Wal-Mart Licks Its Wounds

Poor Wal-Mart, it just can’t seem to catch a break anymore. There they are, the monks of Bentonville-- who, according to company legend, share hotel rooms on business trips rather than drive up the price of pantyhose—toiling away to make the good life affordable to the impecunious masses. And what do they get? Nothing but grief. The Democrats are running against Wal-Mart in the fall Congressional elections, and not just the wild-eyed progressive ones. Centrist Hillary Clinton returned a $5000 donation from the company, citing its inadequate health benefits, and Joe Biden just attacked it because he doesn’t see “any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people.”

Then Andrew Young, the former civil rights leader-turned-Wal-Mart-flack, pulled a Mel Gibson, lashing out at the company’s small business, ethnic, competitors: “I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs, very few black people own these stores." Wal-Mart quickly distanced itself from the remark, as did Young himself. He stepped down from his Wal-Mart job, though he has not yet followed Mel’s example by seeking counseling from leading Korean fruit vendors.

The Young meltdown aside, Wal-Mart blames its troubles on the unions it has worked so hard to bar from its stores. They’re so touchy, those unions! They take offense just because the Wal-Mart orientation for new hires includes a 12 minute video on the evils of unions, portraying them as little better than extortionists. They get all bent out of shape every time a union sympathizer is fired by Wal-Mart on some trumped up charge like using profanity or being discourteous to customers. They jump up and down when Wal-Mart is caught making its associates work overtime for no pay, or locking them into the stores at night.

But the cruelest blow to Bentonville is a sudden decline in profits – down 26 percent in the second quarter of 06 – the first decline in 10 years. Wal-Mart blames, first, the failure of its attempted expansion into Germany, where apparently folks didn’t cotton to smiley faces and people greeters, and, second,  high gas prices in the U.S.A. According to the New York Times, Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott “hinted that those [gas] costs seemed to be prompting consumers to shop less frequently.” There’s one big advantage to the little Jewish, Korean or Arab-owned shop: Usually, you can walk to it.

The profit drop suggests a deep contradiction in Wal-Mart’s seemingly altruistic goal of bringing abundance to the American working class. According to Wal-Mart defenders, those low prices hinge, not only on improvements in productivity, but on the low wages and benefits offered to Wal-Mart’s workers. In other words, you’ve got to squeeze one part of the working class – the 1.3 million Wal-Mart employees – to fill the shopping carts of the others. How much the employees are squeezed is hard to determine: Wal-Mart claims to pay an average of $9.68 an hour, which doesn’t sound all that bad. But Wal-Mart has a record of falsifying data on employee hours to conceal unpaid overtime work, so why should we believe them about anything?

There were signs, even before the recent profit drop, that Wal-Mart was beginning to be priced out of the reach of its own employees. I was surprised, in my brief stint as a Wal-Mart associate, that our ladies’ wear was too costly for many of my co-workers. (In Nickel and Dimed, I told the story of a  $7 an hour associate who could not afford a $7 polo shirt of the kind we were required to wear.) If you earn $7, $8, or even $9 an hour, you’re not buying new clothes anyway; you’re going to Goodwill or consignment stores. As for the offerings of Wal-Mart’s Electronics and Lawn and Garden departments: For my co-workers, these weren’t even on the distant horizon.

Then there are Wal-Mart’s sagging Christmas sales. Christmas is of course a retailer’s defining moment, and in the last two years, Wal-Mart desperately slashed its  prices as the holiday approached. But both in 04 and 05, Wal-Mart’s Christmas take was disappointingly low (Target and Costco did better, as did the luxury stores like Nordstroms.) Who buys their Christmas presents at Wal-Mart? It’s the $7-10 an hour crowd that dreams of Christmas shopping at Wal-Mart, and for the last two years, there hasn’t been much under their trees.

Now of course Wal-Mart associates are not a special breed of celibates who have taken a vow of poverty. They are the spouses and live-in grown children of carpenters, home health aides, baggage-handlers and truck drivers. When Wal-Mart workers can’t afford health insurance or new school clothes, the whole working class begins to flail.

Furthermore, the Wal-Mart business model increasingly betrays what was once the operating principle of American capitalism, as explained by Henry Ford the First: You’ve got to pay your workers enough so that they can buy your product; that’s what keeps the system going. When the American majority can’t buy the very goods they manufacture or sell, that system is cruising for a bruising.

