Wal-Mart moves again on its $4 generic perscription program

[Gan]

BENTONVILLE, Ark., Nov. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (NYSE: WMT) announced that beginning on Tuesday, November 28, 2006, it is launching its $4 generic prescription program in 11 additional states, making the program available in all of its U.S. pharmacies.

With the announcement, the expanded $4 generic prescription program will now be available in an additional 811 stores throughout California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Though it kicked off the program in Florida in September, with intentions to spread outside the state in January 2007, Wal- Mart said customer demand led it to accelerate the rollout of the program - now available in all of its 3,810 pharmacies.

"When we made our initial announcement in Florida back in September, we never imagined that in addition to our 3,800 pharmacies, thousands of others would join us in bringing more affordable medicines to our nation's seniors, working families and the uninsured. We are proud to have introduced competition to an area where it has been too scarce for too long," said Wal- Mart President and CEO Lee Scott. "And, we hope others will continue to join us in making prescription medicines more affordable and accessible for all Americans."

With the announcement, Wal-Mart has expanded the program to include 331 generic prescriptions available for up to a 30-day supply at commonly prescribed dosages. The list is made up of as many as 143 compounds in 26 therapeutic categories. According to http://www.rxlist.com/ (http://sev.prnewswire.com/retail/20061127/NYM11027112006-1.html#), the list also includes 14 of the top 20 prescribed medications in the United States.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/retail/20061127/NYM11027112006-1.html
________________________________

This makes the program available in 49 states in the US. Only state not participating is North Dakota where there are no Wal-Mart Pharmacy operations in existence.

The drug list has expanded the drug listing to over 331 perscriptions (see link above). Most of which are Medi-Care perscriptions according to the news story I heard today.

Wal-Mart has managed to accomplish what no one in the Executive branch dating back to Hillary's initial health program push back in the 1990's.

Free Markets FTW!

[Back]

What if I don’t want to go to Wal-Mart for any number of reasons? Why can’t I go to Joe’s Pharmacy, the local pharmacy that me and my family have gone to all our lives?

[xtc]

What if I don’t want to go to Wal-Mart for any number of reasons? Why can’t I go to Joe’s Pharmacy, the local pharmacy that me and my family have gone to all our lives?

If you want the sale commie you have to go to Walmart comrade :)

[Gan]

What if I don’t want to go to Wal-Mart for any number of reasons? Why can’t I go to Joe’s Pharmacy, the local pharmacy that me and my family have gone to all our lives?

You can purchase your perscriptions whereever you wish. If the pharmacies that you favor wish to compete then they will lower their prices. If not, then you will pay a higher premium.

Its called freedom of choice. You can spend your money wherever you wish. How much you spend is up to you.

[Latrinsorm]

Doesn't it feel a little disingenuous to say "wish to compete", Ganalon, or were you making a joke there?

[Gan]

The real question is will you boycott your local pharmacy if they refuse to lower their prices and blame them for price fixing and profiteering in a market that obviously can be offered to the public at a lower price?

[Gan]

Doesn't it feel a little disingenuous to say "wish to compete", Ganalon, or were you making a joke there?

No humor there. Some pharmacies will continue to offer their generics at their historical pricing regardless of what Wal-Mart does. They will rely upon the type of customer that Backlash is being an example of.

Whether they as a business will survive is up to the market and the choice that the customer base will make when spending their hard earned money.

Its all about having a choice comrade.

[CrystalTears]

Unfortunately the prescriptions I need aren't listed as available ones or I'd go there in a heartbeat.

Oh wait! My inhaler is on there! Ding! Better to pay a third of what I'm paying now. :D

[StrayRogue]

What is an operstaions?

[Gan]

Another important thing to remember. You do not have to belong to any PPO/HMO or other type of health plan to receive the $4 pricing. Its not a co-pay price, its the retail price.

ANYONE can fill a legit script at a Wal-Mart pharmacy and pay $4 for the generic equivalent if it is available.

[Gan]

Unfortunately the prescriptions I need aren't listed as available ones or I'd go there in a heartbeat.

Oh wait! My inhaler is on there! Ding! Better to pay a third of what I'm paying now. :D

Now multiply this reaction times the millions of people who live/shop near a Wal-Mart market center across the US that discover the exact same thing when they review the updated list.

[Jazuela]

But that's 4 bucks for a 1-month prescription. I pay 5 bucks for a 90 day prescription at the supermarket pharmacy, for a medication listed on their list. Screw Walmart, I get a better deal at the supermarket.

[CrystalTears]

Lucky you that you have cheap medication. Some of us aren't as fortunate and are paying up the nose to feel better. It truly sucks.

[Gan]

My PPO perscription plan is $10 for 30 at the window or $10 for 90 via mail in.

I think its obvious which one I choose.

[CrystalTears]

Well I'm the wrong person to deal with this right now because my dumbass company, which usually isn't dumbass, has us on a healthplan with a stupid high deductible. So I have no copay. I have to pay everything up front at a "discounted" price. Discounted my ass. Let's just say that by the third quarter I had already reached my stupid high deductible. For those who don't have health problems it's fine. For us, it blows.

[Some Rogue]

I got a cure for what ails you.
:wink1:

[Kyra]

Yeah, my 3 meds are $25/rx for copay with BCBS so I'll jump on $4 a rx if any of mine are on there...

[El Burro]

Go to Target comrades, they are matching Walmart.

[Artha]

Walmart sucks. Any company that recommends its employees get on WIC to feed their kids doesn't deserve your money.

[Snapp]

Walmart is the devil. Their business practices are too questionable for me to support them just to save a couple bucks. Granted, I work for another pharmacy, so I'm biased.

[El Burro]

Is your pharmacy going to offer discounted prescriptions?

[Gan]

Walmart sucks. Any company that recommends its employees get on WIC to feed their kids doesn't deserve your money.

I must have missed that story. :(

Link me?

[Artha]

Don't have a link handy, find/download:

Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices

[Miss X]

It's so weird that pharmacies can charge different amounts for the same drug. Over here, there's a set price for all drugs, so regardless of drug, you pay like £6.40 for it at every pharmacy in the UK. You get every drug free if you're diabetic, have a thyroid problem, are unemployed or in full time education too.

[Snapp]

Is your pharmacy going to offer discounted prescriptions?

Beats me. My company was recently bought by Walgreens and I haven't heard anything yet.

[Stanley Burrell]

Having to get Rx for albuterol is a motherfuckin' pain in the tuchus and keppie, yo.

Now it shall not be as such. I have deemed it so.

[Numbers]

It's a good idea, and it's definitely something only Wal Mart could do. The problem is, of course, that it will be putting a lot of Mom & Pop pharmacies out of business, which is never a good thing. Additionally, I doubt that Wal Mart's standards when hiring their pharmacists are top notch - most likely they'll just go for whoever will work for the cheapest and has the correct degree.

[Sean of the Thread]

It's so weird that pharmacies can charge different amounts for the same drug. Over here, there's a set price for all drugs, so regardless of drug, you pay like £6.40 for it at every pharmacy in the UK. You get every drug free if you're diabetic, have a thyroid problem, are unemployed or in full time education too.

Yeah it's called socialism.

[Latrinsorm]

Some pharmacies will continue to offer their generics at their historical pricing regardless of what Wal-Mart does.What I meant was, do you really think these pharmacies really can compete with a megacorp like Wal-Mart? Do you really think that Wal-Mart wouldn't give out prescriptions at a sustainable loss in order to run every other pharmacy out of business?

In other words, what 3704558 said. (http://www.thinkgeek.com/pennyarcade/shirts/8c75/)
You get every drug free if you're diabetic, have a thyroid problem, are unemployed or in full time education too.I knew I should have scored some free coke while I was over there. :(

[Gan]

What I meant was, do you really think these pharmacies really can compete with a megacorp like Wal-Mart? Do you really think that Wal-Mart wouldn't give out prescriptions at a sustainable loss in order to run every other pharmacy out of business?

Some will survive just by the nature of those who wish NOT to do business with wal-mart. Some will survive because there's not a Wal-Mart in every town. Some will survive because not all medications are on the generic list Wal-Mart uses.

Is wal-mart partaking in predatory pricing? Only if they can not maintain such low pricing levels and raise them back up after a change in the market participation is seen through other pharmacies going under. If they can maintain, then you're looking at a generic pharmaceutical price correction with large retailers such as Target, Walgreens, Eckards, etc. looking to follow suit. At this point, its a matter of renegotiating with the drug suppliers in order to get lower prices like the larger retailers have.

Either way this reminds me of the plight of the 'small' farmer when faced with competing with the large conglomerate farms being able to produce at greater efficiencies.

What I see happening is some individual pharmacies having to adapt to a changing market. The question is, do you want to prop up an inefficient sector with higher pricing in order to save that mom/pop operation? Can you afford to prop it up as an individual consumer? Is it right to ask the government to attempt to subsidize that kind of inefficiency?

[Snapp]

What I meant was, do you really think these pharmacies really can compete with a megacorp like Wal-Mart? Do you really think that Wal-Mart wouldn't give out prescriptions at a sustainable loss in order to run every other pharmacy out of business?


They can't and they are. Even if they were making high profit on these drugs (which they probably aren't making any on most of them), it doesn't "pay off" to have the Pharmacist waste their time filling the scripts when I'd say most pharmacists make about $50 an hour.

[Numbers]

Some will survive just by the nature of those who wish NOT to do business with wal-mart. Some will survive because there's not a Wal-Mart in every town. Some will survive because not all medications are on the generic list Wal-Mart uses.

True, but many more will be forced to shut their doors. My parents ran a pharmacy in New York City for 25 years, and 23 of those years were before any big chains started moving into the city. The store did phenomenally during that time, and had tons and tons of extremely loyal customers. Then, one day, a Duane Read moved in directly across the street, and suddenly those loyal customers were no where to be seen. Some of them even had the gall to call up my parents and yell at them for "ripping them off" for so long.

I'm assuming that the only reason why Wal-Mart can offer $4 prescriptions (besides their excellent supply chain model) is that they approached the companies that produce the generic drugs, and gave them two options: 1) Let Wal-Mart sell their product for $4, drastically reducing margins for drugs sold at Wal-Mart pharmacies or, 2) Wal-Mart won't sell their product at all, which is by far the less favorable option. So, the companies really had no choice. Chances are that the only reason that some drugs aren't listed in the Wal-Mart plan is because some drug companies are still trying desperately to hold out.



What I see happening is some individual pharmacies having to adapt to a changing market. The question is, do you want to prop up an inefficient sector with higher pricing in order to save that mom/pop operation? Can you afford to prop it up as an individual consumer? Is it right to ask the government to attempt to subsidize that kind of inefficiency?


Absolutely, yes. Mom & Pops are always preferable to mega-chains, as it spreads the wealth out more evenly, and prevents monopolies from forming.

[TheEschaton]

What I see happening is some individual pharmacies having to adapt to a changing market. The question is, do you want to prop up an inefficient sector with higher pricing in order to save that mom/pop operation? Can you afford to prop it up as an individual consumer? Is it right to ask the government to attempt to subsidize that kind of inefficiency?

You're thinking only in strict capital terms. What about the social value of mom/pop stores in regards to Walmart? The policy behind promoting small business, and localized, customized service to people should count for something.

-TheE-

[Apathy]

Sometimes you confuse me Gan, though not as often as Backlash. Wal-mart is the antithesis of Be American, Buy American. Your staunch support bewilders me.

Regardless of my personal feelings about Wal-Mart (much like Kefka, I hate hate hate hate hate hate it), I do not think this is a well thought out plan. Remember, damn near everything at wallyworld is made overseas so that the low-profit margins they take on cheap material is translated to large earnings when multiplied by a large volume. Kind of like that drunk guy in the bar who thinks if he hits on enough women, one of them will go home with him.

Wallyworld recently attempted to enter the world of high fashion (read: clothing that doesn't look like it came from Wal-Mart) and it failed. Miserably. Not to mention people who hate it are beginning to become sophisticated and begin grassroots organizations against it. There have also been worries about regressing sales growth across the board.

So, Wal-Mart has proven to itself it is stuck in its segment of retail clothing. That means no more market penetration. The brass has also decided instead of continually expansion Wal-Mart will attempt to increase productivity at its current locations. In other words, they want their stores to make more money.

Now, the Wal-Mart approach is fairly simple. Sell a little, make a little. Sell a lot (of shit), make a lot. The very idea of increasing profit at its current locations goes against this idea. I am confused by these ideas enough that if I had stock in the company I would seriously consider selling it.

