Wal-Mart is the greatest retailer in world history
- Thread starter Seminiferous
- Start date
Wal-Mart positively dictates where other retailers will follow.
Wal-Mart's demographic research is the gold standard. Other smaller retailers, such as Arby's, convenience stores, Burger King, etc., don't waste money on demographic research: They simply follow Wal-Marts and open retail outlets nearby. Number one, Wal-Mart's already done the site selection, and number two, for many retailers the mere presence of the Wal-Mart attracts a sufficient nexus of customers.
Wal-Mart's demographic research is the gold standard. Other smaller retailers, such as Arby's, convenience stores, Burger King, etc., don't waste money on demographic research: They simply follow Wal-Marts and open retail outlets nearby. Number one, Wal-Mart's already done the site selection, and number two, for many retailers the mere presence of the Wal-Mart attracts a sufficient nexus of customers.
I think you can argue the wages they pay is pretty immoral. How many people working at Wal-Mart are also on food stamps or some other type of government assistance? Essentially, because they (and many other companies) pay their workers such poor wages, the tax payers have to fill in the rest so those people can actually support themselves. Essentially, you can argue that the government actually subsidizes Wal Mart, which either means A) it can certainly be argued they are immoral or B) they aren't that great at what they do if they can't afford to pay their employees. And we all know the B) argument isnt the truth.Originally posted by seminole97:
The buyers do the dictating. To the mom & pop as readily as the A & P, or the Walmart...
But nobody wants to blame people who are making individual choices in their own view of their own best interest. It's easier to point the finger at a particular instance of the aggregates of those decisions and somehow percieve that the result is the cause.
Walmart is a goods distribution model. Just the latest in a line going back thousands of years. There's no reason
to think it is immoral. If they had Instagram at the time I'm sure you could find pictures of buttcracks in the bazaar.
I'm not betting it will be replaced by Amazon
Prime drones tomorrow, but I'm content leaving the goods and services
providing sector of the world as free to evolve as we can as long as it
is done so absent fraud and coercion.
Or you could argue that Wal-Mart is saving the government money by hiring employees and paying corporate taxes and employment taxes.Originally posted by Cubs79:
I think you can argue the wages they pay is pretty immoral. How many people working at Wal-Mart are also on food stamps or some other type of government assistance? Essentially, because they (and many other companies) pay their workers such poor wages, the tax payers have to fill in the rest so those people can actually support themselves. Essentially, you can argue that the government actually subsidizes Wal Mart, which either means A) it can certainly be argued they are immoral or B) they aren't that great at what they do if they can't afford to pay their employees. And we all know the B) argument isnt the truth.Originally posted by seminole97:
The buyers do the dictating. To the mom & pop as readily as the A & P, or the Walmart...
But nobody wants to blame people who are making individual choices in their own view of their own best interest. It's easier to point the finger at a particular instance of the aggregates of those decisions and somehow percieve that the result is the cause.
Walmart is a goods distribution model. Just the latest in a line going back thousands of years. There's no reason
to think it is immoral. If they had Instagram at the time I'm sure you could find pictures of buttcracks in the bazaar.
I'm not betting it will be replaced by Amazon
Prime drones tomorrow, but I'm content leaving the goods and services
providing sector of the world as free to evolve as we can as long as it
is done so absent fraud and coercion.
There is no such thing as an immoral wage. If employees have the skills to make more and they don't like what Wal-Mart is paying, they can go elsewhere. If the employees don't have the skills to get a better job, then Wal-Mart is providing employment for those who otherwise would have no job. Sure, Wal-Mart could pay more, but then prices would go up.
I actually once had an offer from Wal-Mart corporate. I considered their offer to be very low given my education, experience and expectations of the job, (not to mention Bentonville wasn't the most happening place
I find the entire argument about " immoral" wages to be either amusing or poorly constructed - sometimes both.
I think you can argue the wages they pay is pretty
immoral.
Why? They offer money voluntarily in exchange for labor. If someone doesn't like the wages being offered they can always offer their services elsewhere.
What I would find immoral is a law that made it difficult, if not impossible, for low skilled workers to find someone with whom they can trade their efforts for money.
