Walmart Kills More Businesses

TS
I don't have time to address all these so called 'myths' [I would say most if not all are straw man arguments].

The last 'myth' that WM destroys jobs ..... this is exactly what happens when industries mature and get better and more efficient at their economic task. Fewer people are needed. Automation. WM's large stores and volumes which enable lower prices are a direct result of the efficiencies enabled by the computer. I doubt you would be comfotable thinking of yourself as a Luddite ?

Before 1900, 90% of US workers were involved with production, distribution and delivery of food. Now it is about 10%. This is the very mark of success of an industry ... that the people are freed to do other things and not worry about necessities. The same thing will happen with all material goods in the next 50 years.
So this myth actually demonstrates WalMart's and the US's success.

As for these sweatshops ..... my wife's sister works in one and she is happy as a clam to have the alternative. She chooses it over her other options for many reasons and her pay level is about what a college grad gets here. No one twists her arm. Conditions are not that of a shiney office bldg in LA but they are clean and safe. But you would have her company leave because YOU see it as exploitation. But she doesn't. Why should you impose your values on her ?
Without globalization, her living standard would be much lower.

Finally, I do suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concepts of Joseph Shumpeter; namely 'creative destruction'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to what you say below, it is not a myth.

Sure! That's great! But that also means structural unemployment. And, eventually, we will all be unemployed. How are we going to structure a society where everyone or most people are unemployed?

Where is this sweatshop? Most of the ones I hear about were plain exploitation. Does she live in Indonesia, for example? Does she have a decent house? And food on the table?

Yeeaaaaahhhh....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baron,

I don't have time for this kind of behaviour. As I said, I don't need to do anything about Wal-mart. It's going to be gone naturally, if people want world peace. Or Walmart will simply change for better.

Do you have anything better to do other then trying to prove me wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TS
IMO, you are lucky Baron takes the time to offer you alternative ideas to consider.

If you seriously believe WM's existence threatens world peace, there is not much to say except that I hope you keep evaluating ideas in an open, honest and courageous manner. Maybe you will see things differently at some point.

As for your structural unemployment fears ........ same argument could have been made when agrieconomy moved to industrial economy. Massive UE did not happen. Why ? Service industry jobs become enabled.

It would appear you took too many science courses and skipped economics.

A final idea for you to ponder ...... in any library there are thousands of books. But I think many will agree that most are not worth reading. Maybe 1 in 100 are truly important enough to pick up. Same ratio applies to ideas .... speak as the many but think as the few.

 

How is it free enterprise....when store A has most of it's products made in nations that have legal protections for their citizens, workers, and children, and Store B gets the majority of it's products from nations where you have more or less slave labor, and any questioning of the system puts you in jail.

Free enterprise isn't free, when products from one nation are built by a Democracy, and products in the competing nations are built in Authoritarian regimes.

The TV's in question might all be made in Japan or Taiwain etc.....but the bulk of Wal-Mart Shelves come from China, and that allows them to do everything they do.

 

This is all more evidence that capitalism is of no continued necessity; unredeemed, shocking and bizarre.

 

You're mistaking an economic system (free enterprise) with various political systems ...one has little or nothing to do with the other.

Mixing politics and economic systems is a mistake ...somewhat like talking about apples and oranges.

Baron Max

 

Wow. This is truly a weird moment for me, considering I loathe the atmosphere of Wal-Mart, and only shop there as a last resort. The store closest to my home is generally dirty, poorly lit, and the shelves are often in disarray and poorly stocked.

I hate it when I drive through town after town where Wal-Mart has pulled out of their original location as an anchor tenant in a shopping center, only to re-locate across the road as a stand-alone Super-center, meanwhile leaving the satellite businesses in the old location to dry up and blow away. Often they retain the lease on the property to prevent the competition from occupying their old space. It creates blight on the landscape in the form of abandoned, decrepit commercial property in a once prime location.

But Wal-Mart is not the enemy. People are free to shop elsewhere.

I pose this question: If Globalization is wrong, then why are so many people in the developing world embracing the concept? How would wealth be disseminated from the wealthy nations of the world to the developing nations without globalization?

Without Globalization, there would be no Sciforums.