Here is the point I'm rambling into: Wal-Mart makes money by selling a lot of items at a low profit margin. The more items they can bring in and sell the more their profit will be. This idea only works with certain "black boxes" and I don't think that prescription drugs are going to be one of those items. People can deal with cheap when it comes to low-involvement items. But high-involvement items is not Wal-Marts bread and butter, in any way.

Do I think this will fail? Not really, it will be profitable. However, I don't think this will have a rippling effect on the drug market, nor do I think it will lead to this insane growth that Wal-Mart is touting.

[Jazuela]

I thought it was the other way around. That they sell a lot of major crappola at a high profit margin, and a few bits and pieces of moderate quality for a low profit margin. And the crappola tends to be the best-sellers. So like -

Clothing and accessories manufactured outside the USA, a serious deal with certain toy companies: low price to consumer, but even lower cost to Walmart, resulting in enormous profit margin.

Candy and other foodstuffs, various furnishings and paper goods at a low price to consumer, and a moderately low cost to Walmart, resulting in a low profit margin.

They'd sell a LOT more clothing, so their ultimate profit margin is low percentage-wise. But the dollar value of that profit margin is over the top, which allows them to sell mundane medications (most of which don't even require a prescription) at only $4 a pop. Likely a loss - they are probably paying more than that for the drugs, but considering that they make SO much more on other stuff, the loss is barely a dent in their final net profits.

At least, that's how I thought they were doing it. It seemed like a similar model to the major dairies around here, which sold in bulk the least expensive things to manufacture, at dirt-cheap prices to institutional bids (such as school systems) but the margin of profit was high enough that it made up for the few things they sold which were more expensive to manufacture, even when they'd have a sale and technically lose money selling those more expensive items.

[Artha]

Here is the point I'm rambling into: Wal-Mart makes money by selling a lot of items at a low profit margin. The more items they can bring in and sell the more their profit will be. This idea only works with certain "black boxes" and I don't think that prescription drugs are going to be one of those items. People can deal with cheap when it comes to low-involvement items. But high-involvement items is not Wal-Marts bread and butter, in any way.

Do I think this will fail? Not really, it will be profitable. However, I don't think this will have a rippling effect on the drug market, nor do I think it will lead to this insane growth that Wal-Mart is touting.
Walmart also makes money by paying their employees jack shit (and aggressively fighting unionization) and pressuring managers to pressure lower employees to work unpaid overtime.

The result of that, aside from the Welfare/WIC issue I brought up earlier, is that usually the only place these employees can afford to shop is at Walmart. Devilishly brilliant, really.

[Back]

Selling stuff at loss of profit is called “loss-leading” which they do with their CDs. Its just to draw the customer in to buy other stuff. It would be a smart move to do this with generic prescription drugs. Someone is sick, knows they can get their prescrip at Wal-Mart for cheap, then picks up other comforts while they are there... other remedies, comfort food, some necessities they need at home, Lets face it most of those people are going to be senior citizens and how many of them have the energy to go to multiple places for what they need?

Even if Wal-Mart is not loss-leading on this, are they preying on the sick and the elderly?

[Tsa`ah]

Even if Wal-Mart is not loss-leading on this, are they preying on the sick and the elderly?

As liberal as you are, you're coming off like a right wing fuck up now.

The meds covered under the $4 pricing are some of THE most prescribed meds in the US.

To a person with suck ass insurance, no insurance, or a pre-existing condition ... this is not taking advantage of the sick and elderly.

Because my asthma is a pre-existing condition, I pay in excess of $400 monthly. That's combivent, duonebs, advair, and a 1 week cycle of prednisone. I can afford $400 a month but there are plenty of people on the exact same meds, without any coverage, that could cut their monthly Rx costs almost in half when the doc drops the combivent and duonebs and in turn writes 3 scripts, 2 for albuterol (inhaler and neb), and 1 for atrivent. So, they pay 12 bucks to Wal-mart for the cheap stuff and whom ever the hell they feel like paying for atrivent and advair.

I'm sorry, you can call it taking advantage of the elderly, the sick ... loss leading ... I call it sticking it to the pharmacies that have been bending John Q Public over since the concept of modern pharmacies have been implemented. We're talking about such a small percentage of available meds here that it's unlikely the competitors will even flinch. In fact they'll probably smile with glee the next time they fill a generic albuteral inhaler and charge the poor schmuck with the scrip $50.

[Artha]

I call it sticking it to the pharmacies that have been bending John Q Public over since the concept of modern pharmacies have been implemented.
See, Walmart is evil. So there's got to be more to it than "sticking it to the man", because Walmart IS the man.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, Artha is really bitter about Wal-mart. :D

Don't me wrong, I'm one of those highly in favor of supporting local businesses to flourish and keep the community's money within the community. However since I have to go to CVS for my prescriptions, which I hate, going to another franchise doesn't bother me as much. As much I try to not give Wal-mart more business, for some things, it's cheaper to do so.

[Back]

As liberal as you are, you're coming off like a right wing fuck up now.

Well, now, logic is a bit topsy-turvy these days, I agree.


The meds covered under the $4 pricing are some of THE most prescribed meds in the US.

To a person with suck ass insurance, no insurance, or a pre-existing condition ... this is not taking advantage of the sick and elderly.

Not to be contrite but I doubt the shareholders of Wal-Mart are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. In the current capitalist model, he who sells the most wins. In the current capitalist model morality does not even enter the equation.


Because my asthma is a pre-existing condition, I pay in excess of $400 monthly. That's combivent, duonebs, advair, and a 1 week cycle of prednisone. I can afford $400 a month but there are plenty of people on the exact same meds, without any coverage, that could cut their monthly Rx costs almost in half when the doc drops the combivent and duonebs and in turn writes 3 scripts, 2 for albuterol (inhaler and neb), and 1 for atrivent. So, they pay 12 bucks to Wal-mart for the cheap stuff and whom ever the hell they feel like paying for atrivent and advair.

I'm sorry, you can call it taking advantage of the elderly, the sick ... loss leading ... I call it sticking it to the pharmacies that have been bending John Q Public over since the concept of modern pharmacies have been implemented. We're talking about such a small percentage of available meds here that it's unlikely the competitors will even flinch. In fact they'll probably smile with glee the next time they fill a generic albuteral inhaler and charge the poor schmuck with the scrip $50.

I didn’t call it taking advantage of the sick, I asked if it was. With our country set up to protect the financial interests of the corporations more than the public, I’m going to lean towards it being a dubious business practice.

Why aren’t you asking why the drugs cost what they do in the first place? What about Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Or, ask yourself why, when a man does the significant job of advancing medicine to the benefit of the whole human race, that one company gets to patent it and everyone has to make them rich in order to get well?

[Parkbandit]

As liberal as you are, you're coming off like a right wing fuck up now.


Now?

The argument that Walmart pays their employees shit so don't shop there is stupid. They are one of the largest (if not THE largest) employer in the US. If people didn't want to work there, the unemployement is what.. 3-4% in most places? Pretty easy to get a better paying job imo.

If you don't want to shop there.. don't? Makes no difference to anyone but yourself. Personally.. if I can buy a product at one place and save 10-20%.. why wouldn't I? I don't give a shit what they are paying their employees.. I don't work there. It's saving me money to give my family a better life.. that's where my concern lies.

[TheEschaton]

Which is why you're a conservative. I, as a liberal, am concerned with society at large, feeling that injustice towards anyone is an injustice towards me and mine.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

So how is offering prescriptions for $4 to anyone an injustice?

[TheEschaton]

I think the injustice of paying their employees shit is the contention, as well as the price gouging to run mom/pops out of business piece.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

You can't win with some of these tards CT.

[CrystalTears]

So let me get this straight. The huge company, which people complained about not too long ago not offering better prescriptions, was able to get several generic and often prescribed drugs to people for a very low price, regardless of insurance, and now this is injustice?

Again, I'm all for the mom and pop stores to work out. But let me tell you something. If those stores are gouging me out of my money to make money, then something's not right. I'll go to them when I can, but if there is a way to get it for a lot less, I'm going there. This is about my health, not their pocket, and in that, I'm going to where I can get it cheapest.

[TheEschaton]

I agree, I would never put the benefit of small business's profit margin over the individiual health care costs...but if small business promotion is a "moral" thing to do, Walmart's price gouging is problematic.

Say it was on a luxury item that mom/pop stores sold. Would your viewpoint change? Mine would.

Edited: I risk being pulled for going "off topic", but would you buy your shampoo in Walmart besides the local corner store, if the price was lower? This is a societal benefit vs. individual consumerism question.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

I'm only talking of health care costs. Most of our spending, both with buying items and going to restaurants, is done with local businesses primarily. We like to keep money in the community. However if I want something and the locals don't have it, well, now Walmart and Target have my business. They are my last resort, not my first.

[Gan]

From a customer's perspective:

Living in a rural area, customers are faced with independant retailers (mom/pop) and medium market retail chains. Because of the lack of competetion these stores tend to charge on the higher end of the pricing spectrum that people are willing to pay without forcing them to drive to a neighboring town/area to get substitutes at a lower price. These areas typically only have 1 major grocery store, 1 or 2 pharmacies, etc. Enter in a regional Wal-Mart store that will cover a 60 mile market radius for extreme rural, and a smaller radius for higher populated areas. Prices are dropped as businesses are forced to compete. Add to that the value added benefit of the rural poor not needing a healthplan to get their perscriptions filled at $4 each. Clearly the rural middle/lower income segment clearly benefits from the presence of Wal-Mart from a customer perspective.

Living in an urban area, customers are exposed to an already competetive market with other large retailers like Cosco and Target. Add a third powerful competetor and prices are lowered again in order to attract business. Who benefits from lower prices again??? Yea, the customer.

From a market perspective:
The significant effect of a Wal-Mart store entering into the market place, be it rural or urban, is that pricing becomes extremely competetive. Relationships with distributors are leveraged and margins are cut in order to remain competetive. Wal-Mart forces other businesses to become more efficient in their management, operation, and pricing. Wal-Mart uses their own supplier relationship position as leverage in order to get the lowest price, the offset is that they must move large quantities in order to see profit. MacDonalds first used this volume over price approach when they entered into the fast food market. Furthermore Wal-Mart has expanded their product line to the point where even high end electronics are now offered at prices reachable by the middle income/lower income public.

But Wal-Mart's presence has put the mom/pop stores out of business with their lower prices! Well, in a free market economy you adapt to the market you are participating in. Nothing is for taken for granted and nothing's guaranteed because people have a choice as to where they spend their money. So particpants are forced with 3 decisions when a Wal-Mart enters into their marketplace. First, adapt, and offer competetive prices, competetive service, or competetive products. Second, close up shop and do something else. Third, move the business to a location where there is not an exposure to a Wal-Mart level of competetion and charge higher prices and hope you will still attract a customer base.

Another of the tactics used, as mentioned earlier, is loss leading. Every major retail store/chain in existence uses loss leading in order to attract customers through their doors. They have degreed marketing specialists who will strategize what type of customer the loss lead will attract and what else they are most likely to buy so they can adjust pricing on the follow up purchases in order to spread the loss out to lessen or absorb the loss entirely. This isnt predatory pricing, this isnt unethical business practices, this is 100% pure market strategy based on anticipated buyer behavior. The only difference is that Wal-Mart is so diviserfied in its product line that it can back up loss leading products with a myriad of other products to keep buyers walking through the aisles and buying other products. Think of it as dollar cost averaging at the retail level.

There is a negative I have in the market perspective, but its not purely market related as much as it is utility related. I'll bring that up in the last paragraphs.

From an employee/employer's perspective:
Living in a rural area, the entrance of a Wal-Mart store, Sam's Club store, or regional distribution center means added jobs to a rural economy of scale. State and Federal laws dictate that the wages offered must be at least minimum wage. And depending on the type of employee they are looking for, they must also compete with the small local market wage rates. Who benefits? The worker, first by the creation of jobs in an area where minimal jobs existed before, and second by making the wages for specific levels of workers more competetive. Wal-Mart also wins (in lower hiring costs) in the rural environment because a larger number of rural employees tend to be longer term than in urban areas where job hopping is more prevalent.

Now increase the competetive nature of wage rates for urban areas where Wal-Mart operates and you'll see higher than minimum wages offered because of substitute work environments found in urban areas. Who benefits? The worker with higher rates.