With their business model crashing down around them, the monks of Bentonville are already moving on to Plan B. Forget the working class, which was so ungrateful anyway, and move up-market. They’re redesigning their stores to be more appealing to the J. Crew and Whole Foods crowd. They’ve added organic foods and $2000 flat-screen TVs to their wares. The poor will have to fall back on those Jews, Koreans and Arabs.

Comments

[Rhea]

For folks who must shop at Walmart (either because everything else in the area has been put out of business, or because it is the 'only game' in town) there is a very enlightening article in the Co-op America magazine about ways you can do as well or better on Walmart prices. (Not sure if you can get the mag without joining up.)

[Stephen]

You speak of "speezing" employees to fill up shopping carts. How about squeezing Mr. Scott's $1.2m/year salary. Actually, 1.2 is actually pretty reasonable for a CEO of the world's largest retailer, how 'bout instead, we squeeze the $22m in bonuses that he made in 2004 (and probably every other year). Maybe thats where we should start to strengthen the grip!

[BlondebutBright]

As an American living in the Netherlands, I couldn't help but smile when I heard it wasn't "working out" for Walmart in Germany. In Holland, although chain stores abound, the tiny corner shops have a strong following and add a wonderful international flavor to the cities. I shudder imagining that even here, Walmart aspires to replace the entrepreneurial spirit of so many.

I loved Nickel and Dimed, by the way. I read it over Thanksgiving last year - really, a perfect time to be made more aware of the reality of the working poor. Keep up the great blogging.

[Terry Vermeylen]

Yes so right. Up here in Canada they made employees search for the bomb during a bomb scare. And the quality of products don't last anymore. Toasters lasted 20 years, now maybe a year or two. TV's are going out of style every two years.
The younger folk unwittingly give the consumer treadmill fodder by wanting cool over quality.

[syfr]

Here's the Co-op America issue (I think):
http://www.coopamerica.org/PDF/WalMartCAQ68.pdf

[Arrow]

In Michigan, where I grew up, there is a box store called Meijer (many may know it already, there are also stores in Ohio and Indiana). I worked there one summer during college, and earned over minimum wage (back in 1998), and I was also part of a union. In Michigan, even with it's failing economy, the Meijer's stores tend to chase out the Wal-Mart's because their goods are slightly higher quality, the prices aren't much different, and the work is better.
Just thought I'd mention that: there are working models of unionized box stores out there, and it's obvious they haven't fallen apart over the years. Hm.

[eddy]

**The younger folk unwittingly give the consumer treadmill fodder by wanting cool over quality**

Well said. Every 'new' gadget or gizmo or trend that comes out is aimed at the young for this reason. That's also the reason easy credit is offered to kids barely out of high school.

To be fair, parents could do more on this end, but in their defense, many of THEM are far too busy working 60 plus hour weeks to be there for the kids. And if they don't do the hours, their job is at risk. It's a Catch 22 from hell.

So the one-eyed babysitter teaches them how to think, and how to want. They have degreed courses in how to market to kids. It's a science. So you have teens who by any measure have it very well, complaining of being 'deprived'. Huh? No one bought ME a Corvette when I turned 16. STILL can't afford one in my supposed 'peak earning years'. That's the brainwashing in effect.

I have yet to buy an iPod, simply cuz I refuse to be a sheep. On the other hand, they 'update' it every six months or so, so no point anyway.

[lc2]

The sad thing is that by the time Wal-Mart finally takes a step forward wage and benefits-wise to balance out the hundred steps they've taken American workers backward, they will have priced the responsible, union or otherwise, retailers out of business. Sadly, big boxes like Meijer's or the one my husband works for are being forced to operate on Wal-Mart's terms, minus the locking-in and forced overtime bits, thankfully.

Though consciousness about the "low price everyday" trade-off is growing, there are now plenty of people who chuckle knowingly when the subject of their preferred shopping venue comes up, and then earnestly insist they're out of options. What people need to realize is that they made choices all along the way that eliminated those options -- from being absent at commercial zoning meetings when Wal-Mart came knocking in their town, to abandoning the local hardware store, to giving in to the lure of cheering up on a crappy day by walking out of there with 6 shopping bags for $50 -- when they went in for underwear [BTW, Barbara's right -- stuff like that that you actually need is not cheap].

