Wal-Mart's everyday high costs

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd like to suggest the following: If you shop at Wal-Mart, you probably don't give two sh!ts about this country.

I've never been in a Walmart but I do shop at Costco.. no difference, really. I shop there only for Chicken breast meat for my silkie and Milk and the odd candy and starbucks coffee. Same thing every time. (cigarettes too, if I don't order em from the Indian reservation).
BUT, I agree with your thesis on this. I am part of the problem too!

You will see a move in DC toward Buy American shortly.. I know for a fact this is going on there. The question I have regarding this is; how with out the import tariff can DC get the population to throw money out the window? The American, by and large, was raised that way. It is in the genetic code to look for the best deal. We pride ourselves on looking for the best price for just about everything. We need protective tariffs and get the stuff made in the US and at wages that reflect the greatness of America not the poverty of India or China. Let them develop their economy with out our loss of standards.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Corn
This "article" is a load of crap:

Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year.

Lesse for a moment: 8.23 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $17,118, not $13,861.

Can I trust an article where creative multiplication is used to misrepresent its most basic premise. I dunno, but my sensibilities lead me to state that it is probably laced with a semblence of fact but spiced with bullshit.

Show me a walmart "sales associate" that works over 32 hours a week. Then I will listen to you. The keep employees under 32 hours a week so they do not have to pay benefits.

8.23 * 32 hours * 52 weeks = $13,695

 

[Corn]

Hmmmm, maybe you assume too much, Corn. I highly doubt Wal-Mart gives any of their "full time" employees 40 hrs/week. More likely, they get 24 hrs/week, or just under whatever cut-off offers benefits. Supermarkets do that too. Sure, some (a minority) supermarket clerks get $17/hr, but they only work 22 hrs/week. But hey, go on believing whatever you think is the "truth" Corn.

24 hous/week is not "full time".

Have you gone into a Walmart and looked at who is working there?

Kids, moms, and the elderly fill these part time positions. The same positions they would be filling somewhere else like Kmart, Sears, Penny's, Gap, Borders, Taco Bell, Exxon, Chuckie Cheese, Molly Maids, etc......

Do you boycott every retailer, gas station, restaurant, and movie theater whom isn't independently owned by a "mom and pop"?

If not, your indignation waxes hollow my friend.......really.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

I'd like to suggest the following: If you shop at Wal-Mart, you probably don't give two sh!ts about this country.

Of course you feel that way DealMonkey, of course. Evidently the ignorant screaching of "UNAMERICAN" is not solely rooted in the backwater right.

Walmart is the product of what is great about this country. Choose to shop there or don't. Evidently it was unamerican to boycott loudmouth country music artists, likewise it must be unamerican to boycott Walmart.

I'm not exactly organizing a boycott, it's a simple personal choice. I leave it at that. Shop there if you want, I don't really care. You're either ignorant of the problems generated by Wal-Mart or you simply don't care. Whatever. End of story.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Hmmmm, maybe you assume too much, Corn. I highly doubt Wal-Mart gives any of their "full time" employees 40 hrs/week. More likely, they get 24 hrs/week, or just under whatever cut-off offers benefits. Supermarkets do that too. Sure, some (a minority) supermarket clerks get $17/hr, but they only work 22 hrs/week. But hey, go on believing whatever you think is the "truth" Corn.

24 hous/week is not "full time".

Have you gone into a Walmart and looked at who is working there?

Kids, moms, and the elderly fill these part time positions. The same positions they would be filling somewhere else like Kmart, Sears, Penny's, Gap, Borders, Taco Bell, Exxon, Chuckie Cheese, Molly Maids, etc......

Do you boycott every retailer, gas station, restaurant, and movie theater whom isn't independently owned by a "mom and pop"?

If not, your indignation waxes hollow my friend.......really.

Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd like to suggest the following: If you shop at Wal-Mart, you probably don't give two sh!ts about this country.

I've never been in a Walmart but I do shop at Costco.. no difference, really. I shop there only for Chicken breast meat for my silkie and Milk and the odd candy and starbucks coffee. Same thing every time. (cigarettes too, if I don't order em from the Indian reservation).
BUT, I agree with your thesis on this. I am part of the problem too!