Insurance/benefits are an interesting issue because of the nature of what is offered. My ignorance in this area is what types of health plans are actually offered? HMO? PPO? Hybrid? All of the above? Can the employee chose which level they wish to participate in? And finally what are the company/employee contribution levels of each plan? 75% company/25% employee? 80%/20%? Is there a variance in contribution levels based on which plan the employee chooses?

There are a lot of variables to consider before I can pass judgement on what types of health insurance plans are offered by Wal-Mart. I hear lots of talk about how their insurance plans are bottom dollar/cheap and not worth it? Is that because the majority of the employees always choose to go the cheapest option (usually accompanied by high deductables and copays)? What are the expectation levels of insurance plans for minimum wage employees? And finally what are the minimum required coverages that Wal-Mart has to offer by law in each state they operate in? Lots of questions to consider, but ones I cant answer.

Without trying not to sound like a cheerleader for Wal-Mart I've tried to cover what is exposed when Wal-Mart enters into a market. I've seen first hand the effects Wal-Mart has had on a rural community. I've also seen what effects it has had in the urban areas where I live now. From a free market level, Wal-Mart is cutting edge. But there is another side to the story.

The negative I did not mention earlier is a by-product of being 100% free market. It is also something I battle with since I'm a proponent of free markets. That is identity loss. By being a free market purest you place that behavior above all other forms of utility. And utility is the huge variable in the free market equation. Its the part of the equation that asks, other than the cheapest price, why do you shop there? Loyalty? You know people that work there? You feel like a pampered customer while you are there? They carry brand names you like to buy? They arent known to be a predator in the market to customers or employees? They sell only domestic products? They dont sell products from China? They dont sell gas from Venezuela?

There are going to be a percentage of the population that will override price because of these utility variables. I'm guilty of that with Citgo gas and its association with Hugo Chavez. I'm guilty of that with using Green Mountian Energy instead of a cheaper competetor (at least until December). There are things that motivate us not to buy a product. Ask Kathy Lee Gifford and her clothing line produced with child labor overseas, that subsequently failed to sell in the US market.

In the end, consumers will use off the wall resoning as to why or why they will not spend their money at a specific retailer. And there are scientists as well as degreed professionals who make it their living trying to make those reasons predictable.

So why dont you shop there? Is it because you think they are predatory to their employees? Do you think they prey on customers? Is it because they are so big and or successful that they MUST be doing something illegal? Legitimate questions, hopefully with legitimate answers.

So its really up to you as a consumer to decide whether or not you spend your own money at Wal-Mart. From my perspective the benefits of having a Wal-Mart in your market area are far greater than the costs.

I've probably left out a few things, but this is what I've turned over in my mind since hearing the news story yesterday and reading the posts thus far in this thread.

[Sean of the Thread]

What's funny is mom and pops are buying their product from walmart to resale at markup.

[Some Rogue]

Why aren’t you asking why the drugs cost what they do in the first place? What about Glaxo-Smith-Kline?


It's called research and development. Most of us understand that already. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand?



Or, ask yourself why, when a man does the significant job of advancing medicine to the benefit of the whole human race, that one company gets to patent it and everyone has to make them rich in order to get well?


Usually that man works for that one company and is probably assisted by a whole team of researchers from that same company. If they're not making money, who's going to fund that next great breakthrough in medicine?

[Parkbandit]

I think the injustice of paying their employees shit is the contention, as well as the price gouging to run mom/pops out of business piece.

-TheE-


And that's why you are a liberal. You think with your heart and not with your head. If these poor, poor people are being paid so, so low... why the fuck are they working there to begin with? I wouldn't work there.. and you wouldn't work there.. but there are PLENTY of people that do work there and love it. I heard a story about a new Walmart opening up and having 200 job openings and some 10,000 people came to apply.

Let the free market dictate wages and benefits. Trust me.. it works. We don't need Congress sticking their noses into things and fucking everything up.

[Parkbandit]

It's called research and development. Most of us understand that already. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand?




BINGO. R&D takes years and years and is normally one of the biggest expenses of most drug companies.

[Artha]

Maybe they work at Walmart because they're not qualified for anywhere else?

The wages they pay are shit, the managers pressure employees to work unpaid overtime, and Walmart is the only company that ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for welfare and WIC. They've even got forms to help with the process. They come into a town, getting subsidies and tax cuts from the local government, put all the smaller shops out of business, then suck the life out of the town. There's nothing good about Walmart.

[Parkbandit]

I agree, I would never put the benefit of small business's profit margin over the individiual health care costs...but if small business promotion is a "moral" thing to do, Walmart's price gouging is problematic.

Say it was on a luxury item that mom/pop stores sold. Would your viewpoint change? Mine would.

Edited: I risk being pulled for going "off topic", but would you buy your shampoo in Walmart besides the local corner store, if the price was lower? This is a societal benefit vs. individual consumerism question.

-TheE-


It's not price gouging.. it's being able to leverage all their buying power to force suppliers to sell them their goods cheaper than they would for individual stores. Walmart has revolutionized this process.

Mom and Pop stores can't do this.. so they have to buy a far less quantity from the supplier. If I buy 1 toothbrush from a company or 1,000,000.. I'm pretty sure the supplier will give me a far better price for a million than one. I can in turn sell those toothbrushes for probably less than the Mom and Pop can even buy it for.. while turning a fair profit. It's not price gouging to do this.

As far as your shampoo question goes.. yes. If I can get the exact same item from Walmart as I can from Biff's Drug store at a cheaper price.. and they are both convenient to me.. then yes, I'll hop in Walmart and buy it. Why wouldn't I? Unless Biff is a personal friend of mine.. why am I propping up his store by paying a higher price for the same item? Biff needs to get in another line of work if he cannot compete with Walmart. Now, Biff can offer me something else.. great customer service, a shopping experience, entertainment of some sort... something that Walmart is unable to do.. then I'm not just going in there for the Shampoo.. but I'm going in there to have a shopping experience.

But if Biff is 4 walls and a roof.. with sub par customer service and no perks.. then it would be foolish of me to continue to spend money in his store. Adapt or go extinct.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe they work at Walmart because they're not qualified for anywhere else?


Well then by you not going to Walmart.. are you not really hurting these poor people's option of having a job.. instead of being on welfare?



The wages they pay are shit, the managers pressure employees to work unpaid overtime, and Walmart is the only company that ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for welfare and WIC. They've even got forms to help with the process. They come into a town, getting subsidies and tax cuts from the local government, put all the smaller shops out of business, then suck the life out of the town. There's nothing good about Walmart.

Nothing good.. well except hiring people, offering lower prices to the community, giving a huge tax check to the local municipality, ...


yea, nothing good.

[Artha]

Hiring people who are then replaced in the unemployment line by the people who worked at stores that are now out of business.

Offering lower prices for lower quality goods. If you think, when they say to Sony, "Sell us that $50 DVD player for $10," and Sony is more or less forced to do it, that Sony is giving them equal quality...I don't know, you should rethink it or something.

They might be paying taxes, but considering they move in based on subsidies and tax breaks, probably not as much as you'd expect. And again, they're pushing tons of people out of business, which is also lowering that tax contribution.

[Parkbandit]

Provide proof that opening up a Walmart increases unemployement and lowers tax contribution. Until then, I'll just chalk you up to having a personal grudge against Walmart.

[Parkbandit]

Offering lower prices for lower quality goods. If you think, when they say to Sony, "Sell us that $50 DVD player for $10," and Sony is more or less forced to do it, that Sony is giving them equal quality...I don't know, you should rethink it or something.


LOL. You can't possibly be this ignorant Artha. It really is sounding like you have had a bad employement experience at Walmart now and just throwing shit out in hopes something sticks.

If I'm buying the Sony DVD model #145 at Walmart for $50 and I see the Sony DVD model #145 at Target for $70... are you really trying to tell me that you believe Sony has made that one sold to Walmart differently and cheaper than the one they sold Target?

Come on.. tell us. What happened at Walmart? Did you get fired?

[Back]

It's called research and development. Most of us understand that already. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand?

I’m fully aware of how things work now. Just suggesting maybe there is another alternative that is a little more balanced. Some in our society do things “open source” and others copyright to commercialize. When it comes to everyone’s health I would hope we could adopt a more open source attitude and leave the copyrighting to people working on the next Clapper™.

Also look at what you typed. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand? In regards to a drug company... saving someone’s life isn’t enough?


Usually that man works for that one company and is probably assisted by a whole team of researchers from that same company. If they're not making money, who's going to fund that next great breakthrough in medicine?

Well, we do pay taxes. Currently, a huge chunk of it is going towards death in the Middle East.

[CrystalTears]

Also look at what you typed. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand? In regards to a drug company... saving someone’s life isn’t enough?
WTF, Backlash. It's takes millions of dollars to research and develop EACH medicine. Are you really suggesting that investors should just donate the money to a good cause of producing medicine? Are you fucking serious? What do you have against people who want to make money for products they produce? Holy shit.

[Some Rogue]

Also look at what you typed. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand? In regards to a drug company... saving someone’s life isn’t enough?

Ah I see comrade. We should all work for free to benefit each other. Unfortuantely, in the real world, that just doesn't work.
Why do you think that so many of the greatest inovations in medicine, science, technology, etc has come from the capitalists?



Well, we do pay taxes. Currently, a huge chunk of it is going towards death in the Middle East.

More like money we don't even have is being spent heh.

[Back]

WTF, Backlash. It's takes millions of dollars to research and develop EACH medicine. Are you really suggesting that investors should just donate the money to a good cause of producing medicine? Are you fucking serious? What do you have against people who want to make money for products they produce? Holy shit.

Nothing wrong with making money in general and responsibly. I was suggesting that the field of medicine, where people’s lives are on the line, could be viewed differently than say iPods.

[Latrinsorm]

Personally.. if I can buy a product at one place and save 10-20%.. why wouldn't I? I don't give a shit what they are paying their employees.. I don't work there.So, if Wal-Mart were to be making use of slave labor, you would still have no qualms shopping there? If you truly don't "give a shit", wouldn't you have to?
Let the free market dictate wages and benefits.I'll take monopolies and robber barons for $400, Alex.
Again, I'm all for the mom and pop stores to work out. But let me tell you something. If those stores are gouging me out of my money to make money, then something's not right.The idea here is that Wal-Mart is selling these prescriptions at a loss in order to drive other pharmacies out of business. Wal-Mart can afford to do this because it's a huge mega-corporation, unlike Ol' Bill's Pharamacy and Brothel.
analysisIt's an essential postulate of the free market that those who compete have equal footing. You simply cannot have an elephant amongst tortoises, apply capitalism, and expect the results that equally competitive capitalists would produce.

This has all happened before, and it had really shitty results. It's baffling that people can't see this.

[Artha]

LOL. You can't possibly be this ignorant Artha. It really is sounding like you have had a bad employement experience at Walmart now and just throwing shit out in hopes something sticks.

If I'm buying the Sony DVD model #145 at Walmart for $50 and I see the Sony DVD model #145 at Target for $70... are you really trying to tell me that you believe Sony has made that one sold to Walmart differently and cheaper than the one they sold Target?

Come on.. tell us. What happened at Walmart? Did you get fired?

lol, I've never worked retail and don't plan to. It's pretty retarded that you'd make that claim, since you could just as easily be a manager there since you're defending it.

And if you think Sony DVD #145 for $50 and Sony DVD #145 for $15 are made with the same parts, I've lost a lot of respect for you.

[CrystalTears]

The idea here is that Wal-Mart is selling these prescriptions at a loss in order to drive other pharmacies out of business. Wal-Mart can afford to do this because it's a huge mega-corporation, unlike Ol' Bill's Pharamacy and Brothel.
Yes, and normally trying to drive out the little guy would bother me. However, and I will admit I'm currently biased on this situation, but I don't care what the motivation is. I want to pay cheaper prices on my medication, and really don't care who is doing it.

[Artha]

Here's a low quality upload of Walmart: the High Cost of Low Prices (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925&q=Walmart). Watch it.

It's 1h38m long, so be warned if you click that link with 56k.

[Gan]

You simply cannot have an elephant amongst tortoises, apply capitalism, and expect the results that equally competitive capitalists would produce.

This has all happened before, and it had really shitty results. It's baffling that people can't see this.

If the elephant grew to its size by following the rules and laws set forth in this country and still follows the laws and rules that do govern the marketplace, then why are you suggesting that they should be penalized just because they were lucky/smart enough to succeed where others could not? As long as Wal-Mart does not behave and become a monopoly then there's nothing that should be done at this point.

