Walmart - Good or Bad? (Union, Ohio: unemployment rate, bankruptcy, taxes)

[aragx6]

I definitely agree with you Lookout kid. At the end of the day Wal-Mart's business model is all about making money- they've done that in spades and other businesses follow that model because of that.

Burger King is the evilest of evil corporations. Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/op...=1&oref=slogin

Target drives me crazy as well. When I moved into my new apartment a couple years back I was at Target looking for one of those plastic shelving things for your Shampoo and stuff that you put in your shower. Target had purple ones and horizontal ones, ones that needed screws and glue and all manner of s**t and all were over $20. I sucked it up went to Wal-mart and found a simple white plastic one that fit easily and cost $11.

No place is perfect... I just find I always leave Wal-mart in a worse mood than when I got there. I don't like it; I don't go. Simple as that.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Drover

To insist that they be given equivalent wages to the industrialized world is to annihilate the only economic advantage they have over industrialized nations and to assure that they never make it to the first step.

I don't entirely disagree with you and your points are well stated, but I believe Americans have a responsibility to oversee the actions of U.S. companies- esp. U.S. companies who could do something about extreme poverty.

Sure it might be more money they've ever seen, but if it's not enough to live on then we're not doing enough.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I don't entirely disagree with you and your points are well stated, but I believe Americans have a responsibility to oversee the actions of U.S. companies- esp. U.S. companies who could do something about extreme poverty.

Sure it might be more money they've ever seen, but if it's not enough to live on then we're not doing enough.

That's a nice sentiment, but you need to be careful not to make perfect the enemy of good. The main reason people get paid $2 a day in non-industrialized countries is because that's all their productivity is worth. It does not make economic sense to insist they get paid more than their productivity is worth. Then industrialized nations simply won't invest their capital there at all; they will take it where their capital will actually buy its worth in productivity, and the people who had a chance to make $2 a day will make $0 a day instead.

Again, it's a process that takes time. Today they make $2 a day but as their productivity increases; next year it may be $2.50; a few years later, $5 or $10. And provided the country has a reasonably transparent and non-corrupt government that generally stays out of the way, eventually you get enough capital formation to have a true middle class. (See the example countries cited in my previous post.) But you can't start in the middle of the process.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Drover

Again, it's a process that takes time. Today they make $2 a day but as their productivity increases; next year it may be $2.50; a few years later, $5 or $10. And provided the country has a reasonably transparent and non-corrupt government that generally stays out of the way, eventually you get enough capital formation to have a true middle class. (See the example countries cited in my previous post.) But you can't start in the middle of the process.

This is why you are wrong: Why would Wal-Mart or Nike or anyone give pay raises to employees in countries such as that if no one makes them?

There are plenty of people waiting to fill those jobs, so why would a big company choose to give them $3 when no one will bat an eyelash if they only pay them $1? They wouldn't - which is precisely why wages in these areas are not increasing.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by aragx6

This is why you are wrong: Why would Wal-Mart or Nike or anyone give pay raises to employees in countries such as that if no one makes them?

There are plenty of people waiting to fill those jobs, so why would a big company choose to give them $3 when no one will bat an eyelash if they only pay them $1? They wouldn't - which is precisely why wages in these areas are not increasing.

Well I'm sorry, but the whole history of industrialization suggests that I'm not wrong. There is a market for productivity just as there is for any other commodity. It is the marketplace that forces Wal-Mart and Nike and everyone else to raise wages as increased productivity dictates. The world is rife with recently industrialized and presently industrializing nations that got their start by taking on crappy jobs for cheap wages. Where wages are not rising, it is usually because of government over-interference with market signals, not because Nike and Wal-Mart invested there.

[desibear]

Originally Posted by aragx6

By this theory we should just employ the unemployed here in the states with factory work and pay them $1/day. But that won't happen ever. Why? Because Americans wouldn't stand for it. Especially not when the big wigs are making millions a year.

Why then is it acceptable to do this to the extremely poor in other countries??

That makes no sense. US has one of the highest costs of living. So I don't see how the paying $1 argument fits in here. The reason it works "over there" is because of a lack of other opportunitites there and because the pay is better than the alternatives available.