 

If fascism is wrong why were so many people following the fascist doctrine in western Europe.

Because people are easily manipulated and in this case nothing is more simple than to make people believe they need a 42" plasma TV. And that corporate profit for a few is good for all.

 

So are you comparing the people of China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico and Poland to the Germany and Italy of the 1930's and 40's? I'm not seeing the correlation.

With regards to the perceived need, I agree. A 42" plasma is hardly a necessity, but that's not really my question. I'm asking about the people outside of the West who are embracing globalism because it brings economic opportunity to their doorstep, that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Are they wrong for taking advantage of this opportunity, in order to raise their lot in life? Are you suggesting that the extremely repressive measures that kept India behind for so long, and have since been lifted, were more beneficial to Indians than the jobs they now have access to thanks to outsourcing?

 

You cannot grasp the concept that popularity doesn't guarantee that it is right?

As for the indian. We kept them down. Now we give them a tiny morsel. How enlightened for us. I didn't know we bought 42" TVs to help indians. I thought it was to fulfill our own selfish needs. I'm sure that pooring the money for a 42" tv straight into the development of a proper manufacturing infrastructure will do more good.

 

Baron they have everything to do with each other. If one large store is making it's money by profiting off of cheap goods from a country that has no real legal system to protect it's people or workers. And their stomping people whose main suppliers are westernized nations who respect rule of law.....wake up.

 

What is this "we" shit? If you're speaking for your country of origin, fine, but don't speak for anyone else. The U.S. didn't encourage India to ally itself with the Soviets during the 70's and 80's, adopting their ideas of a rigidly controlled, centrally planned economy, polluted with corruption and bribery. That was a choice made by the Indian leadership at that time.

When they finally came to their senses and opened the doors to their knowledge base, the West came in made tremendous commitments in terms of capital and infrastructure investments, which has led to a boom economy for almost every Asian country interested in participating. I guess you fail to see the irony in blaming the U.S. for everythinng wrong in the world, while simultaneously having a bleeding heart for what you perceive to be the victims of U.S. hegemony. Those same people for whom your heart bleeds are prospering because of Globalization, and outsourcing of work.

Spurious, I'm just certain you are too smart not to see the irony here.

You simply can't have it both ways. The U.S. is exporting work to Asia, and thereby the Asians benefit, and raise their standard of living. Somebody in the U.S. loses a job, but ten jobs may be gained in India. Just exactly how is that bad for anybody other than the worker in the U.S. who lost his job, and for whom I am certain you have no pity?

 

Nature evolved the ability to procreate long, long before it evolved higher intelligence.

Europe is senile. Let it die quietly in its sleep with whatever dignity is can still dream for itself.

 

WalMart uses array of tactics - some illegal - to prevent unions in stores.


I was wondering. Why can't Wal-Mart break the Unions?
It seems, using some arguments here, it will ultimately lead to a USA capitalistic utopia?
Also, why must Wal-Mart pay a minimum wage? Wouldn't it be better for Americans if we let market forces set miniumum wages? Why does Wal-Mart have to pay for medical? Why does Wal-Mart have to do anything other than sell stuff?

Also, wouldn't it also make the USA a utopia if we were to simply open up the boarders with central and south America and let immigrants do all of the manual labor or really any job at the cheapest amount of pay and with no worker-rights and no work-place safety? Simply let people work themselves for almost nothing and, hey, you get hurt you go bye bye and replace with someone new?

I mean - wouldn't this be what's best for capitalism and thus for American people?

Let the market, whatever that is, set the bar.

Also, why not let Wal-Mart sell drugs? We legalize LSD, Crack, Coke, etc.. and let the market run with it..

I mean if this all powerful Market is benevolent, and Capitalist Theologists seems to say so, it will all work out - won't it?

Just wondering,
Michael II

 

They already sell guns. Why not high explosives and armoured personel carriers! Maybe some small suitcase nukes.

I'm with you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are taking the idea to the extreme to discredit it.
This is fallacious reasoning and falls in to one of the standard 44 fallacies of logic; I forget which one exactly.

Few, if any, free market supporters are advocates of anarchy which is what you are describing.

 

Did you quote that? Because I'm going to........good stuff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It won't because the sources of goods are coming from places that don't have to play on the same ball field

Preach on brotha!!!! Preach on!! I couldn't agree more.