Could you give us an example where this has happened before? Perhaps that would help others in seeing your point of view.

[Gan]

Maybe they work at Walmart because they're not qualified for anywhere else?
Entry level direct labor positions at Wal-Mart would be the same as any entry level direct labor position for any civil government, construction industry, fast food industry, etc. No difference from my perspective as an experienced hiring manager.



The wages they pay are shit,... But legal, and in most markets competetive with other job positions of the same level.


...the managers pressure employees to work unpaid overtime, Illegal if it is happening not to mention I cant think of many people who would work for free. Also, pressuring employees to work overtime is not singularly exclusive to Wal-Mart stores. It happens everywhere, especially during peak shopping/holiday seasons.


...and Walmart is the only company that ENCOURAGES its employees to apply for welfare and WIC. They've even got forms to help with the process. I've done the same thing for employes who have worked for me at the hospital who were a single parent family with multiple kids earning minimum wage.


They come into a town, getting subsidies and tax cuts from the local government, put all the smaller shops out of business, then suck the life out of the town. There's nothing good about Walmart. I've heard of towns offering these as incentives to get Wal-Mart to build in their area because of the offset to those incentives with increased sales tax revenue as well as a boost to their employment and income per capita levels. The goal is to keep the money earned in that area so it will be spent in that area.


Hiring people who are then replaced in the unemployment line by the people who worked at stores that are now out of business.
Thats the nature of any business that competes in the marketplace. In any industry. There's always going to be winners and losers. Its a Darwinian perspective. The strong will adapt and survive. What benefit would the market have in propping up inefficient high cost retailers in a competetive environment where consumers are very sensitive to lower pricing? The only exception is where Wal-Mart drove out ALL competetion and became a monompoly. At that point, the government has and does step in to regulate and ensure fair competetion. However, Wal-Mart has yet to participate in monopolistic behavior as a norm.

[Artha]

llegal if it is happening not to mention I cant think of many people who would work for free. Also, pressuring employees to work overtime is not singularly exclusive to Wal-Mart stores. It happens everywhere, especially during peak shopping/holiday seasons.
Confessions of a Walmart Hitman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=379807997056388450). Basically, he describes the system to pressure workers into unpaid overtime, how managers would delegate it to co-managers, and while the managers do ok, the associates get shit on.

Beyond that, I'm just going to repeat myself and say to watch the video I posted earlier. It's really enlightening, and really does show the human side of this "Darwinistic capitalism" you and PB are so fond of.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, this reminds me of the South Park episode where a "Walmart" moves into their town and the people are outraged... yet spend every moment shopping there.

Not to sound like a complete meaniehead, but what kind of bennies are you looking for Walmart employees to get when they are mostly cashiers and stock people? Do these kind of jobs typically get paid a lot?

[Gan]

Confessions of a Walmart Hitman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=379807997056388450). Basically, he describes the system to pressure workers into unpaid overtime, how managers would delegate it to co-managers, and while the managers do ok, the associates get shit on.

Beyond that, I'm just going to repeat myself and say to watch the video I posted earlier. It's really enlightening, and really does show the human side of this "Darwinistic capitalism" you and PB are so fond of.

Watched the short video. Everything mentioned by that fellow in the documentary is not unique to Wal-Mart stores. It happens in many many work environments.

So why is it that Wal-Mart is unique whereas occurrences such as this with other companies are not? Agreed that its ethically and morally bad, but its not illegal. Those managers that do cross the line subject Wal-Mart to litigation... as any other company would be liable.

[Artha]

Not to sound like a complete meaniehead, but what kind of bennies are you looking for Walmart employees to get when they are mostly cashiers and stock people? Do these kind of jobs typically get paid a lot?
I don't really care about health or dental. A living wage would be good though.

[Sean of the Thread]

What's your opinion of a living wage then?

[Back]

I don't really care about health or dental. A living wage would be good though.

Its interesting that you attribute this problem to Wal-Mart and not the system that allows Wal-Mart to do it.

[Artha]

Walmart makes enough money that there's no reason not to pay their workers a living wage.

[Parkbandit]

I’m fully aware of how things work now. Just suggesting maybe there is another alternative that is a little more balanced. Some in our society do things “open source” and others copyright to commercialize. When it comes to everyone’s health I would hope we could adopt a more open source attitude and leave the copyrighting to people working on the next Clapper™.

Also look at what you typed. Why would a company want to even make the drug if they aren't going to be compensated for all the money they laid out beforehand? In regards to a drug company... saving someone’s life isn’t enough?



Well, we do pay taxes. Currently, a huge chunk of it is going towards death in the Middle East.

OMG.. I was so going to post a "HOW ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT!" reply to the last post by Some Rogue.. jokingly. And boom.. Backlash nails it.

You know.. cars kill thousands of innocent people each year.. we should use the 'wasted' billions for roads and use it to put the big bad drug companies out of business.

[Parkbandit]

Nothing wrong with making money in general and responsibly. I was suggesting that the field of medicine, where people’s lives are on the line, could be viewed differently than say iPods.

I think Backlash is watching far too many Star Trek reruns where money isn't the driving force.

Unfortunately.. we're not quite there yet. We still have to invent warp drive, teleporters and replicators. One step at a time.

:lol:

[CrystalTears]

Walmart makes enough money that there's no reason not to pay their workers a living wage.
McDonalds makes more than enough money, why don't THEY pay their employes more? We can knock off a whole slew of corporate chains that make a lot of money and pay their employees minimum or a little above minimum wage.

What do you consider a living wage? One where that one job at Walmart will support how many people?

And be realistic. Most stockboys and cashiers do not make a lot for a living no matter what store they work at. But somehow Walmart should be above such things and pay more because of who they are? Because they can? What if they paid the people more, which caused the prices of their products to rise? Is it worth it to screw the consumers to benefit the employees?

[Parkbandit]

Confessions of a Walmart Hitman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=379807997056388450). Basically, he describes the system to pressure workers into unpaid overtime, how managers would delegate it to co-managers, and while the managers do ok, the associates get shit on.

Beyond that, I'm just going to repeat myself and say to watch the video I posted earlier. It's really enlightening, and really does show the human side of this "Darwinistic capitalism" you and PB are so fond of.


If Walmart is practicing not paying it's associates for overtime.. don't you think the Labor Department should and has brought charges against them? I'm pretty sure I can jot down a few companies that do that right now. It's a pretty common corporate practice... especially for it's sub managers. Hell, Hilton and Marriott both do it, which I know for a fact. It's not limited to Walmart.

[Parkbandit]

Its interesting that you attribute this problem to Wal-Mart and not the system that allows Wal-Mart to do it.


Yea.. this shit wouldn't go in USSR back in the day. FIGHT THE POWER!!!

[Gan]

Yea.. this shit wouldn't go in USSR back in the day. FIGHT THE POWER!!!


Shout it from a place very high comrade.

[Parkbandit]

I don't really care about health or dental. A living wage would be good though.

“For example, there are some who say that Wal-Mart’s wages and benefits have some kind of negative impact on wages across the board. That’s just plain wrong. Here are the facts:
Wal-Mart’s average wage is around $10 an hour, nearly double the federal minimum wage. The truth is that our wages are competitive with comparable retailers in each of the more than 3,500 communities we serve, with one exception -- a handful of urban markets with unionized grocery workers.

This is only common sense. If Wal-Mart weren’t an attractive place to work, we wouldn’t find ourselves, as we typically do, with thousands of applications for the hundreds of jobs we create when we open a new store.
-Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, 2/23/05

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CT

Is it worth it to screw the consumers to benefit the employees?

I'm assuming then that your against all forms of social welfare then where you pay tax dollars (screwing the customer) to benefit those who may need the assistance (benefit the employees)?

Basically my answer to your question is yes. I shop locally and end up paying more for my goods (screwing the consumer) and keeping local shops in business (benefiting the employees) because I feel its the right thing to do. But thats just a choice I make. I'm a firm believer that there is a happy balance between the two even if it means an increase in the cost of goods.

[Gan]

I'm assuming then that your against all forms of social welfare then where you pay tax dollars (screwing the customer) to benefit those who may need the assistance (benefit the employees)?

Basically my answer to your question is yes. I shop locally and end up paying more for my goods (screwing the consumer) and keeping local shops in business (benefiting the employees) because I feel its the right thing to do. But thats just a choice I make. I'm a firm believer that there is a happy balance between the two even if it means an increase in the cost of goods.

That is because you can afford to pay more. What about those who cant? (single parent, non-educated, 2+children, etc.)

Try to convince a single working mother with 3 children to pay more to the local guy than going to the Wal-Mart 7 blocks away...

Your money would be better spent subsidizing someone who really needed it than one of the local business owners... like a single mom with kids, etc.

[Artha]

If Walmart's such an attractive way to work, why do they fire anybody using union terminology in the break room?

There's a story in the big movie about someone writing, on a computer in the breakroom, "Unionize" or "We need a union," something like that. The next day, Walmart flew in executives to, err, quash the rebellion. They've got training videos that are extremely anti-union.


If Walmart is practicing not paying it's associates for overtime.. don't you think the Labor Department should and has brought charges against them?
Should? Well...yes. Considering I'm saying it's wrong, I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

[CrystalTears]

OMFG I shop locally too. And no, I don't feel that paying more is screwing the customer because that was my choice to pay the higher price to benefit the local businesses. I also pay a lot of taxes here that benefit a whole lot more than consumers, so don't misunderstand me.

I'm speaking strictly about Walmart where it's expected to have low costs on products, to all of a sudden jack up the prices for higher wages for people who are already making decent wages.

I'm honestly not seeing what's so horrible about what Walmart people make.

[Artha]

That is because you can afford to pay more. What about those who cant? (single parent, non-educated, 2+children, etc.)
They can work at Walmart and apply for Welfare/WIC, then stfu and ride the gravy train.

[CrystalTears]

Oh please, I know someone who used to work at DISNEY, the happiest place on earth, who was penalized because he took CROUTONS from the salad bar during his working hours. Every business has their WTF moments, it doesn't mean much if people still want to work there.

[Gan]

If Walmart's such an attractive way to work, why do they fire anybody using union terminology in the break room?

There's a story in the big movie about someone writing, on a computer in the breakroom, "Unionize" or "We need a union," something like that. The next day, Walmart flew in executives to, err, quash the rebellion. They've got training videos that are extremely anti-union.


Name me a non-union shop who isnt scared to death of a union moving in?

Name me one benefit the consumer and the market will see with a union moving into a Wal-Mart store?

(And here's where we'll see the thread diverge.)

Basically if the Wal-Mart employees felt so shafted by the corperation then there would not be a problem having the majority of the store employees vote FOR a union. Its a strong indicator opposite of all the predatory claims that all their stores have not gone union.

[Sean]

Obviously I can't save everyone and like PB mentioned earlier part of my decision is the experience of shopping locally is more pleasing to me than going to a home depot/wal-mart/target/etc. and part of it is also based on my experiences of working in a small local hardware store competing against Home Depot. I don't begrudge anyone who makes a different decision but I do think that an increase in min. wage across the board that is offset by the rise in product cost as long as the wage increase > % of increase in the cost of goods.

[Parkbandit]

Shit, as a Manager in Hilton Focused Service (non-union), we had to attend a 2 day seminar twice a year on how to make sure unions are not getting into hotels.

It's not a Walmart only policy... almost any non-union corporation would like it to stay that way.

[ElanthianSiren]

:shrug: My diabetes meds aren't even on there. It's not surprising to me though in a country where you can get a script for viagra online 1-2-3 but getting something necessary like insulin requires a visit to your doctor.

-M

[Gan]

They can work at Walmart and apply for Welfare/WIC, then stfu and ride the gravy train.

:lol:

What if their job skills warranted a higher paying job elsewhere, other than Wal-Mart? Should they be penalized then too, even if they make more than minimum wage and are still trying to support a family? When you are counting every penny, why should you rationally pay more for the same good or service you can get cheaper down the street?

Is that rational behavior?

[CrystalTears]

:shrug: My diabetes meds aren't even on there. It's not surprising to me though in a country where you can get a script for viagra online 1-2-3 but getting something necessary like insulin requires a visit to your doctor.

-M
:wtf: I would HOPE that insulin isn't as available as viagra and requires your doctor.

[Artha]

Name me a non-union shop who isnt scared to death of a union moving in?
Tom's Hardware down the street.


Name me one benefit the consumer and the market will see with a union moving into a Wal-Mart store?
If workers are paid more, perhaps they'll go shop elsewhere, distributing wealth around locally. Consumers will have a slightly better shopping experience at walmart, which at present time ranks somewhere between warehouse and Kmart.


