I hate Walmart and all, but this is screwed up...

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Do you agree that it's possible for a corporation to become so powerful that they make a 'free market' not free?

If so, do you think this is a bad thing?

Yes there are companies that want walmart to move in, like McDonalds for instance. How many companies that pay well want walmart to move in? (Not arguing that, I'm merely querying for more information here)

I guess I grew up in an America that really valued small business. I was able to start my own ISP for instance when I was 16 - and I did quite well. My dad is an architect and general contractor and ran his own small business. I did a lot of work for other small businesses as well. Small business was and to some degree still is the way that the average joe can do well in life, but with huge corporations like walmart to compete against, it's pretty hard to really have a free market for anyone but walmart. This applies more to the small retail stores, but really my problem with walmart extends to all the corporations that are so big and powerful that they stifle competition. How can you work out a supply deal to compete with walmart when walmart can tell a company to not sell to you if they don't want to lose walmart's business? I only know of one company that has turned down walmart - and it's a lawnmower company that just didn't want to be told how to run their business. It turned out to be a good business decision too - because they didn't blow off their old distribution network, and made it known that they were asked to do so by walmart, they have been doing better than ever.

A lot of you act like Walmart is doing a favor by providing jobs... I would rather kill myself than work there. I guess that's an exagguration, since as long as I'm alive I've got a chance at finding something better, but I hope the point is clear. Shitty pay. A chance at working your way up the walmart corporate ladder ( wooo $30k a year as a 'manager'). Benefits that are just enough to call themselves benefits.

No, I'd much rather work for a small business where I can actually learn about a trade, a product, or a discipline and actually make something of myself. I'd probably get paid more, and many small businesses offer benefits anyway.

The only way a corporation can become so powerful that they crowd out competitors is either because they provide a service or good that increases or stays constant in value or the government intervenes in such a way as to limit entrance to the market. If a monopoly takes place via government interaction thats probably a bad thing, if its via market forces then the company will remain powerful as long as their provide a better value to their customers than upstart companies.

America does value small business, my grandpa ran two businesses and his wife my grandma ran one for 34 years. I dont know a single person that doesn't value small businesses. Hell when I worked at Best Buy we valued the small local electronics stores. In fact we sent them tons of business.

Wal Mart can tell companies how to run their supply chains because Wal Mart provides them the bulk of their business. Thats the beauty of the free market. Wal Mart has done a fantastic job of managing its business and growing its market while at the same time providing huge value for consumers. If consumers change their minds, want a cleaner environment or "Fresh produce" theres ample stores all over the place. In this small town of 40,000 that I live in there's plenty of other stores, some local some smaller chains, but there are plenty of options available available. Wal Mart twists no ones arm in shopping there, they simply offer the best prices on many goods.

You would rather kill yourself than work at Wal Mart, I find that hard to believe coming from you. If we went through Great Depression v2.0 you'd probably take any job that was available.

I know two folks that work for Wal Mart, one doesn't like it much the other has been there for four years now and likes it a lot. I also know two people who have worked there in the past. One didn't like it and quit, the other got promoted, finished college and is now working in their IT dept in Bentonville. Wal Mart store supervisors make a reasonable wage, 26k to 34k/yr + bonuses. Actual Salaried managers start out at 34k and go all the way up to 150k a year for a big store GM position. That does not include bonuses. Pay isn't bad, benefits aren't bad for retail either. Wal Mart is doing the people who work there a favor, if the people who work there didnt' like it they could leave, or not have taken the job. Wal Mart doesn't force slave labor onto the population.

I'd rather work some place I'd be happy reguardless of size. The parent company I work for is huge, they employe 106,000 people accross the world and have revenues of 20 billion plus a year. The division I'm in is a tiny division but its a good division with a small business atmosphere, its really hte best of both worlds IMO.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

They have a responsibility to be a competitive employer. When they are not being competitive when it comes to employment, they are exhibiting bad business ethics.

They have no responsibility to do any more than enter right to work agreements with employers. If an employee and Walmart come to an agreement on the job, the pay, and the benefits, they have a right to work agreement - it is assumed that this is mutually benificial - with both having the ability to end such agreement at any time they wish for any reason. That's the ethical responsibility of Walmart - no more and no less.

