Walmart a major problem (so my husband says)

[OceanBlue]

Can Walmart and other multinational corporations be the culprit of our economical woes. More and more jobs are going oversees which in turn has a negative impact on our economy. Could this be the reason our dollar is becoming devalued.

This is his opinion, I strongly disagree with him and thought you guys could better answer then I.

Please help!

 

[FrankRep]

Walmart - High Cost of Low Prices

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925


This will open your eyes to the danger and pure evilness of Walmart.

 

[ARealConservative]

walmart is a scapegoat for a flawed monetary policy.

 

[Tdcci]

Walmart wouldn't have as much influence if state and local governments didn't pay them to establish stores in their areas, under the guise that it will "create jobs".

 

[Edu]

walmart is a scapegoat for a flawed monetary policy.

It really does lead right back to the government, then the people.

We used to have tariffs on goods coming into this country to sort of even the playing field. Of course corporations didn't like that and lobbied etc... people didn't pay attention, and here you are.

It isn't really walmart's fault, they are just another greedy corporation and will do whatever they can within the law to compete.

One other thing is the creation of credit. The fed allows these big stores to be built due to the ability to create credit (money out of thin air). If it wasn't so easy to get credit for these big projects then ma and pa shops wouldn't be put out of business. It's a lot easier for walmart to get a loan that ma and pa.

That's probably because the math looks good to bankers when you can get things from china so easy. So it's actually back to the government and tariffs again.

 

[angelatc]

If Tdcci hates them, they must be OK!

I've never seen a government offer an incentive because it will create jobs, even though it does. The towns offer incentives because it will generate sales tax dollars. Liberals are supposed to love that.

Most people crab about Wal-Mart's low prices, but from the other side of the operation...if you're in business I would challenge you to find another vendor who will talk to you about carrying your products without charging you outrageous placement fees.

Also, the Wal-Mart buyers are scrutinized very closely, and as a result their buying practices are probably the most honest in the retail market today.

 

[FrankRep]

I encourage everyone to watch the video I posted.

 

[angelatc]

And I would encourage everybody to actually try to sell a new product in the retail market.

Levi's would be history if it wasn't for Wal-Mart.

Most retailers charge $10,000 per store, just for a slot on the shelf, everywhere but Wal-Mart. They just write purchase orders.

They can also tell you exactly how much their customers will pay for your product. If you can't figure out a way to get it sold for that, then Wal-Mart isn't the proper venue for you.

Wal-Mart is aggressive, but nobody said business was fair.

 

[Kludge]

Monopolies are NOT dangerous. Competition will virtually always challenge a monopoly if their prices are not low or quality isn't high.

Coercive monopolies ARE, however, coercive monopolies are the by-product of the mixed economy we currently entertain. They are the companies that get government benefits for the "Common Good".

 

[Hook]

Well, they are a problem here because they haven't put a store in my neighborhood yet.

 

[Hook]

Wal-mart just does things better than most others, so they get the business. This forces less efficient competitors out of business. The employees of the closed shops can then go on to do more productive things that customers are willing to pay for. So the end result is that the average productivity of the entire ecomony goes up, and therefore makes everyone more wealthy.

Over 90% of Americans worked on farms in the late 1800's and most of them lost their jobs when tractors replaced them. But you would be crazy to suggest that we would have a better economy now if we hadn't replaced all that labor with tractors. Now we only need 3% of the population to feed the rest, and the remainder are set free to provide some other good or service, raising the standard of living for everyone.

 

[born2drv]

Walmart is the one acting in a free market capitalistic society. They have high levels of efficiency and for the most part are winning. I have a lot of respect for Walmart and so should anyone who claims to be a free market capitalist. A free market capitalist who thrives is one who has strived for the highest productivity in their industry.

If you want someone to blame, blame the government for giving China an unfair trade status that gives them more or less an unfair advantage over the imports from other nations. Blame our monetary policy, our foreign policy for making enemies in Central/South America, etc. Blame socialist laws and unions, etc that shackle American businesses and prevent them from innovating and becoming more productive.

In short, blame the government for not providing a stable currency, for not deregulating and choking business, and not providing TRUE free markets which would take out all bias and benefit China and those who exploit China like Walmart, and level out the playing field for exporters from other nations and importers here.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Even Walmart is raising prices these days.

