Comments on: More Wal-Mart crap: You’re paying for it

By: Judi

Judi — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:31:26 +0000

Ladies:

Please keep your purses out of the shopping carts!!! I saw many stolen and many “snatch and runs.” I wear a jacket with pockets under my coat and I do not need a purse. Lock up makeup, etc. in your car. Take only the card or 2 that you will need and very little money.
I saw a crack addict with one of those photo phones looking in my cart and at me, as I was checking out. He was not buying anything, but he was looking to see where I had my purse, and I gave him the “look”, and he waved the phone at me and moved on. I am a senior citizen and they think we are easy targets, but they better think twice.

By: CP

CP — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:47:06 +0000

While I love the feeling of small towns that have little stores, I prefer to go to a mega center store for my household/auto/grocery/pharmacy needs. I think that is a reality that we have to face. People want supercenters and warehouse shopping. Small, local stores are becoming a thing of the past for a reason – people don’t want to go to four places for errands when they can go to one.

By: Chaliechick

Chaliechick — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:32:14 +0000

I don’t think you having to hrie security for a couple of hours for a wedding is quite comprable to Walmart having to have secuirty all the time.

That said, if a Walmart is having a special event, they should probably have security. Last time I was in one was Christmas Eve and they had security then. (My current town doesn’t have a Walmart. But I spend Christmas at my in-laws’.)

FWIW, there are more comments on Walmart, including a really thoughtful one from Joel at my site.

By: fouralarmfire

fouralarmfire — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:11:30 +0000

when i had a wedding, i had to hire a rent-a-cop because i expected the congregation of a certain number of people all in one place at the same time. this was because of a county law, but i think it reflects the fact that we generally expect that such congregations sometimes lead to mischief. i don’t think that it’s arguable that wal-mart is not responsible for (and profiting from) this type of congregation.

the problem, CC, is that it’s not the town that the wal-mart builds in that dies — it’s the one 30 miles away. the one that isn’t getting a red cent of tax revenue from the megalith. not the one with a population large enough to sustain 5 grocery stores; the one that barely supports one the size of a convenience store.

now, i wouldn’t argue that wal-mart is the only reason that small-town america is dying, but it’s definitely a factor.

i also think that there are smarter policy decisions that our legislators can make than specifically targeting wal-mart. there are plenty of folks, as you point out CC, who work for large, medium and small companies (both for-profit and not) who live on shitty wages and have inadequate health care, if any. we don’t get all up at arms about the idealistic young college grads who work 80 hour weeks for planned parenthood or legal aid for $18,000 a year and shitty insurance (if they can afford it).

arbitrage will happen. but the brilliant thing about markets (if we don’t screw them up) is that they tend to right themselves… wages in third world countries are rising, etc. wal-mart banks on economies of scale — i don’t get why the government doesn’t use the power of economies of scale for the public good more often.

raise the minimum wage and offer universal, affordable health care. to everybody. *that’s* the policy imperative and the moral one, in my book.

By: Chalicechick

Chalicechick — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:11:32 +0000

I didn't say what I was proposing would fix everything. You were the one who was laughing at me for saying that people making small improvements in their standard of living was a good thing: "LOL. So you donâ€t have a problem with raising a human beingâ€s level of poverty from 3rd world poor to American poor" I was just saying that absent a plan for really making everything equal, going from third world poverty to American poverty really is a significant improvement. Judging by the low-income housing development my mother works for, many American poor people have enough to eat, a place to live, some have air conditioning, DVD players and cell phones. Their kids can get scholarships to college and have a better life. I'm not saying this is tantamount to a luxurious life at all, but I'm pretty sure it beats the heck out of third world poverty and people getting the chance to make that change isn't something to be laughed at. CC

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:47:40 +0000

The ethics of what you are proposing have nothing to do with a final solution to the world’s “non-poor standard of living,” or whatever it is you are trying to get at with that one … In other words, what you are suggesting is that unless I come up with a solution for the globe’s poverty it IS perfectly acceptable to knowingly profit off of the base work poor people are willing to do in their attempt to improve their standards of living (some call this exploitation)? I don’t have the time or desire to unpack that one. Besides, aren’t we talking about Wal*Mart? :)

By: Chalicechick

Chalicechick — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:00:38 +0000

I'm on a break from my second job until September 15, but I do have one. (((LOL. So you donâ€t have a problem with raising a human beingâ€s level of poverty from 3rd world poor to American poor. Good for you. ))) Umm... If you have a plan you'd like to share for raising everybody in the world to a non-poor standard of living, I, for one, am listening. If not, then what's wrong some hard-working people improving their lives somewhat? CC