You will see a move in DC toward Buy American shortly.. I know for a fact this is going on there. The question I have regarding this is; how with out the import tariff can DC get the population to throw money out the window? The American, by and large, was raised that way. It is in the genetic code to look for the best deal. We pride ourselves on looking for the best price for just about everything. We need protective tariffs and get the stuff made in the US and at wages that reflect the greatness of America not the poverty of India or China. Let them develop their economy with out our loss of standards.

I'm sure the stock boy at wal-mart will really like to pay 50 dollars for a pair of jeans. Most people at wal-mart doen't give a damn about benifits because there either students covered under mom and dad or old people covered by everyone.

 

[cumhail]

I've yet to see a union that concentrated half as much on the needs of its members as it does on the desires of its leaders. They're a lot like politicians, really... ostensibly representing their constituents, but rarely doing so any more than is required to keep themselves in positions of status, wealth, and power.

In their ideal forms, uncorrupted by those who would twist those ideals to their own benefits, unions are wonderful things; but then the same, of course, can be said about communism/socialism, democracy, and many other ideological frameworks.

cumhail

Originally posted by: XZeroII

To Wal-Mart, unions are the devil and must be destroyed. Three years ago, meat cutters in Jacksonville, Texas, tried to establish the first Wal-Mart union. Eleven days after they joined the United Food and Commercial Workers, Wal-Mart closed all the meat-cutting departments at its stores and started buying pre-cut meat.

What, so not liking unions is so bad? If enough people wanted to start a union, they could do it.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: tk149
Ooooooo...Wal-Mart is teh Deevil!!!!

Seriously, what's wrong with any of this? It's just competition. If you don't like their policies, don't shop there.

And I don't shop there. I wouldn't shop there if they were giving merchandise away.

Good for you. I admire you for standing up for your principles. Glad you can afford it too.

What we're facing here is a company that will stop at nothing to undercut their competition. Slave labor overseas, no problem. Lobbying Washington to allow weaker trade policies to take advantage of overseas labor standards that would be criminal here, no problem either.

Instead, we should just let all those poor overseas people starve to death because we wonderful brilliant Americans know what is better for them than they do.

Protectionism is UnAmerican. It undercuts everything American Capitalism is supposed to stand for.

Don't try to laugh this off with silly, "Wal Mart is the devil" remarks.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

Wal Mart comes into communities that were once thriving, builds their "big box" on cheap land just outside of town and like a giant retail vampire sucks the blood out of these communities. Ditto Home Depot, Lowes and others.

Yes, there are many ghost towns in America, the dessicated corpses of Wal Mart/Home Depot/Lowes victims.

If enough people act as you do, then these stores will fail. Capitalism at work. Feel free to organize a boycott if you wish.

We once had several very good hardware stores within walking distance in our town. I could go in and in a few minutes find anything I needed. Now they are all gone. I have to go to Home Depot and buy inferior lumber and settle for products that are "close" to what I came for because Home Depot put them all out of business. Now we have vacant store fronts and when I have to shop at Home Depot I not only have to check myself out at the register but immediately afterwards a "guard" asks to check my receipt even though he is standing just feet away from the check out line.

Just a pet peeve of mine but why doesn't Home Depot hire some cashiers so they can get people out the door instead of hiring contracted minimum wage guards to harass customers who have to help themselves, check themselves out and then be insulted when they leave the store? I refuse to show them my receipt and if they give me a hard time I tell them if they think I'm a shoplifter to call the police.

Why don't you blame the thieves who steal instead of the company that's trying to prevent it? Yes, it sucks, but the fact that I have to lock my doors sucks too.

 

[nowareman]

Just because there are thieves does not make it right or responsible for a retailer to treat everyone as a thief.

 

[RobCur]

If walmart can offer me the same food product or merchandise for 25-50 percent less then their compeititor, why not buy from them instead?
why pay more when you can pay less, every penny saved is penny earned. ROTFLMAO!

Smart shopper knows whats best for them. The same shoe that costed me over a hundred wasn't much better then one that cost me only 9.41 at my lovely walmart. They were easily torn and I much rather have one that is disposable anyway for next to nothing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd like to suggest the following: If you shop at Wal-Mart, you probably don't give two sh!ts about this country.