You say they are not being competitive? They find people to work for them just fine it seems to me. They must offer a competitive wage FOR THE SKILL SET REQUIRED FOR THE JOB. We both know this is not too high.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm blaming Wal-Mart for encouraging employees to take advantage of government benefits, rather than offering those benefits themselves.......snip..... But I'm certainly not blaming Wal-Mart for anything that is the government's problem.

if the government benefits are available free to the employee, would that be smart business for Walmart to still pay for them? I think not. You seem to be blaming Walmart for taking advantage of our governments socialist programs. I'd blame the government for putting themselves in such a predicament.

My knowledge of business ethics is not too impressive, but from memory it seems you believe in stakeholder theory. I do not. I side with Milton Friedman.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Actually, I agree with you. Idealistically, I would rather privatize a lot a lot of those otherwise government-funded benefits. However, can you actually see Americans allowing that? Probably not. So my argument is derived from practicality, not ideology. As I said to Jas0n...

Well, which do you think is more practical: Explain to people the negativity that is associated with Wal-Mart, getting rid of welfare systems, privatizing all health care for Wal-Mart employees, denying subsidies for Wal-Mart to set up shop ... or just simply force Wal-Mart to adhere to a business model that negates the necessity of the former? Both accomplish the same thing, IMHO.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The only way a corporation can become so powerful that they crowd out competitors is either because they provide a service or good that increases or stays constant in value or the government intervenes in such a way as to limit entrance to the market. If a monopoly takes place via government interaction thats probably a bad thing, if its via market forces then the company will remain powerful as long as their provide a better value to their customers than upstart companies.

America does value small business, my grandpa ran two businesses and his wife my grandma ran one for 34 years. I dont know a single person that doesn't value small businesses. Hell when I worked at Best Buy we valued the small local electronics stores. In fact we sent them tons of business.

Wal Mart can tell companies how to run their supply chains because Wal Mart provides them the bulk of their business. Thats the beauty of the free market. Wal Mart has done a fantastic job of managing its business and growing its market while at the same time providing huge value for consumers. If consumers change their minds, want a cleaner environment or "Fresh produce" theres ample stores all over the place. In this small town of 40,000 that I live in there's plenty of other stores, some local some smaller chains, but there are plenty of options available available. Wal Mart twists no ones arm in shopping there, they simply offer the best prices on many goods.

You would rather kill yourself than work at Wal Mart, I find that hard to believe coming from you. If we went through Great Depression v2.0 you'd probably take any job that was available.

I know two folks that work for Wal Mart, one doesn't like it much the other has been there for four years now and likes it a lot. I also know two people who have worked there in the past. One didn't like it and quit, the other got promoted, finished college and is now working in their IT dept in Bentonville. Wal Mart store supervisors make a reasonable wage, 26k to 34k/yr + bonuses. Actual Salaried managers start out at 34k and go all the way up to 150k a year for a big store GM position. That does not include bonuses. Pay isn't bad, benefits aren't bad for retail either. Wal Mart is doing the people who work there a favor, if the people who work there didnt' like it they could leave, or not have taken the job. Wal Mart doesn't force slave labor onto the population.

I'd rather work some place I'd be happy reguardless of size. The parent company I work for is huge, they employe 106,000 people accross the world and have revenues of 20 billion plus a year. The division I'm in is a tiny division but its a good division with a small business atmosphere, its really hte best of both worlds IMO.

I can't help but wonder if my point of view can only be understood by those who have actually run a small business

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I can't help but wonder if my point of view can only be understood by those who have actually run a small business

Maybe, but either way its not the governments job to regulate what wal mart does and does not provide for its employees. As long as they have a safe environment and wal mart is following labor laws (for the most part they are) then the government has no business in it.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Maybe, but either way its not the governments job to regulate what wal mart does and does not provide for its employees. As long as they have a safe environment and wal mart is following labor laws (for the most part they are) then the government has no business in it.

I was in favor of this because of their bad business ethics. I was not in favor because I think it's a good or reasonable law; it's not. I was in favor because I think Wal-Mart deserves some sort of "punishment" (for lack of a better word) for their ethics. Their business model is practically fucking perfect, but they are oligopolizing and exercising bad ethics.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I was in favor of this because of their bad business ethics. I was not in favor because I think it's a good or reasonable law; it's not. I was in favor because I think Wal-Mart deserves some sort of "punishment" (for lack of a better word) for their ethics. Their business model is practically fucking perfect, but they are oligopolizing and exercising bad ethics.

Wal Mart needs to be punished for being running a good business? sounds like socialism to me...so the government should start punishing successful business huh? What unethical behavior are they engaging in that is deemed OK via corporate? You can always find one or two stores that have issues in an organization as large as Wal Mart, but please point me to their problems that are rampant and widespread and endorsed by the executives.

