,juarez mexico(across from el paso) has more murders in a day than detroit has in a year

Bob Impact

04-23-2012, 12:06 PM

I dispute the funness of that fact.

Also, you're 30 times more likely to be murdered if you live in Juarez than if you live in Afghanistan. That's a ... rough neighborhood.

underdog

04-23-2012, 03:15 PM

I dispute the funness of that fact.

Also, you're 30 times more likely to be murdered if you live in Juarez than if you live in Afghanistan. That's a ... rough neighborhood.

Afghanistan is a pretty large country.

hanso

04-23-2012, 03:37 PM

Did anyone short Walmart? Its down 4.5% in pre market trading

Would have been smart move. Whenever stuff like this is in news.

high fly

04-23-2012, 06:05 PM

I don't care for WalMart.
They have ruined local economies all over the place by ruining local businesses and turning downtown areas of small towns to ghost towns. Not only does this damage business, it is also harmful to the social fabric of an area.
Local businesses tend to bank locally and reinvest profits locally, whereas WalMart tends to vacuum the wealth and send it elsewhere.
In many cases, the jobs WalMart brings are offset by the ones lost by local businesses.
There are a number of studies that have been done that show the negative impact of WalMarts for those who (unlike me) have not seen it firsthand.

WalMart also treats their employees poorly. They cut working hours so workers don't get benefits and jack them around in other ways. They don't have the loyalty to their employees that locally-owned businesses tend to have.
Many of us may recall about 20 years ago when WalMart made a big deal of the fact they were selling a high percentage of things made in America, but we can not expect that particular campaign to be revived. Even when located near rural areas where local produce, meat and fish are readily available, WalMart will, at most make a puny token effort to sell those goods, preferring to import food to sell.

Ultimately, WalMart appeals to a dark element in our society, the idea that low price trumps quality and responsibility to our neighbors.

sailor

04-24-2012, 05:02 AM

Forbes is reporting many of the payments made by Walmart may not constitute bribery. As you have to imagine, there's plenty of bribery in Mexico and a lot of this was grease payments just made to speed up the regular course of getting approvals.

Crispy123

04-24-2012, 06:47 AM

Forbes is reporting many of the payments made by Walmart may not constitute bribery. As you have to imagine, there's plenty of bribery in Mexico and a lot of this was grease payments just made to speed up the regular course of getting approvals.

One time I saw a grease payment show in Tijuana. It was nasty!

Jujubees2

04-24-2012, 07:47 AM

One time I heard this guy on the radio. It was awful.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQauzh05O_PC8H4zpCRFJkL6cdQ5KqIR gP-XGAZ5_99d2uAW_0SYw

A.J.

04-24-2012, 07:48 AM

One time I heard this guy on the radio. It was awful.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQauzh05O_PC8H4zpCRFJkL6cdQ5KqIR gP-XGAZ5_99d2uAW_0SYw

WADDLE-DOODLE-AYYYYYYYY!!!

WRESTLINGFAN

04-24-2012, 10:40 AM

One time I saw a grease payment show in Tijuana. It was nasty!

Nothing compared what I saw in the Philippines and Thailand

Jujubees2

05-15-2012, 04:54 AM

Now they sell rattlesnakes!

Shopper bitten by rattlesnake in Walmart (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11710516-shopper-bitten-by-rattlesnake-in-walmart?lite)

A.J.

05-15-2012, 05:28 AM

Now they sell rattlesnakes!

Shopper bitten by rattlesnake in Walmart (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11710516-shopper-bitten-by-rattlesnake-in-walmart?lite)

Craig, a married father of two, said the mulch was for his marijuana plants, which he is licensed to grow for medical reasons.

Well, that should help ease his pain.