In theory they should have to to attract better employees.....but teh problem is people consider medical insurance to be a "right" as opposed to a "benefit".

Again Preach on....and that's true for all employers.....until Americas realzie insurance is a privilage and not a constitutional right we won't be competing with any of Wal Mart's suppliers.

No, because our constitution protects everyone equally in theory, wether or not they originated here....they can sue like the rest of us. Futhermore if you did this the only thing you would accomplish is making America as direlect and corrupt as Central and South America.....ultimately it would be nice to open up the borders more, but until Mexico, and central America gets it's act together, and lowers corruption and crime I'm not sure we want to import it's lack of ethics to the United States. That's not a slam on people from there, just their governments, I have met many hard working people daily from those countries who have moved here, and I love em, they make great neighbors and they work their tails off, they love America, and that's why they came.....they also interestingly are all ANTI illigal immigration even though some of them started that way....why? because they know all to well what following them, and what they were trying to get away from.

This is the problem with theory vs reality, in theory yes....but in reality this is not a neat little macro economic theory. There are certain things Americans require in our society.

1.) Rule of Law, And the protections that implies, under the constitution, to be able to live in a society that respects those laws, and protects people, and gives them a trial by jury.

2.) A clean society, one that is not full of polution, and waste, and shanty towns, full of dispair.

3.) Less corruption then is in Mexico City, or New Orleans.

It's not fair to simply say let us compete, and let the cheapest prices win, when our competitors are playing on a different level of field, and comepting with them would mean throwing out the above. It's more expensive to do business in America...you can get sued, and there is greater liability you can't simply pay off the local police and do whatever you want. Until these countries bring their own standards up to ours in respect to corruption, and social standards, it's not a fair competition....

Capitalists have never termed the market as "benevolent" at least not if they are actual capitalist as opposed to professors "teaching" about capitalism. Anyone who has ever owned a business knows how cruel and uncaring the market is. But then so is the world.....nature is also cruel and uncaring, and yet most of us have decided to live on this planet and in the universe as there is only one alternative.

Capitalism merely recognizes the forces in nature, and human society, and says look.....it is what it is, and this is the oldest natural system, survival of the fitest. It's not that it supposed to be "benevelent" but it recognizes that if you work against human nature you only tend to make things worse.

Socialism and communism said, "we don't like human nature" and therefore we will dictate a utopian ideal, and force it upon everyone equally. The problem is it forced human being to act against their selfish nature. People did as little as they had to do, to get by, there were no incentives for people who wanted to get ahead and compete. It ran against human nature and thus it failed miserably.

You're looking at this as the harshness of capitalism as opposed to perhaps the nice ideals of socialism.

As a capitalist I'm looking at this as reality vs utopian navel gazing.

it's in man's nature to compete, to be selfish, to get try and get ahead.
Only through capitalism can man's nature be harnessed to perhaps do some good as well as bad.......

It's like the old idea of "violence never solves anything" it sounds wonderful....doesn't it? To bad thousands of years of history show it to be a lie. Welcome to reality.

 

Well, I wonder, how much of the ideals of Capitalism are stunted because it's really a case of who you know, who you blow, you got to go down to go up and not so much the case of work ethic, brains and cleverness? For now, it's not too bad; but, as the Middle Class shrivels up - and more power is in the hands of the few - then I think the blowing and whoring will begin.

The truth is there is nothing so special about the USA or Americans. We're hard workers but really so are the Japanese, Chinese, etc... And we're not as interested in tertiary education as they are. Americans have been in a good time and in a great place. We've secured the World market with the USD - but that is soon about to change and as you. I'm sure know, when it no longer is the gold standard, then American life style must go down. It's artificially inflated. That will obviously be corrected by the Market.


Humans by our nature also always seem to end up being ruled by a bunch of Oligarchies. Then we get mad and kill them. Then things start over. History shows this to be the case over and over and over and over. It is the norm - for us Humans.

So? When do you think everyday Joe-Americans will begin killing the Heads of Corporate Oligarchies? History says it will happen and Human nature seems to demand it. And we know what happens when we go against human nature.... So? When?

Michael