[DosEquis]

Soon as there is a monopoly, regardless of how it was formed, the monopoly itself is against capitalist ideals. Capitalism uses competition. When there is no competition it fails.

Some corporations have simply become way to powerful. A lot of times people have no choice but to go there. When someone like walmart comes in to the smaller town and runs all the mom and pops out of business... what other choice to they have? Drive 75 miles to the next town where walmart isn't yet?

They also have waaaay to much influence in the way our government operates when they get that powerful and have that much capital behind them.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wal Mart needs to be punished for being running a good business?

No, that's not what I said and you know that. Don't be so infantile; you're better than that.

sounds like socialism to me...so the government should start punishing successful business huh?

Again, that's not what I said.

What unethical behavior are they engaging in that is deemed OK via corporate?

Obviously I couldn't lay it out before you and explain it efficiently using quotes from executives and notarized documents saying "Let's shit on America." However, I can present the implications to you. Actually, I already did ... but I guess that was overlooked. So here you go again (I'll add emphasis):
They paid a $50,000,000 settlement in Colorado for an off the clock class action suit. In Texas, it was $150,000,00. They faced lawsuits in 31 different states for wage and hour abuses.

You can always find one or two stores that have issues in an organization as large as Wal Mart,

One or two stores? I must have missed the news about these newfangled transcontinental establishments that span across 31 states.

No, but please point me to their problems that are rampant and widespread and endorsed by the executives.

What more do you want?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Soon as there is a monopoly, regardless of how it was formed, the monopoly itself is against capitalist ideals. Capitalism uses competition. When there is no competition it fails.

Some corporations have simply become way to powerful. A lot of times people have no choice but to go there. When someone like walmart comes in to the smaller town and runs all the mom and pops out of business... what other choice to they have? Drive 75 miles to the next town where walmart isn't yet?

They also have waaaay to much influence in the way our government operates when they get that powerful and have that much capital behind them.

A single company can exist as the sole proprieter of said good under a capitalist system as long as their prices remain low enough to ward off anyone else wanting to start a company. The competition, in that case, is invisible, but it's there. They are battling would-be entrepeneurs instead of active ones.

Customer still wins

EDIT: Let me say, however, that this can happen in America with the customer losing because the government throws its support with certain big businesses, CREATING a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, let's go start an oil company and see how far we get.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Soon as there is a monopoly, regardless of how it was formed, the monopoly itself is against capitalist ideals. Capitalism uses competition. When there is no competition it fails.

Some corporations have simply become way to powerful. A lot of times people have no choice but to go there. When someone like walmart comes in to the smaller town and runs all the mom and pops out of business... what other choice to they have? Drive 75 miles to the next town where walmart isn't yet?

That's actually a very good point. I lived in a small town in Arizona. I remember when they put the Wal-Mart in there. We shopped there a lot because their prices were lower. Eventually, the locals had to close up shop, and some people even packed up and moved.

Certainly, Wal-Mart wasn't doing anything illegal, but that's not the point. They were driving away competition and oligopolizing, or in that case monopolizing, an area. It's astonishing that people would actually praise their behavior. So what if they are within the law? That doesn't matter.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's actually a very good point. I lived in a small town in Arizona. I remember when they put the Wal-Mart in there. We shopped there a lot because their prices were lower. Eventually, the locals had to close up shop, and some people even packed up and moved.

Certainly, Wal-Mart wasn't doing anything illegal, but that's not the point. They were driving away competition and oligopolizing, or in that case monopolizing, an area. It's astonishing that people would actually praise their behavior. So what if they are within the law? That doesn't matter.

Are you afraid that once they've squeezed out all competition on the face of the Earth, their prices will sky-rocket? Or are you just pissed that people who were offering goods at a higher price couldn't compete?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Are you afraid that once they've squeezed out all competition on the face of the Earth, their prices will sky-rocket? Or are you just pissed that people who were offering goods at a higher price couldn't compete?

Their prices do sometimes go up once they have no competition, but they don't do that too often. I'm mostly just pissed because of the latter, and the way those goods and price points are obtained.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Their prices do sometimes go up once they have no competition, but they don't do that too often. I'm mostly just pissed because of the latter, and the way those goods and price points are obtained.

