Wal-Mart is Bad for America

I personally can't stand Wal Mart. I purposefully go out of my way to hit Super Target. Call me elitist but Wal Mart just makes me feel dirty. Target has it goin on. I can surmise that Wal Mart's "high end store" concept is a result of them realizing that modern sophisticated consumers appreciate and support good design (Target).

Didn't Wal Mart just hire 150,000 Chinese? Says a lot about their contribution to the trade deficit.

Typo in previous post: "...Businesses everywhere are relying on foreign manufacturing, especially..."

Is there any way to edit after posting? Apologies for not proofreading.

UB.. umm... no. the great depression started due to the lack of safeguards in the economy. Free trade was not around until the late 1980's.

Entelechy,

The problems began with free trade. Free trade needs to end, or the WTO needs to change its charter to support raising the prevailing wages in member countries. Free trade is only good for corporations.

madbaddangerous2know wrote:

Emek Basker, an economist at the University of Missouri, says that by the magic of competition, the presence of Wal-Mart saves money for everyone.

Did anybody ever tell you that "by magic" is not a sound argument in a debate? Although if you believe Wal-Mart is good for America, I suppose you might well believe in magic, too. You want to hear the truth about "the magic of competition"? When the USA competes against China in a contest of "who can build this the cheapest", the USA will always lose. And the stakes of that game are our jobs. Wal-Mart is great for the poor people in the short term, sure, but in the long term it is nothing but bad news. I makes poor people poorer. It makes new poor people. The only people it is economically benefiting are the already-rich people who are running the corporation. So the next time you are unemployed, wearing your "Proud to be American" made-in-China t-shirt from Wal-Mart, think about why all the jobs are disappearing around you. It's because of "the magic of competition".

@wolfger
That is exactly my point. I am an adult who earns my money by honest labor. If I want to go into Nordstrom's and buy a t-shirt made in India or Mexico or the USA, I can. If I want to go into Wal-Mart and buy a t-shirt made in India or Mexico or the USA, I can do that too. It isn't your business. If price and quality are equal, or indeed close, I will prefer the US-made one. But the choice is mine.

I am a free human being who can make my own choices.

I reject all attempts by supposedly morally and intellectually superior busybodies to try to tell me what I can spend my money on and where.

After all, I don't tell you where to buy your brie or your patchoulie oil.

Jack Huang: I just gotta say that while I disagree with your conclusion that Wal-Mart is okay, I admire the intelligence with which you present your position. I'm also in the Detroit area, and working for "the big 3" as a contractor, and I agree completely that unions are bloodsucking parasites on the economy. But they are soon to be extinct. New factories are being built, that require far fewer human hands than the old factories. Multi-company collaborations are giving birth to new companies that are union-free and providing parts to unionized companies. I'm not so sure that's good for the economy either, but it's got to be better than having a janitor make $30/hour and having that cost built into the price of the cars.

madbad:
What you don't seem to comprehend is that nobody is telling you what you can spend your money on, or where. you are fabricating that in your own mind. We are simply stating that Wal-Mart is bad for the economy. You hear lots of things that nobody says, and you make lots of assumptions based on (apparently) a bad LSD trip. Brie sucks, and patchouli stinks. You are amusing, but I sense that you are not trying to be amusing, and that is sad.

Did anybody ever tell you that "by magic" is not a sound argument in a debate?

Maybe not, but it's a danged convenient way to sum up hundreds of years' worth of economic experience... if those were indeed the words of the actual debater.

@Wolfger

I guess it was the LSD that made me read all the suggestions, like get out of the WTO, and to have local communities ban Wal-Mart from coming in.

/sarcasm

Wal-Mart helps working families keep more of what they earn.

Behind My Screen:

The problems began with free trade. Free trade needs to end, or the WTO needs to change its charter to support raising the prevailing wages in member countries. Free trade is only good for corporations.

The entire world has benefited from free trade, including you. It's really too bad that you dislike getting more goods for less money.

The problems began with free trade. Free trade needs to end, or the WTO needs to change its charter to support raising the prevailing wages in member countries. Free trade is only good for corporations.

In the words of an award-winning economist, Robert Whaples:

Restrictions to trade are largely put in place by the powerful -- like American sugar growers and steel producers -- who deny everyone else the ability to buy from whom they chose. For those who believe in the "brotherhood of man," it follows naturally that we should have as much right to buy from our brothers and sisters living in China, as we do to buy from our brothers and sisters living here in the U.S. Perhaps more importantly, those living in this country have little moral authority when they assert that we must buy from them and not our siblings in China, India, Africa or anywhere else. In doing so they would take away the right of our brothers and sisters in the world's poorest countries to sell to us.

-- "Andrew Carnegie and Free Trade as a Human Right"

With regards to the trade deficit:

"What would the people who sold us goods do with the money? They'd get dollars. What would they do with the dollars? Eat them?!"

-- Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman

wolfger, let's assume that you're right and Wal Mart is bad for the economy. What should be done about it?

I live in a small town and where we live Wal-Mart is one of the only placed to buy anything that you need. They have run off many other retailers such as Roses, Ben Franklin, etc.. I really think that they are bad for the community and bad for the environment, but when they are the only game in town we have no choice but to go there for things.