Basically if the Wal-Mart employees felt so shafted by the corperation then there would not be a problem having the majority of the store employees vote FOR a union.
Except that Walmart AGRESSIVELY fights this, and anybody who brought up the idea of a vote would doubtlessly be terminated.

[TheEschaton]

If the elephant grew to its size by following the rules and laws set forth in this country and still follows the laws and rules that do govern the marketplace, then why are you suggesting that they should be penalized just because they were lucky/smart enough to succeed where others could not? As long as Wal-Mart does not behave and become a monopoly then there's nothing that should be done at this point.

Could you give us an example where this has happened before? Perhaps that would help others in seeing your point of view.

Its tactics seeks the goal of a monopoly in EVERYTHING. If Walmart had its way, it would replace all general stores everywhere. How is monopoly only if you prevent new competitors, instead of driving old, local ones out of business?

-TheE-

[Gan]

Obviously I can't save everyone and like PB mentioned earlier part of my decision is the experience of shopping locally is more pleasing to me than going to a home depot/wal-mart/target/etc. and part of it is also based on my experiences of working in a small local hardware store competing against Home Depot. I don't begrudge anyone who makes a different decision but I do think that an increase in min. wage across the board that is offset by the rise in product cost as long as the wage increase > % of increase in the cost of goods.

Therein lies the crutch of a minimum wage increase. Most companies who are faced with an increase in labor costs will normally pass those costs along to the consumer if they can competetively (or legally) do so. So the increase in wages is pretty much proportionate to the increase in a market basket of goods produced by the higher wages (price elasticity).

[Parkbandit]

Obviously I can't save everyone and like PB mentioned earlier part of my decision is the experience of shopping locally is more pleasing to me than going to a home depot/wal-mart/target/etc. and part of it is also based on my experiences of working in a small local hardware store competing against Home Depot. I don't begrudge anyone who makes a different decision but I do think that an increase in min. wage across the board that is offset by the rise in product cost as long as the wage increase > % of increase in the cost of goods.


Exactly. I could get my haircut at Walmart and probably save 20-30%, but I choose to get it cut at a barbershop I've been using for years because I like the owner, I enjoy my visit and there's always sports on TV when I go.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CT

Oh please, I know someone who used to work at DISNEY, the happiest place on earth, who was penalized because he took CROUTONS from the salad bar during his working hours. Every business has their WTF moments, it doesn't mean much if people still want to work there.

I don't know anyone who wants to work at Wal-Mart. Well I probably do but they are all teenagers looking for part time income. So I guess I'll rephrase I don't know any independent adults who want to work at Wal-Mart. I can probably name a few who work there as a means to make ends meet.

[ElanthianSiren]

:wtf: I would HOPE that insulin isn't as available as viagra and requires your doctor.

Why's that?

Oh BTW, Regular insulin, doesn't require a prescription or a visit to your doctor; I just can't use it.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Tom's Hardware down the street.

You know this how? Have you asked Tom? Have you spoken with the employees? Is it such a small store that a union couldn't represent them due to costs? How many employees does Tom have?



Except that Walmart AGRESSIVELY fights this, and anybody who brought up the idea of a vote would doubtlessly be terminated.

So would Hilton and Marriott. I spent $750 for signs on the outside of EVERY SINGLE exit door in the hotel that basically said you are not allowed to distribute anything inside the hotel property. It was worded by lawyers for the express reason of keeping unions from being able to come onto the property. We also had our new employees sign a document.. with one of the stipulations that they couldn't engage in union activity on the property or they could be terminated. We had an entire department in Hilton who's sole responsibility was to keep the unions out of the focused services division.

I'm not sure how much more aggressive I could have been... but I knew that if a union took hold of my employees.. I would be terminated.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know anyone who wants to work at Wal-Mart. Well I probably do but they are all teenagers looking for part time income. So I guess I'll rephrase I don't know any independent adults who want to work at Wal-Mart. I can probably name a few who work there as a means to make ends meet.


Why do they work at Walmart then? If Walmart doesn't pay well, then I am sure they could find work elsewhere. Why Walmart?

[Artha]

You know this how? Have you asked Tom? Have you spoken with the employees? Is it such a small store that a union couldn't represent them due to costs? How many employees does Tom have?
Tom's Hardware = Every mom & pop store. Not sure how many of those are around here (Richmond), but I doubt they care much. Just a guess, as much as you saying the opposite is.

[Latrinsorm]

As long as Wal-Mart does not behave and become a monopoly then there's nothing that should be done at this point.The question then becomes how close to a monopoly do we let them get? Can they only run out small businesses? Can they kill CVS or Walgreen's but not both?
Could you give us an example where this has happened before?Standard Oil (esp. railroad rebates) and Carnegie Steel spring to mind.
Is that rational behavior?It's extremely irrational to consider only one's own imminent well-being. There is a future, and it's not looking very pretty.
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, 2/23/05And we all know nobody is more trustworthy than an enormously wealthy CEO when it comes to alleged business practices.

[Gan]

Its tactics seeks the goal of a monopoly in EVERYTHING. If Walmart had its way, it would replace all general stores everywhere. How is monopoly only if you prevent new competitors, instead of driving old, local ones out of business?

-TheE-

If anything, Wal-Mart is considered an efficiency monopoly. I would imagine that their activities in price setting, competition, and market locations are closely watched by our federal government with the two major pieces of legislation that protect the consumer and the market from predatory monopolies (sherman anti-trust act, clayton anti-trust act). And considering how eager actions against companies who partake in monopolistic behavior (see Microsoft) I would imagine that if Wal-Mart were stepping the wrong way, we would see litigation to support it.

One of the major side effects of a monopoly is that you see a reduced supply of the goods/services produced by a monopoly company offered at higher than equilibrium prices in the absense of any substitute goods or services. Because of several very close competitors (Target, Kmart, CostCo), Wal-Mart just happens to be the perferred choice of discount consumers in the market place.

I actually rotate where I purchase goods at because I live equidistant from a 'super' Target and a 'super' Wal-Mart. Because there are some things/brands I cant buy at one, I find that I can buy at the other... all for a very simlilar cost level.

[Latrinsorm]

Why do they work at Walmart then? If Walmart doesn't pay well, then I am sure they could find work elsewhere. Why Walmart?If Wal-Mart is a crappy place to work there will always be jobs open at Wal-Mart. You referenced cyclic unemployment before, but you didn't seem to consider the possibility that Wal-Mart could make up the majority of those open positions.

[Parkbandit]

Tom's Hardware = Every mom & pop store. Not sure how many of those are around here (Richmond), but I doubt they care much. Just a guess, as much as you saying the opposite is.

Much like most of your arguments here Artha.. unsubstantiated claims and bad examples... horrible example in this case.

Even if you spoke to Tom.. I'm certain he's about as worried as I am about unions. Why's that? Tom probably has at most 5-6 employees.. something a union wouldn't bother with.

[Parkbandit]

If Wal-Mart is a crappy place to work there will always be jobs open at Wal-Mart. You referenced cyclic unemployment before, but you didn't seem to consider the possibility that Wal-Mart could make up the majority of those open positions.


Actually.. if Walmart was the horrible hell many here would lead us to believe, there is absolutely NO WAY they could possibly turn a good profit. Turnover is a huge HUGE expense in any company and a horrible company would find itself losing money every year as it turned over it's workforce constantly.

That's not to say Walmart doesn't have high turnover. I'm sure it's high since so many of their employees are younger teenagers who will end up going to college, leaving for a better job or getting a promotion within Walmart.

[ElanthianSiren]

Isn't walmart owned by the same people that own the big chains in your example Gan? Sams/Home Depot/Lowes etc (it's one of the two).

-M

[Gan]

The question then becomes how close to a monopoly do we let them get? Can they only run out small businesses? Can they kill CVS or Walgreen's but not both?

As far as the law allows them to go, then no further. To know that you would have to look up the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890 and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act 1914, and their subsequent addendums.

Penalizing Wal-Mart just because they appear to be heading for a monopoly is not the same as penalizing them when they become a monopoly.

Would you penalize a person because they looked like they are going to break the law? Or do you penalize them after they have broken the law?

Interesting juxtaposition indeed.

[Gan]

Isn't walmart owned by the same people that own the big chains in your example Gan? Sams/Home Depot/Lowes etc (it's one of the two).

-M

I know that Wal-Mart and Home Depot are #1 and #2 in retail sales respectively in the world at this point, but I'm not aware of any shared ownership between those or the others you have mentioned.

Wal-Mart does own Sam's Club (sam walton founder). Thats the only known association I know of.

[Back]

As far as the law allows them to go, then no further. To know that you would have to look up the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890 and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act 1914, and their subsequent addendums.

Penalizing Wal-Mart just because they appear to be heading for a monopoly is not the same as penalizing them when they become a monopoly.

Would you penalize a person because they looked like they are going to break the law? Or do you penalize them after they have broken the law?

Interesting juxtaposition indeed.

In a world of pre-emption...

[CrystalTears]

ZOMG BRING IN THE PRE-COGS!

[Skirmisher]

Wal-Mart does not give one crap about anyone or anything in this country except their profits.

I would not be irritated at such a thing if they did not try to wrap themselves in the flag and some sort of family values robe of righteousness.

Their hypocrisy is pathetic.

All that being said, this particular publicity ploy still can help many people so is a good thing.

The mafia also gives out a bunch of turkeys and xmas trees over the holidays but just as that doesn't reimburse all the people they robbed, beat,killed, extorted or in general stole from, this ploy by Wal-Mart does not in any way make them a good company in any way shape or form.

[Gan]

The anti-wal-mart campaigns remind me of the anti-microsoft and anti-IBM campaigns of the past few decades.

Is it a rational fear? Or is it just based on suspicion, conspiracy, and fear of a company who's grown too large for public comfort. And because of their size they surely must be doing something illegal.

:spaz:

[CrystalTears]

Wow, Walmart is a mafia now. It's just a store, ya know. Don't like it, don't go there. Nothing they do will ever be good enough, unless they go belly up. Oh well.

[Gan]

Wal-Mart does not give one crap about anyone or anything in this country except their profits.
Name me a large for-profit company who isnt profit minded? I'm not sure the rest of your statement is more than opinion though.



I would not be irritated at such a thing if they did not try to wrap themselves in the flag and some sort of family values robe of righteousness.
Damn them for offering so many products at such low prices... DAMN THEM!!!



Their hypocrisy is pathetic.
Define?



All that being said, this particular publicity ploy still can help many people so is a good thing.
Wait a minute, they are only concerned about their profitability while being hypocritical about wanting to give back to the community! How can this be a good thing?!?



The mafia also gives out a bunch of turkeys and xmas trees over the holidays but just as that doesn't reimburse all the people they robbed, beat,killed, extorted or in general stole from, this ploy by Wal-Mart does not in any way make them a good company in any way shape or form.
I think we are still trying to figure out where all these people that Wal-Mart has robbed, beat, killed, and extorted from. Surely they would be easy to find with the nation's largest retail employee base.

Are you and Artha related?

[Back]

My only real criticisms are...

Whether or not this benefits the middle to low to poverty level income groups it sure as hell is not out of the goodness of Wal-Mart’s heart.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but not at people’s expense.

Healthcare in this country needs an overhaul to make equitable for everyone. Successful models can be found in many place.

[Gan]

My only real criticisms are...

Whether or not this benefits the middle to low to poverty level income groups it sure as hell is not out of the goodness of Wal-Mart’s heart.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but not at people’s expense.

Healthcare in this country needs an overhaul to make equitable for everyone. Successful models can be found in many place.

Why cant a company be profit minded and have honest intentions of benefiting the community at the same time? Are those two concepts mutually exclusive?

Backlash, I hate to break it to you, but you have posted thread after thread taking issue with any company that makes a profit in the US economy. Your whole socialism/nationalism ideaology dictates you think no other way.

Interestingly enough, Wal-Mart, through their trend setting perscription drug program is helping revolutionize healthcare in the US. Examples of better healthcare that you think exist I would suggest you take a closer look at than from being across the ocean view. As we have debated in previous threads, US healthcare while it does have its faults, is one of the best available in the world especially when comparing technology, treatement, facility, and access to treatment.

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe Skirm is talking about how Wal*Mart is the biggest whiner on women's reproductive rights (because they are a "Christian Company" but then turn around and have an absolute hissy when people want their pharmacies to stay and they get pushed out -- California). They have also done things like not want to carry the Harry Potter books (same "morality" reason) until they saw the books were INCREDIBLY popular. They then, turned around and carried them.