 

[Hook]

Anyway, the great thing about the free market is that if you don't like a business, you can always shop somewhere else. With the government, you don't get a choice because they can throw you in jail if you shop somewhere else.

Try telling the Feds that you want to buy a better deal for a retirement plan by diverting your SS taxes and puting them into an annuity, and see if they are happy with that.

 

[Dr.3D]

I'm not so happy with the way Walmart treats it's employees. Most I have talked to, have told me they only got to work for a maximum of 89 days. After that time, they were let go.

Now I have to ask, is there a 90 day law where if an employer doesn't keep you employed for at least 90 days, they don't have to provide for your unemployment compensation?

 

[AceNZ]

Can Walmart and other multinational corporations be the culprit of our economical woes.

No, large multinational corporation are not the cause of our economic problems. However, they will eventually be an important part of the cure: as the dollar is worth less, some manufacturers will be able to justify reestablishing factories in the US.

More and more jobs are going oversees which in turn has a negative impact on our economy.

True, but the loss of jobs is caused by things like:

-- Excessive taxes
-- High cost of labor (minimum wage, unions, etc)
-- Excessive regulation
-- Welfare ("it's better to be poor than to work")
-- Various forms of government interference

I don't understand the logic behind arguments that companies like Walmart cause jobs to move overseas. How is that supposed to happen?

Could this be the reason our dollar is becoming devalued.

The loss of jobs is only part of the reason the dollar is losing value. The bigger issues are inflation, artificially low interest rates, and the huge trade deficit. However, the lack of a strong manufacturing base will severely hamper the country's ability to recover from the current recession / depression. Wealth flows to production, and most of our production has been driven away.

 

[TulsaRevolution]

walmart is a scapegoat for a flawed monetary policy.

A scapegoat and a symptom of the sickness of our financial system.

If labor is cheap elsewhere, and politicians are willing to sign trade agreements that make it more profitable to use cheap overseas labor, of course a corporation that is in the business to make as much money as possible is going to exploit every advantage they can to do so more successfully than its competitors.

Perhaps it could be argued that Wal-mart has gotten large enough that it isn't simply exploiting advantages, but driving the policies. I'm not sure of that, but it has gotten damn large.

I'm not against most of what Wal-mart does as far as having a huge, all your needs in one place, superstore. They built it, the market wanted it. All that does is increase efficiency. The mom & pops go out of business. But did we really need 25 places in town to buy shoes? Instead of 25 shoe stores, people are getting everything they need in one place, a few specialty stores serve the niche and luxury markets, and the rest will move on to doing something else. The economy can evolve. Just because a bunch of shoe salesmen lost their job doesn't mean that the new more efficient US economy isn't creating NEW jobs in NEW sectors (like e-commerce, data systems, alternative energy, robotics, giant catapults, whatever the market calls for). If net jobs and productivity are LOST, it isn't wal-mart's fault, it is a complacent workforce that doesn't adapt and doesn't keep up with matching ingenuity. When America became the dominant economy in the world, it was because of productivity, efficiency, and ingenuity.

 

[WV Freedom Fighter]

I will not shop at Wal-Mart, and will continue to support the mom and pop shops.

As far as Wal-Mart creating jobs...Yes they created jobs, but in the process forced American Companies to move overseas in order to cut prices on production, so we lost alot of jobs. But, hey! you can go work for Wal-Mart for miminum wage. Please....

Lower prices came at a cost for the American people. I will not support them.

 

[ghemminger]

Walmart is evil - never let them check your reciepts

 

[AceNZ]

As far as Wal-Mart creating jobs...Yes they created jobs, but in the process forced American Companies to move overseas in order to cut prices on production, so we lost alot of jobs.

Exactly how did Walmart force American companies to move overseas?

When you say "force", that implies some form of coercion. It seems to me that the American companies were unable to compete with overseas suppliers, and so those companies voluntarily moved overseas.

Lower prices came at a cost for the American people. I will not support them.

Millions of Americans benefit from the lower prices that Walmart charges. American consumers have benefited tremendously.

So when you say that Walmart has cost the "American people" and that you won't support them, what you really mean is that you support and prefer the under-productive, over-priced retailers and manufacturers, that people shouldn't be rewarded for providing a superior product for a lower price, and that it's OK to penalize the majority when the economics of a few are damaged in the path of progress. Right?