Wal mart fucks everyone over apparently

[Lao Tzu]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...896&e=9&u=/nm/20040218/us_nm/food_prices_dc_2


I knew walmart tried to destroy local competetion, and i remember an ex-union buster saying Wal Mart was the most anti union company he'd ever worked for but wal mart is even trying to fuck its suppliers over.

It will only be a matter of time before some major changes come to wal-mart, either labor changes, or public perception, or monopoly busting (maybe).

 

[the nature boy]

if you want to read an unbiased article about walmart, go ahead

http://fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html


I was torn between liking them and hating them. I do respect the way they operate though.

 

[atlantabiolab]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...896&e=9&u=/nm/20040218/us_nm/food_prices_dc_2


I knew walmart tried to destroy local competetion, and i remember an ex-union buster saying Wal Mart was the most anti union company he'd ever worked for but wal mart is even trying to fuck its suppliers over.

It will only be a matter of time before some major changes come to wal-mart, either labor changes, or public perception, or monopoly busting (maybe).

How is signing a contract with a company "fucking them over"? Did Wal Mart force them to sign? Did it lie to them? The suppliers have every right to reject Wal Mart's offer, but they chose not to.

Home Depot rejected a contract with the Federal Government on the grounds that it did not wish to be regulated by their terms. So, they forfeited the extra revenue to prevent from being dominated by a major buyer.

As for the monopoly idea, this is more semantics. While it is the largest chain, it is not the only chain. There are numerous chains that offer services similar as Wal Mart. It does not control the industry, it dominates it. To punish Wal Mart is no different than the Microsoft fiasco, which is to punish competition and success. The argument against monopolies is that they can manipulate prices to harm the consumers, which Wal Mart is not doing, in fact doing the very opposite; it is providing more to the consumers.

If you want to hate Wal Mart hate them for real reasons, such as its use of local politicians to steal private property, under the guise of eminent domain, to erect a new store. Providing affordable goods to the public is not a crime.

 

[big4life]

Actually, the consumer is screwing themselves over, with help from Walmart. We demand products at a low price, lower than US companies can provide from US based facilities. To meet our desire for low cost goods, companies ship these manufacturing jobs overseas to developing countries where the products can be made for pennies on the dollar campared to US made products. The corporations make money, the retailers make money, but the people who are suppose to buy the product no longer have jobs, so who is going to buy the product?

We are low balling ourselves into the unemployment line.

 

[Apöllo]

The only thing worse than doing business with Wal-Mart, is not doing business with Wal-Mart.

The market drives companies to sell at Wal-Mart.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Actually, the consumer is screwing themselves over, with help from Walmart. We demand products at a low price, lower than US companies can provide from US based facilities. To meet our desire for low cost goods, companies ship these manufacturing jobs overseas to developing countries where the products can be made for pennies on the dollar campared to US made products. The corporations make money, the retailers make money, but the people who are suppose to buy the product no longer have jobs, so who is going to buy the product?

We are low balling ourselves into the unemployment line.

I agree with that. In a way it sucks but industrial advancements and higher standards of living have always done that starting with the industrial revolution. I can't see anyway around it, people can't have both.

 

[JuicePimp]

Actually, the consumer is screwing themselves over, with help from Walmart. We demand products at a low price, lower than US companies can provide from US based facilities. To meet our desire for low cost goods, companies ship these manufacturing jobs overseas to developing countries where the products can be made for pennies on the dollar campared to US made products. The corporations make money, the retailers make money, but the people who are suppose to buy the product no longer have jobs, so who is going to buy the product?

We are low balling ourselves into the unemployment line.

Well this is 1/2 true, the US produced goods cost more because of things like the Unions, paying for endorements, labor laws, environmental regulations, insurance costs, and so on that other countries dont have to mess with.

Maybe if we didnt demand so much up front and wont so quick to sue when things went slightly wrong we would be better off.

Ultimately, the US producers will have to learn how to compete in the global market place or they will be replaced by others. They will have to figure out ways to differentiate themselves or cut costs. There is no way around this. Here's an idea - maybe the CEO and other executive officers could live off of $500,000 per year. Thats pretty darn good and then the compaines who are paying in the millions would have a ton of extra cash. The real problem is greed.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Actually, the consumer is screwing themselves over, with help from Walmart. We demand products at a low price, lower than US companies can provide from US based facilities. To meet our desire for low cost goods, companies ship these manufacturing jobs overseas to developing countries where the products can be made for pennies on the dollar campared to US made products. The corporations make money, the retailers make money, but the people who are suppose to buy the product no longer have jobs, so who is going to buy the product?

We are low balling ourselves into the unemployment line.

This is called a specious argument. It sounds right, but in reality it ain't. Our prices have dropped and our wages have increased over time, even with outsourcing and industry loss. Forcing us to exist off of US goods alone, would severly harm those on the bottom end of the economic scale, for they would be prevented from buying goods, which they would be able to buy if imported or outsourced at cheaper prices.

Moving jobs away that we cannot compete against frees up resources towards innovating new industries, which we and the world demands. There is no time in industrial society, where jobs were not destroyed and created. So, while some jobs are lost new jobs are created. Those who scream over this fact are those who are directly affected, as would be expected. But we as a whole should not be held hostage by their demands. They, as all people, must adapt to change. It hurts some, but such is life.

We are not being driven to mass unemployment.

 

[collegiateLifter]

ABL is right about this one.

As long as there are competitors like Costco and Target around, I'm all for Walmart

 

[Razorguns]

Wah wah wah.

When companies outsource their manuf. and labour to illegals and foreign countries -- they say it's THEIR right. And they want to keep profits to themselves.

When Walmart does things to increase their profits -- then they bitch and whine.

Ghee, foot on other foot huh?

I don't give a shit they can't raise prices. I want to pay the lowest i can. Go hire more Juans and Mendez's if your costs are too high.