Yes, that's capitalism, and I don't care what they do (we don't have one here, and I wouldn't go to one if we did because I'm attached to the places I shop). It's also hypocrisy. I don't care if they want to be a "christian business", but stick to it if you are one and don't carry those evil witch books and let the FDA take you to court/fine you/shut your pharms down because "ZOMG! Women might want the morning after pill!" If they didn't want to stick to their guns about TMA pill, they shouldn't have opened their mouths in the first place in 2000.

-M

[Daniel]

I think we are still trying to figure out where all these people that Wal-Mart has robbed, beat, killed, and extorted from.

^

China.

[Back]

Why cant a company be profit minded and have honest intentions of benefiting the community at the same time? Are those two concepts mutually exclusive?

Of course not. There are plenty of companies out there that I think are prime examples of responsible capitalists. In fact, I work for one. I just don’t think Wal-Mart is one of them.


Backlash, I hate to break it to you, but you have posted thread after thread taking issue with any company that makes a profit in the US economy. Your whole socialism/nationalism ideaology dictates you think no other way.

You’re exaggerating. Arguing with you guys is like arguing with a woman sometimes. I leave the seat up once and all of a sudden its YOU DO IT ALL THE TIME!!!


Interestingly enough, Wal-Mart, through their trend setting perscription drug program is helping revolutionize healthcare in the US. Examples of better healthcare that you think exist I would suggest you take a closer look at than from being across the ocean view. As we have debated in previous threads, US healthcare while it does have its faults, is one of the best available in the world especially when comparing technology, treatement, facility, and access to treatment.

These days I hesitate to post any kind of statistical information because all anyone does is says “Its biased”*and so on and on and on ad nauseam. We don’t have a horrible health-care system, but one that could improve and there are examples out there on how it can improve.

[Gan]

I think we are still trying to figure out where all these people that Wal-Mart has robbed, beat, killed, and extorted from.

^

China.

I think the Chinese government beat Wal-Mart to the punch. Oh wait, thats communism for you?

[Back]

A link (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244) to an article on drug companies. Interesting thing to note... they spend more on advertising than research and in some cases rely on third party researchers to do it for them.

[ElanthianSiren]

These days I hesitate to post any kind of statistical information because all anyone does is says “Its biased”*and so on and on and on ad nauseam. We don’t have a horrible health-care system, but one that could improve and there are examples out there on how it can improve.

An important skill with statistics is to learn to see what is and isn't biased, so you can refute and support studies at will. If people are telling you that what you're posting is biased, look at what you've posted and see if there's a trend (ie small sample size, additional factors that might have influenced how participants answered (causation vs. correlation)). I enjoy picking apart statistical studies, but when I do so it isn't to say "U DUMB!", more to show what's wrong with it and why it isn't a feasible answer to the problem.

I agree that the US system needs an overhaul. Having worked with people with both types of diabetes and having worked with chronically ill elderly, I can say with confidence that the system in this country is broken from an expense side. If you can afford the care, it's wonderful from a privacy and care-level side, but I am not saying much more than what WHO has already said.


-M

[Skirmisher]

Wal-Mart arriving in court wrapped in Ole glory to testify on behalf of the Chinese companies accused by the US of dumping TV's and putting US companies out of business kind of ticks me off Gan.

Wal-Mart working people exactly up to the point allowable by law yet still be considered part time and therefore not have to give any medical benifits yet not have enough time left in the week to get any other job that might just give them benefits as Wal-Mart likes to demand that employees be available to work at any hours needed, not just those scheduled also ticks me off.

As bad as the division of money/power is here in the US its far worse in China who supplies the bulk of Wal-Mart's goods with the poor becoming rapidly much poorer than the mega-wealthy making the lions share of those new billions.

Sweat shop labor makes cheap items easily available but that doesn't make it right for either the people in the US put out of work, or for the people being exploited.

[Skirmisher]

I think the Chinese government beat Wal-Mart to the punch. Oh wait, thats communism for you?

I told you already that China is no longer Communist.

Thats why it's okay to be a multi billionaire there now when so many who used to have at least SOME access to health care under the old communist system no longer have any.

[Gan]

Wal-Mart arriving in court wrapped in Ole glory to testify on behalf of the Chinese companies accused by the US of dumping TV's and putting US companies out of business kind of ticks me off Gan.

Wal-Mart working people exactly up to the point allowable by law yet still be considered part time and therefore not have to give any medical benifits yet not have enough time left in the week to get any other job that might just give them benefits as Wal-Mart likes to demand that employees be available to work at any hours needed, not just those scheduled also ticks me off.

As bad as the division of money/power is here in the US its far worse in China who supplies the bulk of Wal-Mart's goods with the poor becoming rapidly much poorer than the mega-wealthy making the lions share of those new billions.

Sweat shop labor makes cheap items easily available but that doesn't make it right for either the people in the US put out of work, or for the people being exploited.

Even though there are no laws being broken, I do have an issue morally with how the products we purchase from the Chinese are manufactured.

Thats my own delimma that keeps me from being a free market purest. Because that is a utility based factor that mitigates market factors such as price.

[Gan]

I told you already that China is no longer Communist..

:wtf:

My source says otherwise.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present

[Sean]

Despite how I might personally feel about Wal-Mart or their potential ulterior motives I can't bring myself to actually be upset with Wal-Mart for offering affordable medicines for people who need them. Are all meds offered? no, but it's a start.

[Parkbandit]

The anti-wal-mart campaigns remind me of the anti-microsoft and anti-IBM campaigns of the past few decades.

Is it a rational fear? Or is it just based on suspicion, conspiracy, and fear of a company who's grown too large for public comfort. And because of their size they surely must be doing something illegal.

:spaz:

Fighting the big companies is the 'cool' thing to do.

Duh.

[Stanley Burrell]

I always thought the idea of "it puts the little guy out of business" was and is bullshit.

K-mart didn't just start to suck because Dustin Hoffman said so.

Not to say that there aren't any downsides to working as an indentured mallrat, but I feel a lot better, via my self-proclaimed internet weblogging, about smart micro-to-macro-management decisions that keep x$ wages being distributed period versus the repetitious and all-too-often layoffs, cutbacks and cut-offs in other districts of trisomy-21 corporate Americanism.

.

My albuterol costs less and I don't have to make out of the way Dr.'s appointments to breathe for 2 months of the year: Hooray :thumbup:

[Parkbandit]

:wtf:

My source says otherwise.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present

She meant to say it's not what SHE considers communist. See, in a communist country, all wealth is shared. There is no poor. There is no wealthy. There is only peace, harmony and little pink butterflies that flit around happily.

:hug:

[Artha]

That's not true. Everybody's poor, but the government tells them they're wealthy. See: North Korea.

[Parkbandit]

My albuterol costs less and I don't have to make out of the way Dr.'s appointments to breathe for 2 months of the year: Hooray :thumbup:

Way to think of yourself Stanley and not the hundreds of thousands of poor, poor people who are slaves to the corporate machine known as Walmart.

Your selfishness sickens me.

[Artha]

You're funny and you make a valid point.

No, really. Keep going.

[Parkbandit]

You're funny and you make a valid point.

No, really. Keep going.


I guess I could just make shit up like you and hope no one calls me on it.

[Stanley Burrell]

I believe Skirm is talking about how Wal*Mart is the biggest whiner on women's reproductive rights (because they are a "Christian Company" but then turn around and have an absolute hissy when people want their pharmacies to stay and they get pushed out -- California). They have also done things like not want to carry the Harry Potter books (same "morality" reason) until they saw the books were INCREDIBLY popular. They then, turned around and carried them.

Yes, that's capitalism, and I don't care what they do (we don't have one here, and I wouldn't go to one if we did because I'm attached to the places I shop). It's also hypocrisy. I don't care if they want to be a "christian business", but stick to it if you are one and don't carry those evil witch books and let the FDA take you to court/fine you/shut your pharms down because "ZOMG! Women might want the morning after pill!" If they didn't want to stick to their guns about TMA pill, they shouldn't have opened their mouths in the first place in 2000.

-M

RU486 had everything to do with a unilateral veto (that never actually happened until the recent stem cell fiasco [sarcasm]) in the executive branch.

I am 99.9% convinced that Wal-mart would sell pink Barbie Qurans if the product had black ink potential (I don't believe its Christian syndication [which could also be vehemently used as a capitalistic clause {as are many religious "plights."}])

[Latrinsorm]

Turnover is a huge HUGE expense in any company and a horrible company would find itself losing money every year as it turned over it's workforce constantly.Yeah, because unskilled labor requires so much training.
Would you penalize a person because they looked like they are going to break the law? Or do you penalize them after they have broken the law?I'm not in a position to put legal sanctions on anyone, but you can bet your bee-shooting behind that I'd step in if I had reason to believe something bad was about to go down and I could have a positive net effect on the situation.
And because of their size they surely must be doing something illegal.The issue is that because of their size they're capable of doing immoral things that small businesses can't.
Wow, Walmart is a mafia now. It's just a store, ya know. Don't like it, don't go there.I'll ask you a version of the question I asked PB, then: If Wal-Mart made use of slave labor (whether domestic or foreign), would you be so blasé in your assessment, or would you want some sort of governing body to step in? In other words, is the problem really that people are having moral issues with a store or just that you don't feel these particular moral issues are significant?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, because unskilled labor requires so much training.


True turnover costs are more complex than simply figuring out the average cost of replacement. The true cost of losing a key seasoned player is hard to estimate. There is the investment in development of the employee, the value of the knowledge and experience gained, and the lost productivity that also have to be considered to arrive at a true cost figure.

It's not just training.

[Parkbandit]

I'll ask you a version of the question I asked PB, then: If Wal-Mart made use of slave labor (whether domestic or foreign), would you be so blasé in your assessment, or would you want some sort of governing body to step in? In other words, is the problem really that people are having moral issues with a store or just that you don't feel these particular moral issues are significant?

If Walmart was using slave labor.. which is against the law, then I would let the Government deal with it. And you bolster Ganalon's point: If Walmart is doing something illegal, then let the Government come down on them. Come down on them hard WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

[Artha]

Or we can be good capitalists and vote with our dollar, and better capitalists by encouraging others to do the same?

[Parkbandit]

I'm all for using the dollar.

Now you just have to come up with a better argument.. especially to poor people who benefit so much from Walmart's low prices. I'm not sure they would be too receptive of "Hey, you need to spend more money on that item at a different store so the employees of Walmart can get laid off and force Walmart to close down!!"

[Artha]

Not all of Walmart's stuff is lower than the competition, just enough of it to pull you in. I doubt you save a whole lot shopping exclusively at Walmart.

[Back]

Not all of Walmart's stuff is lower than the competition, just enough of it to pull you in. I doubt you save a whole lot shopping exclusively at Walmart.

I see a movie concept in there somewhere!

[Daniel]

:wtf:

My source says otherwise.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present


Learn to read your own source.



China's economy during the last quarter century has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy.

[CrystalTears]

YI'll ask you a version of the question I asked PB, then: If Wal-Mart made use of slave labor (whether domestic or foreign), would you be so blasé in your assessment, or would you want some sort of governing body to step in? In other words, is the problem really that people are having moral issues with a store or just that you don't feel these particular moral issues are significant?
What if they were selling monkey brains as appetizers? I mean really, WTF. Are they making use of slave labor? Are they presently breaking the law? No? Okay then.

I don't have a problem with people who have moral issues with Walmart on general principle. I have a problem, however, when they don't acknowlege at least that Walmart is doing a good thing by offering very low medicine cost to those who normally can't afford it, and try to turn it around and say "omg they're doing it with alterior motives".

It reminds of the movie "Schindler's List". Was he a good man and did what he did to help the people? Or did he selfishly do it to get himself a slave workforce? You can battle that all day, but in the end, he saved hundreds of lives. Is that so wrong and is the motive truly that important in the end when the outcome is beneficial?

[Gan]

Learn to read your own source.

Umm, thats the economy, the government is still listed as communist.

Who should learn how to read???

Here, let me help you...



Today, the Republic of China continues to exist on Taiwan, while the People's Republic of China controls the Chinese mainland. The PRC continues to be dominated by the Communist Party, but the ROC has moved towards democracy.



