What is less harmful to local economies, Amazon or Walmart? (wages, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
most of amazon's employee are in fulfilment. and they are global not just the usa they have centres everyone the 340k figure is global i believe the WA HQ has about 25k tech and dev employees. they pay well but have a very high churn or turnover. i know a bunch of folk who left due to culture and some who love it. but they do lose some real talent due to the culture at the company.
The husband and I are both in tech and are always being contacted by Amazon recruiters...but due to their culture, neither of us are interested. We make about the same in our current jobs without having to deal with that insane and ruthless work environment.
Neither is damaging to local economies. The choices consumers make in those economies is what dictates whether that economy does well or poorly. Walmart and Amazon sell products, and exactly nobody is forced or obligated to purchase from them. Ever.
What's interesting is that we had this exact same conversation in 1896 when Sears and Roebuck started their mail order catalog then again in 1925 when they opened their first department store.
The more things change the more they stay exactly the same.
Walmart gets more hate because of their treatment of employees. They have an almost totalitarian hatred of unions and don't pay their employees well. While the practice stopped (because they got caught) they used to hand out forms to their employees that told them how to sign up for welfare.
I don't think any genuine progressive has a terribly positive view of both (though likely not uncritically negative either), but Walmart has done more things that are obviously bad, whereas Amazon is largely amoral in that department. I don't think any progressive will deny that Amazon has eliminated many jobs, but they are still reading jobs and have contributed to useful innovation, which most progressives still view as being more good (and are generally more upset by public policy not following suit).
As to who is worse? Neither. Both result in large amounts of money leaving a local region and pouring into a central point elsewhere. Both can hurt jobs. Both likely depend on national scale delivery systems and products from around the world. I'm sure someone could do the math to give a definitive answer, but both do harm to local economies, probably in similar degrees.
Walmart has gotten a bad rap over the years, mostly by "progressives", but you rarely hear them complain about the huge online retailer Amazon. Why does Amazon get a pass from these people but Walmart is a topic of hate for many of them?
I seldom patronize either but am curious what you think about this.
Which of them do you think does more damage to local economies and why?
Both are terrible and engaged in race-to-the-bottom, economic centralization. This model will eventually cannibalize the entire middle class and turn the country into a caste system. The primary goal is simply labor arbitrage.
Walmart has gotten a bad rap over the years, mostly by "progressives", but you rarely hear them complain about the huge online retailer Amazon. Why does Amazon get a pass from these people but Walmart is a topic of hate for many of them?
I seldom patronize either but am curious what you think about this.
Which of them do you think does more damage to local economies and why?
I like both Amazon and Walmart. I'll gladly pay lower prices than deal with high priced mom and pop stores. Some of the worst service I've ever had was in Mom and Pop stores.
Neither is damaging to local economies. The choices consumers make in those economies is what dictates whether that economy does well or poorly. Walmart and Amazon sell products, and exactly nobody is forced or obligated to purchase from them. Ever.
The two companies certainly are damaging to local economies, particularly if local entrepreneurs are not responding by offering products that Wal-Mart and Amazon don't offer much of, such as used merchandise and restaurants. Both of them can't compete with Goodwill.
I said Walmart but only because their effects are local... if you go to regional, then Amazon is worse... with that said, you can save some money on CERTAIN products from either of them but like all monopolies, they tend to increase their price over time and you will lose more money over time... use them while they are cheap but abandon them as they get older... you can probably find better pricing on google shopping...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