I've never been in a Walmart but I do shop at Costco.. no difference, really. I shop there only for Chicken breast meat for my silkie and Milk and the odd candy and starbucks coffee. Same thing every time. (cigarettes too, if I don't order em from the Indian reservation).
BUT, I agree with your thesis on this. I am part of the problem too!

You will see a move in DC toward Buy American shortly.. I know for a fact this is going on there. The question I have regarding this is; how with out the import tariff can DC get the population to throw money out the window? The American, by and large, was raised that way. It is in the genetic code to look for the best deal. We pride ourselves on looking for the best price for just about everything. We need protective tariffs and get the stuff made in the US and at wages that reflect the greatness of America not the poverty of India or China. Let them develop their economy with out our loss of standards.

I'm sure the stock boy at wal-mart will really like to pay 50 dollars for a pair of jeans. Most people at wal-mart doen't give a damn about benifits because there either students covered under mom and dad or old people covered by everyone.

It is the bigger picture I'm on about. Walmart, Costco, Target are doing to the Safeway, Ralphs and Kroger what they did to the mom and pop stores years ago. But, with a twist. Safeway made their money on volume and paid their workers more than Mom could. Today Walmart works on volume too but pays the workers less than Safeway. The jobs created by Walmart are at least 7$per hour less. As Walmart expands so do the jobs they create. As Safeway contracts so do the jobs they provided. If Safeway and Walmart were the only stores in the US we'd end up moving to Walmart for jobs as they put Safeway out of business. All by the $ they paid to the worker. If we passed a law that required all Safeway and Walmart workers are to be paid 18$ per hour the consumer would buy where it was more convient and where service was the feature that attracted customers. The stores would expand as the population did.

Remember the $ is the exchange medium... the issue is; how many apples can joe buy with an hours wage today, tomorrow and yesterday. How many can all the joes in the US buy today, tomorrow and yesterday. It is all about apples and how many can an hours wage buy. Are the prices low enough so that if all the safeway stores closed and opened as Walmarts paying their lower wage would all the joes be able to buy the same quantity of apples..? AND can joe go and buy the same quantity of oranges in the next state.. if not it is a net loss... if he can.. no problem. The issue is that some stuff increases in price or stays the same and poor joe can't afford it any longer. Some day maybe he will as equilibrium takes over. But, with the world economy in play I suspect Joe will be losing and India Joe will be gaining.

 

[rjain]

Obviously Walmart is growing because it's making money because of low expenses and can afford to open new stores.
Safeway is shrinking because it's losing money because of high expenses and must close stores.
So the thing that you hate about Walmart is what's keeping them able to pay their employees even a piddling salary.
The thing that you love about Safeway is forcing them to lay off their employees, who will work for Walmart instead.
If we forced both companies to pay $18/hr, they'd both go out of business and all their employees would be out of a job.
But you'd be happy because you could blame it all on Bush.

Feel free to hire all those Safeway workers and pay them out of your own pocket the salaries and benefits they got before. No one is forcing anyone to work for Walmart. If all those people could get a better job elsewhere, they would do it. If they could get a better job in India, they would. Fact is that the equivalent people in India are so poor that they'll work for anything you give them. They'll even risk their lives for a meal. Who are you to murder those people by stealing their jobs, you Walmart employees? Huh?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: nowareman
Just because there are thieves does not make it right or responsible for a retailer to treat everyone as a thief.

So reimburse all the money that Walmart lost because of shoplifting out of your own pocket and put the guard out of a job. All that money will go to the company's coffers (after taking out 30% in taxes, of course) and the guard will end up eating more of our tax money with his welfare check. Hmm, actually, the increase in tax revenue might outweigh the welfare checks of the guards....

 

[ReiAyanami]

considering foreigners own 46% of the US treasuries while 2/3rds of ALL US Dollars sits in foreign banks, my theory is once they reach over 50% they can officially seize the United States without having to do a hostile takeover...


but the reality of the situation is, we get free stuff from foreigners by handing them green pieces of paper, they never redeem these pieces of paper and instead store it. however if at any moment they decided to redeem these pieces of paper known as dollar bills, then hyperinflation would erupt in our nation (upto 300%) but domestic manufacturing would boom...

of course us californians can take the future inflation shock, where you can sell a house here and buy 10 houses of the same size anywhere else.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: nowareman
Just because there are thieves does not make it right or responsible for a retailer to treat everyone as a thief.