If you're afraid about prices, there's no need to be until we become far more socialist. As for the way they obtain goods and prices, what exactly are you talking about? I mean, I know you don't like how they use our current socialist healthcare (eventhough if we had actual universal healthcare, EVERY company would get their employees to use that)... so that's an issue with the gov't, not Wal-mart. I know you don't like how they receive subsidies, but again, that's the gov't, not Wal-Mart.

I mean, let's put blame where blame belongs here. Wal-Mart gets away with shit that it couldn't under a truely capitalist system, but since we don't have that, what do you expect?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you're afraid about prices, there's no need to be until we become far more socialist. As for the way they obtain goods and prices, what exactly are you talking about?

Pretty much every post I've made in this thread was in regards to just that.

I mean, I know you don't like how they use our current socialist healthcare (eventhough if we had actual universal healthcare, EVERY company would get their employees to use that)... so that's an issue with the gov't, not Wal-mart. I know you don't like how they receive subsidies, but again, that's the gov't, not Wal-Mart.

I also don't like how they abuse their overseas workers. I also don't like how they employ illegal immigrants. I also don't like that they threaten their employees with termination if they qualify for overtime rate of pay.

... to name a few that AREN'T the government's fault.

I mean, let's put blame where blame belongs here. Wal-Mart gets away with shit that it couldn't under a truely capitalist system, but since we don't have that, what do you expect?

Like I said, I'm in agreement with that. But I'm in favor of what's more practical. The socialist laws aren't going to go away. So I say fuckit, let's offset our fuckup with more socialism.

[Ardentfrost]

man, people gotta get off the anti-immigrant thing. It's just another thing that people love to point their finger at instead of actually seeing what caused the "problem" (if you can call it that) in the first place.

Anyway, that's another subject entirely.

Wal-Mart is far from the only company that threatens to terminate employees who get overtime. Hell, I almost got terminated a week that I got 2 hours of overtime back in '98 when I worked at Kroger (grocery store). Not letting employees get overtime is a business decision... if you don't like that, then appeal to the gov't about the time-and-a-half laws.

And abuse of the overseas workers... I mean, America is pretty sensitive to that stuff. Reebok and Nike both have been through shit like that and they try to either keep it under wraps or make sure it isn't happening. It is something that isn't illegal in the foreign country, so the only thing that can be done about it here is to infuriate the consumers. Though, honestly, I haven't seen anything about them abusing foreign workers or anything, so I guess, since that is a big gripe for you, that it hasn't been expressed enough to Americans.

So, anyway, the last one I'll give you, but isn't irrepairable naturally... the other two, however, are 100% them taking advantage of what the government is giving them: immigrants and overtime regulation.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well, which do you think is more practical: Explain to people the negativity that is associated with Wal-Mart, getting rid of welfare systems, privatizing all health care for Wal-Mart employees, denying subsidies for Wal-Mart to set up shop ... or just simply force Wal-Mart to adhere to a business model that negates the necessity of the former? Both accomplish the same thing, IMHO.

I would prefer to punish those with the problem.

If situations like this that highlight glaring problems with our socialist practices are handled by punishing companies like Walmart the American public will never face and solve these problems. It is vital to our national strength and security that we put ourselves on solid economic footing. Deflecting these glaring and growing problems and attatching bandaids does not accomplish this goal.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

man, people gotta get off the anti-immigrant thing. It's just another thing that people love to point their finger at instead of actually seeing what caused the "problem" (if you can call it that) in the first place.

Anyway, that's another subject entirely.

Wal-Mart is far from the only company that threatens to terminate employees who get overtime. Hell, I almost got terminated a week that I got 2 hours of overtime back in '98 when I worked at Kroger (grocery store). Not letting employees get overtime is a business decision... if you don't like that, then appeal to the gov't about the time-and-a-half laws.

And abuse of the overseas workers... I mean, America is pretty sensitive to that stuff. Reebok and Nike both have been through shit like that and they try to either keep it under wraps or make sure it isn't happening. It is something that isn't illegal in the foreign country, so the only thing that can be done about it here is to infuriate the consumers. Though, honestly, I haven't seen anything about them abusing foreign workers or anything, so I guess, since that is a big gripe for you, that it hasn't been expressed enough to Americans.

So, anyway, the last one I'll give you, but isn't irrepairable naturally... the other two, however, are 100% them taking advantage of what the government is giving them: immigrants and overtime regulation.

Actually, employers can have employees waive their right to receive overtime. Threatening termination is the employers fault, not the government. I refuse to place blame on the governments for a company breaking the law. Likewise, I refuse to place blame on the government when a company actively hires illegal immigrants to clean their