Furthermore, I see nothing to convince me the average minimum wage employee at Walmart is otherwise capable of earning a greater salarly, and Walmart is somehow preventing them from doing so.
immoral.
Why? They offer money voluntarily in exchange for labor. If someone doesn't like the wages being offered they can always offer their services elsewhere.
What I would find immoral is a law that made it difficult, if not impossible, for low skilled workers to find someone with whom they can trade their efforts for money.
Furthermore, I see nothing to convince me the average minimum wage employee at Walmart is otherwise capable of earning a greater salarly, and Walmart is somehow preventing them from doing so.
It's not just about Walmart employees. I don't work at Walmart, but my tax dollars are still used to provide for food stamps and what not for their workers. And it isnt just Walmart, its McDonald's and most any major corporation that relies mostly on minimum wage workers.Originally posted by Gonolz:
Or you could argue that Wal-Mart is saving the government money by hiring employees and paying corporate taxes and employment taxes.Originally posted by Cubs79:
I think you can argue the wages they pay is pretty immoral. How many people working at Wal-Mart are also on food stamps or some other type of government assistance? Essentially, because they (and many other companies) pay their workers such poor wages, the tax payers have to fill in the rest so those people can actually support themselves. Essentially, you can argue that the government actually subsidizes Wal Mart, which either means A) it can certainly be argued they are immoral or B) they aren't that great at what they do if they can't afford to pay their employees. And we all know the B) argument isnt the truth.Originally posted by seminole97:
The buyers do the dictating. To the mom & pop as readily as the A & P, or the Walmart...
But nobody wants to blame people who are making individual choices in their own view of their own best interest. It's easier to point the finger at a particular instance of the aggregates of those decisions and somehow percieve that the result is the cause.
Walmart is a goods distribution model. Just the latest in a line going back thousands of years. There's no reason
to think it is immoral. If they had Instagram at the time I'm sure you could find pictures of buttcracks in the bazaar.
I'm not betting it will be replaced by Amazon
Prime drones tomorrow, but I'm content leaving the goods and services
providing sector of the world as free to evolve as we can as long as it
is done so absent fraud and coercion.
There is no such thing as an immoral wage. If employees have the skills to make more and they don't like what Wal-Mart is paying, they can go elsewhere. If the employees don't have the skills to get a better job, then Wal-Mart is providing employment for those who otherwise would have no job. Sure, Wal-Mart could pay more, but then prices would go up.
I actually once had an offer from Wal-Mart corporate. I considered their offer to be very low given my education, experience and expectations of the job, (not to mention Bentonville wasn't the most happening place) so I turned them down. This is (mostly) a free market society. Wal-Mart provides a job and advancement opportunity for many who have little skills.
And, the prices wouldnt have to go up, but even if they did, who cares. Would a few cents added to a product prevent you from buying that product? Especially if wages were higher? (consider if wages for lower skilled workers went up, most everyone elses would too to some degree)
Here is a nice little article about it.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/04/walmart-on-tax-day-how-taxpayers-subsidizes-americas-biggest-employer-and-richest-family/
Let's go through the facts:
1. The typical Walmart Workers are not skilled at all. They have hardly any education, if any at all.
2. The Service level you get from Wal Mart is AWFUL.
3. Wal Mart is Cheap. This is why I go there, pricing in the bad service.
4. The typical WalMart worker is on some sort of Gov Assistance or it is available to them.
How can you say they don't make a fair wage... they are in my experience pretty lousy people. I will say that a responsible CEO would cap his Income to the lower worker. Say the lowest paid full timer makes 20,000$ he should make no more than 100x that (or something).
Again, you aren't getting the complete picture. Basically, Walmart isn't as cheap as people make it out to be. If you spend 10 bucks on a product, you might be thinking that you got a good deal on it. What you aren't considering, is that your tax dollars are also subsidizing the cashier who is making 7.50 an hour through food stamps. You are also not considering, that your tax dollars are also subsidizing the person behind you who is buying $100 worth of groceries on food stamps, that Walmart accepts. Walmart employees get an estimated $6.2 billion in a year in various government assistance. Walmart also makes almost 20% of their grocery revenues off of food stamps. You can't just look at it from how much they pay their employees. Basically, a lot of your and my tax dollars help keep Walmart up, so how cheap is it really?