Government type: Communist State

[Apathy]

I hate Wal-Mart. I despise it. I make no secrets about it. If Park Bandit and I were out drinking I'd force him to buy the next round cuz he was the asshole saving so much freaking money at wal mart he could afford it. That and I bet he's a lightweight and easily influenced.

More importantly...

I don't shop there. I don't buy anything from there (or Sam's). Hell its a task just to get me to go into one of those stores. And I reaffirm my beliefs with every piece of negative press I see, because that's my choice. I have my reasons and I'm happy with them.

How many other Wal-Mart haters out there actually don't buy shit from there? If you say "well I try not to but sometimes...blah blah" you should just shut up and quit arguing. Go complain about the system then don't vote or something.

----- Rant over, on-topic below

Wal-Mart, le sigh, people do not save money by shopping there. It's no secret that these products are inferior. To borrow an old sales pitch "you can spend $60 on a vacuum every 5 years, or spend $200 on this one and have it last a lifetime."

The mom and pop example is played out. Its a fact that these businesses will close due to being unable to compete with Wal-Marts pricing. It's simple marketing. If you can't compete on quality, compete with price. If its a really big piece of shit, sell it for damn near nothing and penetrate the market from the bottom up.

It's no coincidence that a Wal-Mart does better in a sparsely populated area as opposed to a dense one. It's obvious that the more people are in an area, the harder time Wal-Mart has moving in. Wal-Mart has made a business of selling to the lower-middle class / lower class.

Here's the rub, I've yet to hear of a community that Wal-Mart has saved. I've yet to hear of a little league team they've sponsored. I've yet to hear about Wal-Mart competition as a good thing except in areas where there is already a Meijer or Kmart or Target etc. Wal-Mart moves into a town, creates jobs for the town, brings products to that town that they may have not seen before, sells some stuff for less and saves the people money on certain, low-involvement items. But why don't they have the same effect that an industrial company can have? Why don't they have the same effect as a medium size technology industry?

Wal-Mart does not put its profit back into the communities it serves. That is the real problem. True, we live in global economy and blah blah blah, but if you take a small community as a microsm of the nation (or world I guess in this case) you'll know, with little to no real knowledge of economics, that when money is spent and stays inside of the community, it leads to more spending, which leads to more. But when a high % of that money is taken out, it decreases every instance of spending.

And, on a side note, aimed at no one in particular, if you really believe the average (or did he say median?) wage in a Wal-Mart is $10/hour is not a heavily skewed statistic you are fucking stupid.

[Gan]

She meant to say it's not what SHE considers communist. See, in a communist country, all wealth is shared. There is no poor. There is no wealthy. There is only peace, harmony and little pink butterflies that flit around happily.

:hug:

You make my red heart warm comrade. Like a big glass of vodka.

[Artha]

Don't diss the vodak.

[Gan]

Wal-Mart, le sigh, people do not save money by shopping there. It's no secret that these products are inferior. To borrow an old sales pitch "you can spend $60 on a vacuum every 5 years, or spend $200 on this one and have it last a lifetime."
I disagree. We save money every time we grocery shop at Wal-Mart compared to shopping for the same items at the local Kroger's or Randalls. While I agree that the quality of product, especially that made in China, tends to be lesser than like items made in different countries and sold at higher pricing. There are things such as food, certain brand name electronics (sony, poineer, sharp, etc.) that are quality items that have decent expected lifespans.



The mom and pop example is played out. Its a fact that these businesses will close due to being unable to compete with Wal-Marts pricing. It's simple marketing. If you can't compete on quality, compete with price. If its a really big piece of shit, sell it for damn near nothing and penetrate the market from the bottom up.
Agreed



It's no coincidence that a Wal-Mart does better in a sparsely populated area as opposed to a dense one. It's obvious that the more people are in an area, the harder time Wal-Mart has moving in. Wal-Mart has made a business of selling to the lower-middle class / lower class.
I disagree here too, I've seen 3 super wal-marts built and packed within a 15 mile radius of where I live in Southwest Houston. These are full service food/retail stores. In fact, they have caused Target to close an older facility and build a new 'super' Target in a better location, all the while running neck and neck on their prices. (Actually, make that 2 new locations for Target if you count both the sugarland and meyerland locations)



Here's the rub, I've yet to hear of a community that Wal-Mart has saved. I've yet to hear of a little league team they've sponsored. I've yet to hear about Wal-Mart competition as a good thing except in areas where there is already a Meijer or Kmart or Target etc. Wal-Mart moves into a town, creates jobs for the town, brings products to that town that they may have not seen before, sells some stuff for less and saves the people money on certain, low-involvement items. But why don't they have the same effect that an industrial company can have? Why don't they have the same effect as a medium size technology industry?

Wal-Mart does not put its profit back into the communities it serves. That is the real problem. True, we live in global economy and blah blah blah, but if you take a small community as a microsm of the nation (or world I guess in this case) you'll know, with little to no real knowledge of economics, that when money is spent and stays inside of the community, it leads to more spending, which leads to more. But when a high % of that money is taken out, it decreases every instance of spending.
Before you stand heavily on that statement, do a google search with the following values: walmart community sponsorships. The results might suprise you. I would be interested in hearing from someone on the city council of a small town where a wal-mart was voted in to see how the town has benefitted or suffered from the presence of the company/store.



And, on a side note, aimed at no one in particular, if you really believe the average (or did he say median?) wage in a Wal-Mart is $10/hour is not a heavily skewed statistic you are fucking stupid.
Anybody who is reponsible for setting wages and hiring labor knows that the $10/hour comment was only relative to a certain area. The competetive wage rate for entry level direct labor staff here in Houston is ~$7.10/hour or sometimes less depending on who's hiring and for what. Companies with higher level of offered benefits tend to base hiring rates at a lower entry point to offset the costs.

[Latrinsorm]

What if they were selling monkey brains as appetizers? I mean really, WTF. Are they making use of slave labor? Are they presently breaking the law? No? Okay then.I'll take that as the second of the two options until you decide to answer explicitly.
I have a problem, however, when they don't acknowlege at least that Walmart is doing a good thing by offering very low medicine cost to those who normally can't afford it, and try to turn it around and say "omg they're doing it with alterior motives".These ulterior motives are exactly what we should be concerned about, because they show us where the primrose path leads.
Is that so wrong and is the motive truly that important in the end when the outcome is beneficial?Yes, motive truly is that important. For Schindler, it was probably the best option he had available to him, but that doesn't make it a good option. In this sort of case acts that are morally commendable prima facie are used towards nefarious ends, which is the crucial issue. The notion that we can just brush off the monopoly once it occurs ignores all the people it crushes on the way, and thus it is unacceptable.

[Daniel]

Umm, thats the economy, the government is still listed as communist.

Who should learn how to read???

Here, let me help you...

Are we talking about the merits of a government or economic system?

That's what I thought.

[Gan]

Are we talking about the merits of a government or economic system?

That's what I thought.

That side discussion was actually in reference to the government of China. If you insist on trolling, do it correctly please. :lol:



The mafia also gives out a bunch of turkeys and xmas trees over the holidays but just as that doesn't reimburse all the people they robbed, beat,killed, extorted or in general stole from, this ploy by Wal-Mart does not in any way make them a good company in any way shape or form.



I think we are still trying to figure out where all these people that Wal-Mart has robbed, beat, killed, and extorted from.



^ China



I think the Chinese government beat Wal-Mart to the punch. Oh wait, thats communism for you?



I told you already that China is no longer Communist.



WTF? My source says otherwise.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...s/ch.html#Govt (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present)




Learn to read your own source.


Quote: "China's economy during the last quarter century has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy. "



Umm, thats the economy, the government is still listed as communist.

Who should learn how to read???

Here, let me help you...

Quote: Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Today, the Republic of China continues to exist on Taiwan, while the People's Republic of China controls the Chinese mainland. The PRC continues to be dominated by the Communist Party, but the ROC has moved towards democracy.



Quote: Originally Posted by CIA Factbook
Government type: Communist State

[Skirmisher]

She meant to say it's not what SHE considers communist. See, in a communist country, all wealth is shared. There is no poor. There is no wealthy. There is only peace, harmony and little pink butterflies that flit around happily.

:hug:

I didn't insult you or attempt to demean you or anyone else here so why you felt the need to do so when the discussion has been mostly civil is beyond me.

Try to control yourself.

[Skirmisher]

:wtf:

My source says otherwise.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Present

I've debated this issue on this board already.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Back]

What if they were selling monkey brains as appetizers?

We may disagree on some things but every once in a while you bust out with some funny shit that makes me absolutely adore you.


Umm, thats the economy, the government is still listed as communist.

Who should learn how to read???

Here, let me help you...


Are we talking about the merits of a government or economic system?

That's what I thought.

What D said. There is a difference between an Economic system and a Government system.

Having said that, the two have to be closely tied. Does one influence the other? Does the economy dictate the government or the other way around? Should a government dictate the economy? Should there be a total separation of government and economy?

Yes, many questions that I have opinions on, but no definitive answers to, and not really on topic in this thread.


I didn't insult you or attempt to demean you or anyone else here so why you felt the need to do so when the discussion has been mostly civil is beyond me.

Try to control yourself.

I get the feeling PB is afraid. Why else would he react so vigorously against any slight deviation from what he perceives as “normal.”

[HarmNone]

I don't shop at WalMart, nor will I. I rather enjoy the relationship I've established with my local pharmacist, and don't care to change. I'm fortunate to have insurance that pays for my medication, when I need it. That's not true for everyone, I realize, so I can certainly understand why some would choose to utilize WalMart for the lower price on necessary meds.

[Apathy]

Before you stand heavily on that statement, do a google search with the following values: walmart community sponsorships. The results might suprise you. I would be interested in hearing from someone on the city council of a small town where a wal-mart was voted in to see how the town has benefitted or suffered from the presence of the company/store.


I humored you and did. I even went through a few pages of it. What am I supposed to be seeing other than a couple (national) PR press releases that would prove my assertion incorrect? All the bad press web pages?

[Jazuela]

They refuse to provide their mean wages (as opposed to their average wages). But there are a few bits and pieces I've found:

Walmart boasts stores in 70 countries. In the UK, their wage requirements are stricter because of tighter government controls, than in the USA. In many of those countries, their wages are the equivalent of LESS than one dollar per hour. In some of those countries, their wages are the equivalent of less than 50 cents per hour. Among undocumented immigrants, in the USA, they often won't pay them at all and force them to work free in exchange for them not getting turned in to immigration. The FBI put the kabosh on that in one city already.

42% of their workers are on government handouts in the USA, primarily for their children. That is almost half the entire documented employee roster (edited to add: of all Walmarts) in the entire country. There was a memo sent to store managers about cutting costs, and encouraging their employees to get welfare, wic, and similar benefits was part of that program. So - Walmart TEACHES employees how to get government handouts.

In China, the majority of Walmart employees don't earn enough money to purchase the products they sell.

Walmart has pressured several American companies into outsourcing and even relocating their manufacturing to slave-wage countries, and the few who have refused - have gone out of business.

In New England a couple of years ago, a guy was beaten almost to death by Walmart security guards who slammed him down on the parking lot, and beat and continued to beat him, even though the guy was completely unarmed and didn't attempt to resist being stopped in the first place.

Walmart has been sued *hundreds* of times, and has shelled out MILLIONS of dollars in individual and class action lawsuits for unfair labor practice - including (but not limited to) refusing to return women to work after their maternity leave expired, customer racial profiling, equal opportunity violations, unsafe work environment suits, violations of child labor laws (including requiring 15-year-old employees to operate shredders and other dangerous machines that are *illegal* for them to be required to use in the workplace), forced work off the clock, reducing hours for the specific intention of preventing employees to take advantage of health care benefits - which, even if they did qualify for, they'd have to shell out $3000 deductible and co-pays and pharmaceuticals and emergency visits and "standard" visit costs don't count toward the deductible...

The lists go on and on and on, but suffice it to say I do not and will not shop at Walmart, and have gone as far as to tell my family that I would rather just get a phone call saying happy birthday, than for them to buy me anything from that store.

[Daniel]

That side discussion was actually in reference to the government of China. If you insist on trolling, do it correctly please. :lol:

So basicly,

The conversation is about capitalism up until the point that it would make you look stupid. Then it's about governments, and then back to capitalism immediately following it.

gotcha.

I won't even bother getting into the whole thing about Communism, before anything else, is an economic critique of Capitalism.

[Stanley Burrell]

Slightly off kilter:

When did communism start meaning socialism anyway?

Those are two different words, even. And, like, spelled differently.

