Walmart vs Target vs K Mart question

[linicx]

Once upon a long time ago Walmart was very customer orientated. Once Sam died and DG too over the whole operation changed. The Made in America slogan disappeared forever and made in elsewhere appeared more frequently and in larger quantities. Some store managers donate to worthy community projects, but mostly the end game is for the Investor and name recognition. .

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I'm pretty sure they all blow. It's like Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Mussolini or something. I can respect Walmart the most because they've revolutionized big box efficiency and I think they can help people who really are that poor and desperate to shop there. I avoid all of these places, for what it's worth.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by ToriaT

A few comments, -- I agree Target is a nicer shopping experience. It seems Tar zhay has some discount snob appeal at least where I live and almost anyone will shop there. The Walmart store I go to infrequently is not dirty. There are more people of color there and others that are lower on the socio economic scale. Similar to the Aldi shopper where I also see a lot of senior citizens trying to stretch their dollar. I do see folks working at Walmart that might not find it easy to get another job and many also probably work part time. My guess is that prices there are really good but I have not done a comparison.

If you look at the price comparison, Walmart beats target on some things, Target beats Walmart on other things. On the whole, Walmart does NOT have lower prices.

Target Vs. Wal-Mart: Target Wins on Pricing, Barely, And Probably Not For Long

The problem with the part time workers at Walmart is that you are subsidizing their benefits with your tax dollars as many of them have to utilized food stamps to survive.

Walmart Is America’s First Welfare Queen Superstore | Addicting Info

[tiata]

I think it comes down to the experience. I have always had good experiences at Target, regardless of city. K-Mart varies quite a bit and whether they're partners or not, it seems closer to a Big Lots experience.

[udonsoup]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I'm pretty sure they all blow. It's like Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Mussolini or something. I can respect Walmart the most because they've revolutionized big box efficiency and I think they can help people who really are that poor and desperate to shop there. I avoid all of these places, for what it's worth.

Guess which store is Mussolini? I bet it starts with a K

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I'm pretty sure they all blow. It's like Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Mussolini or something. I can respect Walmart the most because they've revolutionized big box efficiency and I think they can help people who really are that poor and desperate to shop there. I avoid all of these places, for what it's worth.

Mussolini is definitely the most palatable of those three.

[It'sAutomatic]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Yeah, but part of the reason there are an increasing number of people poor and desperate enough to shop there is that they've also revolutionized low pay and no benefits. It's a double-edged sword.

It definitely sucks to work there, but I think it's their decision if they think having high turnover and overworked employees is good for their business. I kind of think that it's the employees' fault for working there honestly if it sucks that bad for them. They definitely couldn't treat their employees well and have low prices at the same time. I like the idea of paying people well but I couldn't afford the higher cost of goods that would inevitably come with it. It would be a challenge to even take a stand with one's money on this issue, because I'm pretty sure that with most stores and most goods, there are underpaid people or illegal immigrants being exploited at some point along the supply chain. Even in a union shop like Jewel, the newer employees get paid less than minimum wage after union dues are removed, and this is so Jewel can afford to pay their old-time union employees four times what new hires earn.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

It definitely sucks to work there, but I think it's their decision if they think having high turnover and overworked employees is good for their business. I kind of think that it's the employees' fault for working there honestly if it sucks that bad for them. They definitely couldn't treat their employees well and have low prices at the same time. I like the idea of paying people well but I couldn't afford the higher cost of goods that would inevitably come with it. It would be a challenge to even take a stand with one's money on this issue, because I'm pretty sure that with most stores and most goods, there are underpaid people or illegal immigrants being exploited at some point along the supply chain. Even in a union shop like Jewel, the newer employees get paid less than minimum wage after union dues are removed, and this is so Jewel can afford to pay their old-time union employees four times what new hires earn.

This is so twisted.

[ChiNaan]

This gives me hope for humanity:

Walmart's Employees Are Striking - Business Insider

Walmart Workers Strike Expands - Business Insider

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I kind of think that it's the employees' fault for working there honestly if it sucks that bad for them.

That would be logical if Wal-Mart was just one little crappy store somewhere. They're a massive employer, though, not to mention that their practices drive the employment practices of their competitors, their suppliers, their shipping, etc. They have the power to change how employees are paid and treated for the entire nation, and have done so.

When Henry Ford had a similar level of power, his theory was that by paying his many workers a decent wage, he was driving other employers to do the same, and helping to create a larger middle class, which meant more people could afford to buy his cars, which was ultimately a win for him.

Wal-Mart takes the opposite approach --by driving down everyone's wages they're able to produce products so cheap that the growing lower class they're helping to create can still afford to buy them. That would be fine if people only needed their wages to buy cheap plastic crap from China. Unfortunately people also need housing, education, and health care. The cost of those things aren't dropping to keep up with dropping wages. Those costs are ultimately subsidized by taxpayers (those of us still lucky enough to earn enough to pay taxes) in the form of medicaid, welfare, student loans/grants, government housing, etc. Oh, and China "helps," too, buy loaning us money to use to keep buying their products.