But, you must also be satisfied with
your tax dollars filling the income burden that Walmart won't pay,
because that is what is happening.
Bad assumption on your part.
Welfare predates Walmart. If Walmart quit offering employment opportunities to the least of those among us willing to work it would not end poverty.
Voluntary exchanges of labor and money do not create poverty. It is actually the laws that prevent the free exchange of labor and money, combined with laws that reward idleness, that foster poverty by preventing the creation of more wealth.
Your argument rests on the assumption that any employment, no matter how menial, must be a 'living wage' (a subjective, nebulous concept itself), and I find that preposterous for a host of reasons.
Your logic on this is terrible, and this vein of discussion will just get the thread locked for politics, so I'd simply rather not go there.
your tax dollars filling the income burden that Walmart won't pay,
because that is what is happening.
Bad assumption on your part.
Welfare predates Walmart. If Walmart quit offering employment opportunities to the least of those among us willing to work it would not end poverty.
Voluntary exchanges of labor and money do not create poverty. It is actually the laws that prevent the free exchange of labor and money, combined with laws that reward idleness, that foster poverty by preventing the creation of more wealth.
Your argument rests on the assumption that any employment, no matter how menial, must be a 'living wage' (a subjective, nebulous concept itself), and I find that preposterous for a host of reasons.
Your logic on this is terrible, and this vein of discussion will just get the thread locked for politics, so I'd simply rather not go there.
My logic isn't terrible in the least, and I havent talked about politics at all. I am not talking about politics anymore than any of the numerous threads about Winston's court case are talking about politics. Yes, this could go down that route, but I have purposely not gotten any level of politics in my argument. But I do take exception to the notion of the thread that Walmart is the greatest retailer ever. Any retailer that relies so heavily on tax dollars either in the form of accepting those dollars, or in the form of being able to employ people only because tax dollars subsidize their wages, is not a great retailer, they are a tax burden that essentially needs tax payer assistance to be at the point they are at. And I am also not blaming it solely on Walmart, they are just the subject of the thread. Many other companies are right there with Walmart with regards to my argument.
More of our tax dollars will go to supporting the McDonald's employees who get fired when a $15 per hour minimum wage makes McD realize that it is a lot cheaper to have a self-serve kiosk than pay some uneducated unskilled worker $15 per hour to cashier by pushing pictures of Big Macs and fries which customers can do for themselves.
Well, when the minimum wage was created, the ONLY people earning it were largely teens in summer or after school jobs. There was little burden because they were living at home and Mom and Dad were paying plenty in taxes.
I have to wonder if the Mom and Pop shops on small town Main Street were paying above minimum wage as a rule of thumb, and offering health care to boot. I think the answer would be no. Just a wild haired guess.
My tax dollars are surely shouldering a burden for those who don't even bother to get up and get out the door to EARN a minimum wage, so I have to say that I don't mind if there's a shortfall for those who make the effort. And the scenario you paint is largely propaganda.
To go further would make this topic political, so it's best that we all leave the ginned - up injustices sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls back porch.
Let's not go further with this, because it will become political.
That isnt really true. There was a time you could live off a minimum wage, and many adults did so. Now it is simply impossible to do. Plus, you are getting into a whole plethora of other reasons why so many people have to work minimum wage jobs these days, such as college being so much more expensive than it used to be. But yes, to continue would get into areas that might violate board rules, but I would suggest people look elsewhere on these types of issues, because tax payers are getting screwed so people like the Waltons can be worth a combined $150 billion.
Until Alice Walton comes to my door with a gun in hand and says "I am forcibly taking you to WalMart. Bring your checkbook/cash/credit card", you are factually and ideologically wrong.
BTW, Alice Walton supports many things that I believe you and other proponents of "social justice" might be in favor of - and if the Walton children are worth a collective $150 billion (on paper) so what? I don't begrudge them their membership cards in the "lucky sperm" club.