So reimburse all the money that Walmart lost because of shoplifting out of your own pocket and put the guard out of a job. All that money will go to the company's coffers (after taking out 30% in taxes, of course) and the guard will end up eating more of our tax money with his welfare check. Hmm, actually, the increase in tax revenue might outweigh the welfare checks of the guards....

Your post makes no sense. Why would I reimburse WalMart (or Home Depot as was my example) when I did not steal anything? Everything in their stores has a security tag on it. If you try to leave without paying the sensors at the exit will alert them.

The practice of treating everyone as a criminal is offensive and in response I refuse to shop at Home Depot unless I have no other alternative. I refuse to shop at WalMart at all as there are many other better alternatives.

And then I refuse to allow security guards to check my bags or reciept. We have a presumption of innocence in America as well as a right to privacy. Once I pay for my merchandise it is mine. If Home Depot or WalMart or whatever retailer I choose to spend my hard earned income in thinks I am stealing from them they are within their rights to call the police and charge me with shoplifting. If they are wrong in their assumption it is within my rights to take whatever legal action necessary to protect my good name.

If people would stand up for their rights this offensive practice would end. Instead they line up like sheep to be insulted after finding the products they need without help, checking themselves out and bagging their own order. Ridiculous.

edit

Also your welfare analogy is tired and out of place. The welfare system has been reformed. It is no longer the pariah it once was. Please stop referring to it as though it hasn't changed.

 

[LunarRay]

ReiAyanami
Quote
"... of course us californians can take the future inflation shock, where you can sell a house here and buy 10 houses of the same size anywhere else. "

That is to keep the rift raft out of California. Just allow in the rich folks and we can live the good life.

There is other issues as well regarding the increase of WalMarts. In a market area of say 10 miles square are say 2m people and there are 10 stores to serve their consumption needs. All stores are of a different ownership. Now comes walmart and opens 5 mega stores and puts the other 10 out of business. How many folks worked at the 10 and how many will work at the 5 and what is the total wage of the 5 vs total wage of the 10.. This 10 sq mile area will have a decrease in employment and the employed folks at Walmart will make less per capita. All stores in this area will feel it and they will have to lay off and on and on. Soon Walmart will be the only store and the folks working there and at the employment office will be the only folks with jobs. But, not to worry Walmart will open a 6th store to employ some of the layed off accountants and barbers and mechanics so the benefit to losing jobs is job creation.. just fewer at less wage.

 

[murphy55d]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Corn
This "article" is a load of crap:

Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year.

Lesse for a moment: 8.23 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $17,118, not $13,861.

Can I trust an article where creative multiplication is used to misrepresent its most basic premise. I dunno, but my sensibilities lead me to state that it is probably laced with a semblence of fact but spiced with bullshit.

Show me a walmart "sales associate" that works over 32 hours a week. Then I will listen to you. The keep employees under 32 hours a week so they do not have to pay benefits.

8.23 * 32 hours * 52 weeks = $13,695

Let me start out by saying I do work there, but I don't give 2 sh!ts about the place. I'm 21 and it's a job. I work 40 hours a week. I'm not gonna defend them about anything, and I certainly don't plan on making it a career.

But just for references sake, there are a lot of 40hour a week people at the store I work at. Whether or not that's the norm, I don't know, but that's how it is at the store I work at.

edit- Oh, and I do have benefits too.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
ReiAyanami
Quote
"... of course us californians can take the future inflation shock, where you can sell a house here and buy 10 houses of the same size anywhere else. "

That is to keep the rift raft out of California. Just allow in the rich folks and we can live the good life.

There is other issues as well regarding the increase of WalMarts. In a market area of say 10 miles square are say 2m people and there are 10 stores to serve their consumption needs. All stores are of a different ownership. Now comes walmart and opens 5 mega stores and puts the other 10 out of business. How many folks worked at the 10 and how many will work at the 5 and what is the total wage of the 5 vs total wage of the 10.. This 10 sq mile area will have a decrease in employment and the employed folks at Walmart will make less per capita. All stores in this area will feel it and they will have to lay off and on and on. Soon Walmart will be the only store and the folks working there and at the employment office will be the only folks with jobs. But, not to worry Walmart will open a 6th store to employ some of the layed off accountants and barbers and mechanics so the benefit to losing jobs is job creation.. just fewer at less wage.