[ck9]

desperation is the heart and soul of Mall- Wart. people in favor argue points like they employ the handicapped and elderly and thats fine but its not because they want to help these people its because they know that the handicapped, morbidly obese and elderly are largely unemployable and desparate employees are less likely to complain about wages working conditions or benifiets. people say they are creating employment and yes they do create jobs but theyre not jobs a person can live on, in fact when Mall-wart opened in my home town several other mom and pop type stores went out of buisness and were forced to lay off their employees that were able to live on good wages, many of whom now barely scrape by on wall mart wages and they work 39 hours a week so they dont have to pay them any benifits. hipocritical consumers are the fuel for wall mart, everyone supports the idea of made in america but in the end no body practices it ( im proud to say wall mart has never and will never recieve a single penny from me ) i am a union member and proud but i work with people that make extremely good wages and pound the table at work "ra ra ra union" but after work they drive to wallmart so the can save 50 cents on a package of shake and bake that the problem we are all the problem.

[desibear]

The union rhetoric usually misses the key point and in today's increasingly smaller world, it is the only point, IMO. It is what keeps us (you, me, the western civilization) in the highest of living standards compared to the rest of the world (them, 3rd world, sweatshops, et al). Drover alluded to as productivity. I will go even broader and say human capital. Those who have it, in terms of experience, reasoning ability, education, inventiveness, drive have nothing to worry about. Lack of human capital is why WalMart is employing the folks in the above post who are willing to work 39 hours with no bennies. Lack human capital is why sweatshops get paid $1 and not a penny more.

Rather than go 'ra ra union', work on increasing your human capital (get more education, get better experience, be more creative...none of this is new) so that you are no longer afraid that some folks, just by the act of shopping for their basic necessities at Wal-mart, put your livelihood in danger. Globalization is already here. Cheap labor is available everywhere outside of US, so either continue to work on your human capital or start eyeing the jobs at Wally-world. The choice, as it has always been, is yours.

[thompson84606]

Originally Posted by ck9

desperation is the heart and soul of Mall- Wart. people in favor argue points like they employ the handicapped and elderly and thats fine but its not because they want to help these people its because they know that the handicapped, morbidly obese and elderly are largely unemployable and desparate employees are less likely to complain about wages working conditions or benifiets. people say they are creating employment and yes they do create jobs but theyre not jobs a person can live on, in fact when Mall-wart opened in my home town several other mom and pop type stores went out of buisness and were forced to lay off their employees that were able to live on good wages, many of whom now barely scrape by on wall mart wages and they work 39 hours a week so they dont have to pay them any benifits. hipocritical consumers are the fuel for wall mart, everyone supports the idea of made in america but in the end no body practices it ( im proud to say wall mart has never and will never recieve a single penny from me ) i am a union member and proud but i work with people that make extremely good wages and pound the table at work "ra ra ra union" but after work they drive to wallmart so the can save 50 cents on a package of shake and bake that the problem we are all the problem.

If your store is anything like mine, which I'm sure it is, then you know that our courtesy clerks are often disabled and their top wage (in our area) is 7.25, base 6.50. So it's OK to exploit them in a grocery store as long as we pay people $20/hr to rotate tomatoes and throw 10lb bags of potatoes. Most mom and pop stores have terribly low wages, which is why they oppose raising the minimum wage in most states. They also often do not offer health insurance and rely on the state to sponsor that. You may save .50 on a package of shake and bake, but when you save .50-1.00 on every item in your cart you end up saving $300/mo on groceries, which is huge for those of us who make less than 30K/yr. I moved to Oregon a year ago to a union store, and even though I had been management making $12/hr in a non union store they told me that I could only start at 10/hr because of union regulations. I thought that despite the ridiculous cost of living in Oregon that I would be fine because at my store 10/hr was two steps(one year) to 13/hr. What a surprise I had when I saw the union wage scale and found that it would take me six years to reach the journeyman wage of 16/hr. Not only that but my insurance would be taken from me since I now had to go through the union and instead of six months to wait as a non union store I would have to wait a full year for health insurance. I couldn't let them screw me so after two months of not finding a job with wages that matched the cost of living I moved back to Utah. Back to my old wage even though I had left the company. Unions are so great, I know, but they encourage people to devote their lives to dead end jobs, that will never pay enough to live comfortably in their area. At least employees at Wal-Mart have a proper prospective of what life will be like. If that's what they choose, then it's because it's what was necessary at the time.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by desibear

That makes no sense. US has one of the highest costs of living. So I don't see how the paying $1 argument fits in here. The reason it works "over there" is because of a lack of other opportunitites there and because the pay is better than the alternatives available.

But in places like Michigan where there is an 8% unemployment rate, don't you think a corporation could come in an offer to pay 3 or 4 bucks and hour and get some response from the desperate? Sure- but the US won't let that happen. Why? Because it's completely unfair, breaks laws and takes advantage of the disadvantaged. But it's OK for American businesses to do that overseas?