To make matters worse, they just opened a Supercenter recently and vacated their old building. Rumor has it that they have the lease on the old building tied up so that no competition can move into it. If a Target were to move in or something like that, then I and many others would just stop going to Wal-Mart and I think that they know that. If that isn't a monopoly at its worst, I don't know what is.

@Jack Huang

Every business, be it American, anti-American, good, or evil, naturally and automatically conforms to the laws of supply and demand.

This isn't entirely true with Wal-Mart. The way Wal-Mart dictates the quantities they get from suppliers (12 pack of socks, 20 pack of underwear, 1lb of Vlasic pickles) and then prices them at a lower rate than what they would have been willing to pay, people end up buying more than they need, thus Wal-Mart artificially creates supply, demand and price. It virtually operates completely outside of the laws of the free market.

It uses its ability to undercut competitors' prices in order to gain market share.
Combined with clever marketing, Wal-Mart's low prices (or perceived low prices) make it the top choice among rational consumers. Once it has soaked up enough market share to drive out competitors, it raises prices (but not too far), thereby preserving its consumer base while generating added profit for itself. It's brilliant.

The last companies I can remember employing this "brilliant" business model were Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil. Returning back to the original post about Wal-Mart being bad for America and whatnot.

Fennec,

Fine.. If you claim free trade to be good for the world, then lets have free trade but with rules that require corporations to pay their workers a certain wage... say at least 6 dollars per hour equivalence in local currency... employment laws that protect the health and safety of the workers, limit hours per week of labor, and other rules that will stop worker exploitation.

Then you have FAIR trade.. no tariffs and no abusing workers

I don't think people shop at Walmart unless they can't afford to go somewhere else, it isn't really a competitive place when you can't afford a choice. I think that's bad because it means this is all Americans can afford. Walmart is the benefactor of a downsizing economy. Too bad it isn't good for someone. The Chinese aren't being paid for their work, that really criminal.

The huge price of Walmart is that labor is not valuable in this country, it's outsourced.

Oh, and I forgot about one other thing.. Someone had mentioned that Wal-Mart pays well, somewheres around $7-$8 an hour.. Which is true, but here's the problem.. THEY DON'T PAY. I know several people that work(ed) at Wal-Mart, and continuously failed to receive their paychecks. One friend of mine waited a month and half for a paycheck, and didn't receive it until she quit, and threatened to sue for not paying her.

One of the problems that people do not seem to be mentioning is that one of the reasons that Wal Mart is able to charge customers lower prices is because they avoid having to pay the majority of their employees full-time benefits. Wal Mart will schedule employees to work an hour or two short of full time and therefore not be required to pay them any sort of benefits. If the employee wishes to work fewer hours so that they can have another job they will face being let go. The problem increases as other business with entry level jobs are driven out of business and Wal Mart holds an ever increasing number of the total available jobs. So called "Poor People" fool themselves into thinking that they are saving themselves money by paying less for things like toothpaste and toilet paper while their real cost of living increases as compared to their now deflated salaries (increased health care insurance, wages that do not keep up with inflation, etc). They may save a couple of thousand dollars a year on consumables but they can no longer afford to pay their rent or afford child care.

To the poster who believed that a rural town had no obligation to support the "extra" workers that Wal Mart has put out of business, I would ask what their plan is for those newly unemployed workers. If the purpose of a government or a corporation is not to provide work for the people then what is their purpose? What good do increased corporate profits or property taxes do when unemployment climbs through the roof? Take a look at France has been going through if you want to see on example of a country that has neglected to make sure that entry level workers can make an affordable living. Couple this even further with the problem of illegal immigration (I live in Phoenix, Arizona in the USA) driving down the pay for unskilled labor and you have a dilemma of epic proportions. Think for a moment about the comment George Bush made to a mother who was working three jobs just to support her children, he said it was "Uniquely American." Sad but, increasingly, true.

will 592:

Take a look at France has been going through if you want to see on example of a country that has neglected to make sure that entry level workers can make an affordable living.

The French minimum wage is 8 euros an hour (~$9.50!). They have a 35-hour work week, national health care and it is nearly impossible to fire anyone. Hardly a lack of an affordable living!

The result of these policies? Not enough jobs. While 10-15% of American youth can't find jobs, 20-30% of French youth can't.

Behind My Screen:

require corporations to pay their workers a certain wage... say at least 6 dollars per hour equivalence in local currency...

US $6/hour is about double the average factory wage in China right now. I don't know any business that could survive a doubling of their labor costs overnight. I know you're trying to help, but what you propose would result in a whole lot of angry, starving Chinese workers. That's hardly being fair to them.

Surely a college senior knows the differences between "its" and "it's."

lol ...... anyone want a job ?

People seem to be forgetting the fact that if Wal-Mart is running other companies out of business, then the consumers are responsible. They're the ones who are making the choice to shop at Wal-Mart. They're the ones who have to be pleased in order to succeed in business. If you're blaming Wal-Mart, then you're blaming them for being too good at pleasing their customers. So good, in fact, that enough people choose them over other stores to force the other stores out of business.

The people who consider this a bad thing are either the people who work for/own those stores, or the minority of people who prefer those stores. For the former group my advice is to find out a better way to please the customer. For the latter, you'll probably end up having to drive further away or pay more. Too bad. If you value quality, selection, or your time more than the price then you've made your choice. Don't whine to us about it. We just don't agree with you.