I dont begrudge them either, but their is a responsible way of doing business. And I rarely shop at Walmart, but that doesnt mean my tax dollars aren't used to subsidize them, so your argument about being forced to shop their doesn't really apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart
Just go through the list of those complaints, many of which Walmart was forced to pay either by the courts or by settling out of court. They used to even take out life insurance policies on their low level workers, so they could profit off of them when they died, while many of those people weren't even paid enough to have their own life insurance policies. Walmart is just dirty business through and through IMO.
This post was edited on 4/17 2:49 PM by Cubs79
But I do
take exception to the notion of the thread that Walmart is the greatest
retailer ever.
Perhaps I misunderstood,but I thought the OP was being facetious.
Any retailer that relies so heavily on tax dollars
either in the form of accepting those dollars, or in the form of being
able to employ people only because tax dollars subsidize their wages, is
not a great retailer, they are a tax burden that essentially needs tax
payer assistance to be at the point they are at.
Walmart doesn't rely on your tax dollars, they rely on their customers' dollars.
The people who wouldn't finish school and won't walk down to Day Labor are the ones taking your tax dollars.
Blaming Walmart is illogical and misguided. They're one of the places creating employment for the marginally useful among us. They also help reduce prices, which raises the living standards of millions and millions more lower income Americans that you ignore in your calculus.
The amount of things people want done is innumerable and inexhaustible. All that remains is to allow people to work out what they are willing to pay for what they want done.
Creating laws that forbid employment at rates agreeable to the involved parties, but disagreeable to an unrelated third party who insists on controlling the other two, can only reduce employment below what it would otherwise be, and can thereby only reduce the amount of wealth that the work would have otherwise contributed to improving the well being of the two parties who would otherwise agree to exchange.
Real higher wages come from higher productivity, not laws that prohibit voluntary exchanges of labor for money.
take exception to the notion of the thread that Walmart is the greatest
retailer ever.
Perhaps I misunderstood,but I thought the OP was being facetious.
Any retailer that relies so heavily on tax dollars
either in the form of accepting those dollars, or in the form of being
able to employ people only because tax dollars subsidize their wages, is
not a great retailer, they are a tax burden that essentially needs tax
payer assistance to be at the point they are at.
Walmart doesn't rely on your tax dollars, they rely on their customers' dollars.
The people who wouldn't finish school and won't walk down to Day Labor are the ones taking your tax dollars.
Blaming Walmart is illogical and misguided. They're one of the places creating employment for the marginally useful among us. They also help reduce prices, which raises the living standards of millions and millions more lower income Americans that you ignore in your calculus.
The amount of things people want done is innumerable and inexhaustible. All that remains is to allow people to work out what they are willing to pay for what they want done.
Creating laws that forbid employment at rates agreeable to the involved parties, but disagreeable to an unrelated third party who insists on controlling the other two, can only reduce employment below what it would otherwise be, and can thereby only reduce the amount of wealth that the work would have otherwise contributed to improving the well being of the two parties who would otherwise agree to exchange.
Real higher wages come from higher productivity, not laws that prohibit voluntary exchanges of labor for money.
Unemployment is of course always going to be an issue in any modern society, but there is also such a thing as the working poor, which is what a great deal of our society is today. And the idea of wealth starting from the top is something we will probably just have to agree to disagree on. I am of the opinion that rising tides raise all boats so to speak, so providing better wages to lower and middle class people, will ultimately make the economy better for everyone, and wont hurt corporations at all. But with regards to Walmart and productivity, that isn't really an issue from an American standpoint, because the production part of Walmart is in China.
This post was edited on 4/17 4:49 PM by Cubs79
Until post WWII America, working poor was not even a term, but a condition and fact of life of a sizable part of the population.
There is a threat to the middle class. I can't put a name to it. It would be political.
There is a threat to the middle class. I can't put a name to it. It would be political.
Everybody is an idiot but you.
You love putting words in people's mouths, but you never seemed to address the questions I raised that were intended to help you grasp what thus far eludes you.
Let's go back to the heart of it.
We agree that gasoline is worth much more to us than we currently pay, correct?
If gasoline is a monopoly (cartel, whatever term most appeals to you) [your assertion], and the sellers control the price [your assertion], why are we paying so much less than we are willing to? Why are they giving us such a good deal when we'd willingly pay more?