Exercised communism would be pretty friggin' synonymous to Utopianism. And since we've all read Lord of the Flies in 8th grade and felt smart, we know that mankind's inherent greed shall never allow a dictionary-defined commune to even come close to existing in physical form.

I'm surprised we still use it (communism) as a label that is acceptably applied to a couple billion of people belonging to select countries, all of whom probably have different personal <insert adjective> status.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't insult you or attempt to demean you or anyone else here so why you felt the need to do so when the discussion has been mostly civil is beyond me.

Try to control yourself.

Sorry.. I didn't realize you could post stupid things like "UM TEH CHINA ISN"T COMMUNIST" and be completely immune to chastising. Forgive me.

[Parkbandit]

They refuse to provide their mean wages (as opposed to their average wages). But there are a few bits and pieces I've found:

Walmart boasts stores in 70 countries. In the UK, their wage requirements are stricter because of tighter government controls, than in the USA. In many of those countries, their wages are the equivalent of LESS than one dollar per hour. In some of those countries, their wages are the equivalent of less than 50 cents per hour. Among undocumented immigrants, in the USA, they often won't pay them at all and force them to work free in exchange for them not getting turned in to immigration. The FBI put the kabosh on that in one city already.

42% of their workers are on government handouts in the USA, primarily for their children. That is almost half the entire documented employee roster (edited to add: of all Walmarts) in the entire country. There was a memo sent to store managers about cutting costs, and encouraging their employees to get welfare, wic, and similar benefits was part of that program. So - Walmart TEACHES employees how to get government handouts.

In China, the majority of Walmart employees don't earn enough money to purchase the products they sell.

Walmart has pressured several American companies into outsourcing and even relocating their manufacturing to slave-wage countries, and the few who have refused - have gone out of business.

In New England a couple of years ago, a guy was beaten almost to death by Walmart security guards who slammed him down on the parking lot, and beat and continued to beat him, even though the guy was completely unarmed and didn't attempt to resist being stopped in the first place.

Walmart has been sued *hundreds* of times, and has shelled out MILLIONS of dollars in individual and class action lawsuits for unfair labor practice - including (but not limited to) refusing to return women to work after their maternity leave expired, customer racial profiling, equal opportunity violations, unsafe work environment suits, violations of child labor laws (including requiring 15-year-old employees to operate shredders and other dangerous machines that are *illegal* for them to be required to use in the workplace), forced work off the clock, reducing hours for the specific intention of preventing employees to take advantage of health care benefits - which, even if they did qualify for, they'd have to shell out $3000 deductible and co-pays and pharmaceuticals and emergency visits and "standard" visit costs don't count toward the deductible...

The lists go on and on and on, but suffice it to say I do not and will not shop at Walmart, and have gone as far as to tell my family that I would rather just get a phone call saying happy birthday, than for them to buy me anything from that store.

The list goes on and on.. and I'm pretty sure that any sizable company like Walmart would have the same, if not worse record. You people keep pointing to things that you believe are unique to Walmart.. but in reality, they are far from it.

Also, why don't you go ahead and post the link to this 'evidence'. I'm sure it is on some unbiased source like "Ihatewalmart.com"

[Daniel]

I doubt anyone who is arguing against Walmart would be okay with Target doing these things. However, since Walmart is the 18th largest economic entity in the world, it kind of makes it the best target.

[Gan]

So basicly,

The conversation is about capitalism up until the point that it would make you look stupid. Then it's about governments, and then back to capitalism immediately following it.

gotcha.

I won't even bother getting into the whole thing about Communism, before anything else, is an economic critique of Capitalism.

Basically it was a side conversation based on a remark between Skirm and myself, which you decided to troll then lost track of with your subsequent posts. In other words, you cant keep up with more than one conversation at a time without getting them confused.

:clap:

I even spelled it out for you in post #157. And yet you still try to obsfucate. You seriously ought to run for office.

[Parkbandit]

I doubt anyone who is arguing against Walmart would be okay with Target doing these things. However, since Walmart is the 18th largest economic entity in the world, it kind of makes it the best target.


Doing what things? Offering low prices? Paying competitive wages? Not being unionized? Offering generic drugs for $4?

[Gan]

Doing what things? Offering low prices? Paying competitive wages? Not being unionized? Offering generic drugs for $4?

Well, you know it is big business...

:whistle:

[Daniel]

Doing what things? Offering low prices? Paying competitive wages? Not being unionized? Offering generic drugs for $4?

Exactly.

[Daniel]

Basically it was a side conversation based on a remark between Skirm and myself, which you decided to troll then lost track of with your subsequent posts. In other words, you cant keep up with more than one conversation at a time without getting them confused.

:clap:

I even spelled it out for you in post #157. And yet you still try to obsfucate. You seriously ought to run for office.

What am I obfuscating?

You wanted to know where the people who were negative affected by Walmart were. I told you China and you came back with the them being communist (Not in the economic sense, as the rest of the discussion was about, but in the nomenclature).

Yep, you got me.

[Gan]

What am I obfuscating?

You wanted to know where the people who were negative affected by Walmart were. I told you China and you came back with the them being communist (Not in the economic sense, as the rest of the discussion was about, but in the nomenclature).

Yep, you got me.

Please see #157. It will ease your confusion.

[Daniel]

Please refer to post 164 for my response to post 157.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly.


Ah good.. so you agree the loons against Walmart are nothing but witch hunters after the next big business.

Fantastic.

[Jazuela]

I got some of the data from the Walmart official website. I got some of it from a site called walmartwatch (not a hate group exactly, more like a community action group but yes they are definitely biased). I got some of the data from our own efforts here in my state when Walmart bought a lot in a nearby town and made promises regarding community service and supporting the community and all kinds of other nice pretty buzzwords (the town buckled, Walmart never delivered).

I got some of the data from a general google search that resulted in dozens of links to government documents regarding lawsuits, and I checked out a few of those lawsuit documents.

I got some of the data from a few Florida resources regarding enormous fines for environmental violations, including one where Walmart didn't even *attempt* to comply with the laws requiring them to create safe runoffs for petroleum waste in their auto services building. Apparently, Walmart feels it's cheaper to pay the fines than it is to build the runoffs. And they might even be correct. But this just reinforces the overall reputation that Walmart doesn't give a shit about the communities it claims to want to support.

Some of the information I found, I found several years ago, back when Kathy Lee Gifford put her name to a line of clothing sold by Walmart, and it was discovered that those clothes were manufactured by kids in sweatshops who would be locked in the buildings for 12 hours with no breaks and slave wages. That's OLD news, but it was one of the first publicized issues that gave people some idea of Walmart's influence. Rather than find new manufacturers or demand that the existing ones comply with fair labor policies, Walmart ceased to sell the product.

Walmart does whatever it wants to do, regardless of the impact on communities, the environment, employees, its manufacturers and suppliers, and other countries. And as long as they can sucker people into buying their crap, they will retain the power to do so.

[CrystalTears]

Walmart does whatever it wants to do, regardless of the impact on communities, the environment, employees, its manufacturers and suppliers, and other countries. And as long as they can sucker people into buying their crap, they will retain the power to do so.
Kinda like.. lots of other companies out there. In fact you can replace the word Walmart up there with the word DMV and it applies perfectly. I guess I'm not seeing why Walmart needs to be so singled out.

[Artha]

Ah good.. so you agree the loons against Walmart are nothing but witch hunters after the next big business.

Fantastic.
You know me, I'm so anti-big business.

edit: The problem is that Walmart does all these things to raise their profits. It would be entirely possible for them to pay a living wage and still undercut all the competition. The consumer would be fine and the workers would be fine. The execs, the ones really raking in the cash, might have to wait a year or two to buy that private jet or hundred foot yacht.

[CrystalTears]

And yet you never say (or maybe I missed it) what you consider to be a living wage.

[Tsa`ah]

I personally despise Wal-mart.

I don't agree with their hiring and employment practices, I don't particularly like their business practices, and I firmly believe that the products they offer are of crap quality and counter productive to the US economy and job markets.

The wife shops there on occasion, as do I from time to time ... but I mainly spend my money on US produced goods (when possible) and the businesses that offer them.

That being said I will admit I can afford to spend my money where I chose.

Small businesses going under when Wal-mart drops in? You should have put your customer's first. They went to Wal-mart because of the prices ... you didn't offer a valued service and you set your prices in accordance to the lack of competition. When you dried up it wasn't because of Wal-mart ... it was because your customer base had a choice and they chose.

Wal-mart may be evil incarnate to some people, but imagine what Wal-mart means to the working poor. They don't care if their shoes were maid in China, they don't care where anything is made, just that it is more affordable. 120 bucks at the competitor meant a week's worth of food for a family of 3-4, at Wal-mart it means 1.5 weeks ... which would you chose?

That same 120 bucks meant 1-2 prescriptions filled at Walgreen's, it means 30 at Wal-mart ... which would you chose?

You can discuss business ethics all you want, bottom line is that there is a very large cross section of our population that receives a huge benefit from Wal-mart ... offer up a better benefit or sit on it ... that's what it boils down to.

[Parkbandit]

You know me, I'm so anti-big business.

edit: The problem is that Walmart does all these things to raise their profits. It would be entirely possible for them to pay a living wage and still undercut all the competition. The consumer would be fine and the workers would be fine. The execs, the ones really raking in the cash, might have to wait a year or two to buy that private jet or hundred foot yacht.

Actually.. I have you figured as being fired or laid off or quitting from Walmart in some point of your life and you feel the need to make this personal. I can't blame you.. I feel the same way with Hilton. They do things that I don't do in my business practice and would love nothing more than to see them being bought out by Marriott and ending the chain. This doesn't influence my thoughts about free market or the Government's role in policing it.

[Latrinsorm]

You can discuss business ethics all you want, bottom line is that there is a very large cross section of our population that receives a huge benefit from Wal-mart ... offer up a better benefit or sit on it ... that's what it boils down to.Bottom line indeed. :no:

[Artha]

Actually.. I have you figured as being fired or laid off or quitting from Walmart in some point of your life and you feel the need to make this personal.
I've never been fired or laid off from anywhere, and I've never worked in a Walmart. I've said it before and I'm not sure how much clearer I could be, but I guess memory really is the first thing to go.

edit: Anyway, how free is the market when megachains (Walmart) are offered incentives to move in that the smaller businesses can't get? If you're really into the no-government intervention, I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are.

[Parkbandit]

I've never been fired or laid off from anywhere, and I've never worked in a Walmart. I've said it before and I'm not sure how much clearer I could be, but I guess memory really is the first thing to go.

edit: Anyway, how free is the market when megachains (Walmart) are offered incentives to move in that the smaller businesses can't get? If you're really into the no-government intervention, I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are.


Governments are basically businesses too. They look at the revenue (tax base) and use that money to run their business. Walmart offers a HUGE tax increase and as such the local government still makes out ahead by offering them tax breaks at the beginning.

[Artha]

By encouraging one business, aren't they necessarily discouraging other businesses? How is that free market?

[Parkbandit]

Bottom line indeed. :no:

OMG WALMART IS A BUSINESS!!!

Name a real business that isn't worried about their bottom line.

[DeV]

What Tsa'ah said.

Too add, In a sense they are giving back substantially, as it relates to regular prescription costs, to the consumers who've supported their growth MOST over the years. The working class.

[Latrinsorm]

OMG WALMART IS A BUSINESS!!!

Name a real business that isn't worried about their bottom line.The salient point was the word I had highlighted in your post. I encourage you to bust out the trifocals and give it another go. :)

[Parkbandit]

The salient point was the word I had highlighted in your post. I encourage you to bust out the trifocals and give it another go. :)

Might want to use those trifocals.. since you didn't highlight anything in my post.

Way to get self pwned by stupidity.

[CrystalTears]

You mean the word you highlighted in Tsa`ah's post. You people are losing it today. :D Besides, I still don't get what you were trying to insinuate by highlighting "our".

[Gan]

"our population"

Were you referring to American population? Jewish population (since it was Tsa'ah's post you referenced)? or something else entirely? Or were you referring to the upper class section of the American population?

Some clarification would be helpful Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

You're right, I got my cantankerous geezers mixed up. My mistake. :)

Us being America, Ganalon, not that any rational interpretation makes the statement acceptable.

[Parkbandit]

You're right, I got my cantankerous geezers mixed up. My mistake. :)

Us being America, Ganalon, not that any rational interpretation makes the statement acceptable.

I still don't get the point you are trying to make...

:wtf:

[Artha]

It's like rain on your wedding day.