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:44:31 +0000

(Dontcha hate it when work gets in the way of blogging?) Yep. I have not one, but two jobs to blog around. (Anyway, I guess that all leaves me wondering why size is such an issue and why size alone means Walmart should be handicapped.) Wal*Mart does not deal in low prices, as you seem to think. Wal*Mart's low prices are a direct result of their wheeling and dealing in sheer volume. Volume is directly related to the amount of cheap crap sold. The amount of cheap crap sold is directly related to the amount of sales by the competition (the less THEY sell the MORE Wal*Mart sells). So, Wal*Mart wipes them out and owns sheer volume to which they can super profit off of "low prices". Yeah, low. (If people in Mexico want to come here, work hard and improve their lives, I donâ€t really have a problem with it. The standard of living in Mexico does suck.) LOL. So you don't have a problem with raising a human being's level of poverty from 3rd world poor to American poor. Good for you.

By: Chalicechick

Chalicechick — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:50:00 +0000

Dontcha hate it when work gets in the way of blogging?

Anyway, I guess that all leaves me wondering why size is such an issue and why size alone means Walmart should be handicapped. Walmart is big, but grocery store chains are plenty big too and no one demonizes them for not providing health care.

I’ve lived in several towns with Walmarts including Barnwell, South Carolina, population 4,874. I’ve never even seen a town that is only a Walmart, Walmart having destroyed every other business. I’m sort of mystified that a Walmart could do that in one town and not have done it anyplace I’ve seen. I’m not doubting you, I’m just curious why it would happen in one place and not others.

When a Super Walmart came to Laurinburg, North Carolina, population 15,000, I wrote the story for the local newspaper where I went around and interviewed the managers of the town’s five grocery stores. Four weren’t scared, or said so, and Winn-Dixie wouldn’t talk to the press. Nearly five years later, all five stores are still there and appear to be fine. The downtown stores sell nicer clothes than Walmart and art and insurance and other stuff Walmart doesn’t. As far as I can think, the only things in L-Burg that have gone out of business are a Kmart and a chinese restaurant. The Kmart is probably Walmart’s fault but no great loss, and I doubt they had anything to do with the demise of Fong’s.

I don’t doubt that Walmart needs poor people just as Whole Foods needs yuppies. Both are target markets. I guess that’s feeding off the lower classes in some sense, but the lower classes also feed off of Walmart’s low prices. Again, I’m not sure why this relationship isn’t mutually benficial.

If people in Mexico want to come here, work hard and improve their lives, I don’t really have a problem with it. The standard of living in Mexico does suck.

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:12:52 +0000

(What Wal-Mart is doing sucks, but they are not doing anything that many other business arenâ€t.) Wal*Mart's size is something others are not doing. (Wal-Martâ€s low prices mean that poor people who shop there can raise their standard of living.) Poor people shop with food stamps (now a card). As long as you are shopping with food stamps the standard of living is not being raised, it just means you can get more mileage out of your food stamp card. The government (taxes), as you know, funds the food stamp program. People who work at Wal*Mart stay on the food stamp program. Sound circular? It is. (You can afford to think that way now.) I can afford to think that way now? CC, what do you mean? My family and I still shop with a food stamp card ... and it's not at Wal*Mart. Yes, I still am a "poor person." Wal*Mart NEEDS me. That is my point. It needs me to work there; it needs me to shop there. It needs me to be poor. They are making billions. Slice it up anyway you like it but this is a huge retail corp. that uses "low prices" to feed of the lower class. That's no rant, that reality. Is Wal*Mart alone? No. It is the biggest. As our society continues to shift toward a service oriented economy the effects of Wal*Mart and others like it will become profound. That's OK ... we can always ship in Mexicans to do the dirty work. They are poor after all, and their standard of living would be improved, right? (Do we ever say â€œWhole Foods will move anyplace it can make money, even if it hurts any existing businesses in the area?â€ Do we say that L.L. Bean will mail itâ€s clothes anywhere, even if doing so hurts other clothing stores all over the world?) You obviously do not understand the Wal*Mart philosophy. I watched a small Western PA town (Kittanning, PA) be shut down by a medium-sized Wal*Mart. Literally. It used to have a lot of businesses in it (similar to the ones you mentioned in your 3rd point) and a huge amount of local-run family businesses. Wal*Mart shut them all down. All of them. IUn fact, downtown Kittanning, PA turned into nothing. Please ... Wal*Mart has a very successful business philosophy. Wipe out all competition and put up a social system by which profit can be made.