Why don't the gasoline companies enjoy the profit margins of a company like Coca Cola, that sells (what I presume we would agree) is a much less useful product?
You love putting words in people's mouths, but you never seemed to address the questions I raised that were intended to help you grasp what thus far eludes you.
Let's go back to the heart of it.
We agree that gasoline is worth much more to us than we currently pay, correct?
If gasoline is a monopoly (cartel, whatever term most appeals to you) [your assertion], and the sellers control the price [your assertion], why are we paying so much less than we are willing to? Why are they giving us such a good deal when we'd willingly pay more?
Why don't the gasoline companies enjoy the profit margins of a company like Coca Cola, that sells (what I presume we would agree) is a much less useful product?
This is where I land. I like how they treat their
employees and they seemingly have better quality workers and product.
I'll drive an hour further to go to Costco opposed to Walmart/Sams.
In my case they're next door to one another, but I certainly wouldn't waste two hours of my time, gas, etc. to drive to a Costco over a Walmart/Sams. Costco is convenient for several items we buy in bulk, but their selection is too slim overall. Main reason I keep my membership is that the price of that is entirely made up by purchasing gas from Costco. I also want that membership so that the next time a politician creates a gasoline shortage I'll have a place to go that more likely than not will still have product (they did last time, but of course the lines were bad, but I'll take a long line and high price over no line and empty tanks).
There is a frequent attempt to conflate the employees of Walmart with Costco, but as you noted they hire people farther up the productivity scale, and compensate accordingly.
employees and they seemingly have better quality workers and product.
I'll drive an hour further to go to Costco opposed to Walmart/Sams.
In my case they're next door to one another, but I certainly wouldn't waste two hours of my time, gas, etc. to drive to a Costco over a Walmart/Sams. Costco is convenient for several items we buy in bulk, but their selection is too slim overall. Main reason I keep my membership is that the price of that is entirely made up by purchasing gas from Costco. I also want that membership so that the next time a politician creates a gasoline shortage I'll have a place to go that more likely than not will still have product (they did last time, but of course the lines were bad, but I'll take a long line and high price over no line and empty tanks).
There is a frequent attempt to conflate the employees of Walmart with Costco, but as you noted they hire people farther up the productivity scale, and compensate accordingly.
Wal-Mart is the American dream writ large. It's the ultimate in supply and demand.
As for those of you who seem confused about who determines where Wal-Marts are located, it's the demographic experts hired by Wal-Mart who count rooftops and similar data which to them suggests that an area is "underserved" by Wal-Mart.
As for those of you who seem confused about who determines where Wal-Marts are located, it's the demographic experts hired by Wal-Mart who count rooftops and similar data which to them suggests that an area is "underserved" by Wal-Mart.
For a better understanding of what I'm trying to explain I encourage you to approach 5 employees at Walmart and request assistance.
Then repeat the exercise at Costco.
In my experience, the experience is not the same at each establishment.
The middle class is indeed shrinking. More people in the upper income and lower income brackets.
Eating the billionaires won't do anything about the biggest indicator contributor to the increasing poor - bastards.
Best thing that could happen to the middle class would be an end to subsidizing people doing nothing and an end to the constant inflation that enriches the already rich at the expense of everyone else.
Not holding breath for either, just doing what I need to do for me and mine.
Walmart's biggest competitor is the Dollar Stores. Same level of quality slightly smaller quantity
When I actually do go to Costco, I find myself increasingly disappointed with their selection. There are several bulk items they used to sell that are no longer carried. Most of my dissatisfaction with Costco stems from the fact we only have one location in Jacksonville, it doesn't sell gas and I would rather put a gun to my temple than attempt to drive to the St Johns Town Center where it's located. Their meat prices and wine selection are great though.
My wife and I find ourselves going to BJs more than Costco, mainly because the location closest to us is very convenient to get to. The closest Sam's to our house is across the river in Orange Park and I don't go near Orange Park unless it's absolutely necessary. We would love to get a warehouse club in St John's County but there isn't a single one. Either the warehouse clubs don't want to build there or the county is preventing them from doing so.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Baseball Notes / updates: FSU at Wake (Friday, 6 p.m. on ACCN Extra)- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
-
-