The supermarket/food industry is a good example. Supermarkets and food wholesalers were at one time some of the best jobs available. Today supermarkets and food wholesalers are populated with part timers, owner operators and high school students. These people need jobs just as anyone else. But the jobs they now hold were once held by people who earned an excellent salary which allowed them to purchase homes, new cars, consumer goods galore, raise families, send kids to college and have the health benefits that make them secure. The supermarkets made a profit. The food wholesalers as well. What was wrong with a system where companies earned a good profit and employees earned a good living? Why is it necessary to send productive people into poverty to save a few pennies on merchandise and maximize profits for corporations? There is a downward spiral being created by the WalMartization of America. What is the point?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: murphy55d

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Corn
This "article" is a load of crap:

Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year.

Lesse for a moment: 8.23 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $17,118, not $13,861.

Can I trust an article where creative multiplication is used to misrepresent its most basic premise. I dunno, but my sensibilities lead me to state that it is probably laced with a semblence of fact but spiced with bullshit.

Show me a walmart "sales associate" that works over 32 hours a week. Then I will listen to you. The keep employees under 32 hours a week so they do not have to pay benefits.

8.23 * 32 hours * 52 weeks = $13,695

Let me start out by saying I do work there, but I don't give 2 sh!ts about the place. I'm 21 and it's a job. I work 40 hours a week. I'm not gonna defend them about anything, and I certainly don't plan on making it a career.

But just for references sake, there are a lot of 40hour a week people at the store I work at. Whether or not that's the norm, I don't know, but that's how it is at the store I work at.

edit- Oh, and I do have benefits too.

Thanks for chiming in Murphy55. Excellent post. It points out though that there may not be anything else out there when you are ready to get out of there. Many that didn't plan on Wal-Mart being their Career it does in fact wind up being just that. I hope that doesn't wind up being the case for you.

 

[Martin]

I don't know what people see in Walmart. I've been there a few time, but I never liked it. Its something intangible, but very negative. The huge parking lots, the warehouse-like store, the crowds, it all the just works to drive me away.

 

[Lucky]

Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

Even if walmart FT employment IS 32 (or 24!) hours/week, so what? They are then eligible for benefits after six months and have enough time to work another job. What's to bitch about here?

Also, another lie in the article is about how many have health insurance. 90% of walmart employees are insured. 40% through the company, 50% elswhere, and 10% choose not to / are not eligible yet because they have not worked long enough there.


ALL (ALL!!!) walmart employees are eligible for insurance after meeting the minimum work period for their employment status.

 

[Orsorum]

I would be interested to see an independent, empirical study of multiple locations that includes trends in property value, average per capita wage/income, % of population with benefits; not just short term, locations that have had Wal-Marts for 10, 20 years. A comparison of case studies (with similar factors being measured) with other corporate expansions (like Costco, Fred Meyer, etc.) should also be included.

If/when we have this information available, I'll make a final decision. For now, I prefer not to shop out there out of merchandise quality and location issues.

 

[digitalsm]

Wal-Mart doesnt hurt every town they build in. Some towns HAVE benifited from getting a Wal Mart.

 

[murphy55d]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Don't get all indignant at me, Corn. You simply assumed FT means 40 hrs at Wal-Mart. It doesn't.

Even if walmart FT employment IS 32 (or 24!) hours/week, so what? They are then eligible for benefits after six months and have enough time to work another job. What's to bitch about here?

Also, another lie in the article is about how many have health insurance. 90% of walmart employees are insured. 40% through the company, 50% elswhere, and 10% choose not to / are not eligible yet because they have not worked long enough there.


ALL (ALL!!!) walmart employees are eligible for insurance after meeting the minimum work period for their employment status.

32 hours is considered full time *I THINK*. I have heard they may be lowering that...but nothing I can confirm to be fact. There is of course a buffer period when the person starts before they get benefits... to prevent people from getting hired, working a few weeks, going and having major surgery, then quitting.

 

[rufruf44]

Walmart simply cater to the cheapness of Americans. Most Americans want stuff at the cheapest possible price and Walmart provides them with that as well as maximizing its profit just like any business. I can't fault them for doing that.