Wal-Mart ruined a beautiful 175-year old downtown where I grew up in a matter of months, not years. The company, however, is only one of the culprits. Our culture of recreational shopping is out of control and we must assume some of the blame for having had the souls sucked out of our small towns.

I don't know about the Wal-Mart workers, but my husband makes more than twice their average hourly pay, and we can't afford back to school clothes this year -- at least not until Halloween. Hope it's a late Indian summer. Unless Wal-Mart starts discounting gas for our 10-year old (non-SUV) car or heating oil for our 800 sq. ft. house, I'm just hoping that the shopaholics who are Wal-Mart's bread and butter give generously to Goodwill over the next couple of weeks.

[WereBear]

Wal-Mart is an addiction and a scam.

I think it's an addiction because it pulls people in with false low prices. Yes, a lot of what WM sells is cheap. But many of their prices are not. Those big signs are about the lowest prices. But as long as you are there, you are buying stuff no better, and sometimes more expensive, than what you can get elsewhere. That's why they advertise, "Always low prices, always," because they had to stop saying "lowest." It wasn't true.

And that's where the scam comes in. People are so brainwashed they think the brand name jeans they buy cheaply are the same brand name jeans that are more expensive elsewhere. But they are not the same jeans. Manufacturers cut corners on their WM goods, to get to that magic price point where WM will take them. And so the clothes start looking ugly in a few months, the coffee maker stops working, and the victim goes back to WM!

Even when I stopped going to WM years ago, it was an easy decision to make. I didn't want to support them, true, but I have to admit they weren't supporting me. I didn't like what they had to offer, and in terms of variety, they decided what I would like.

From the stats, it seems more people might be realizing it.

[That Girl]

Im surprised no WM trolls have commented yet - there is a service for big-name companies.
It pays people to find blogs which mention their clients and make arguments for the client.
So if suddenly some unlinked person starts extolling the benefits of WM and capitalism here, my advice is, dont feed the professional troll.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

**Wal-Mart is an addiction and a scam.**

Couldn't agree more. Walmart has successfully engrained into American culture the notion that they are the cheapest retailer around. Consumers get locked into thinking that they have to go to WalMart because they can't afford anything else. This is false, and the consumer ends up paying in the long run, both by continuing to support the giant and by sacrificing quality that would ordinarily last them much longer.

[lc2]

All the consciousness-raising in the world won't bring back the family merchants or smaller, more responsible big box employers, space in landfills that are full of substandard WM merchandise (don't you just love seeing those blue plastic bags wrapped around trees in winter?), or a generation of people who knew something about assessing whether you really need something before you buy it.

Wal-Marts are relatively scarce where I live and are located right next to alternatives like Target, but I am told that in many places like the small town where I grew up, WM is the only game in town. There is zero consciousness about the choice to shop there, because there is no choice. A friend of mine talks gleefully about going in for motor oil and leaving with six pairs of $3 shorts on clearance that she didn't need but can give away to friends (huh?). I know she's not financially stupid and inherently materialistic. Instead, I believe that she is addicted. And like they say when you want to break an addiction, she cannot change her environment, because there are no other places to shop. It is a nasty, nasty habit that is increasingly difficult to break.

[A Canadian]

I have been boycotting Walmart for many years now. One day my son and I were shopping and I was tracked by an associate (who needed a lesson in being discreet) the whole time. I assume she thought I was shoplifting. When I went to the cash I asked to speak to the manager. When he came I asked him why this woman had been following me around the store (we were in there for at least an hour). He spoke to her and she denied following me (meanwhile she was hiding in the aisle next to the cash I was standing at). I told him that I didn't appreciate their intimidation tactics and that I would never shop there again. His response was (and I quote), "I don't give a shit whether you shop here or not!" Talk about outstanding customer service! I hate the place and will never, ever shop there. I don't care how low their prices are, I'd rather pay more somewhere else. P.S. The clothes I bought fell apart after three washings! Great quality!

[Patrick, Holland MA]

I have read some interesting comments about WalMart of late. Sadly, one of the posters above warns of anybody extolling the potential virtue of Walmart, calling them trolls. That is infortunate, for it dismisses a priori and rather anti-intellectually. Anyway, if intersted in diversity of opinion, check out this link lauding the accolades of WalMart for rescuing millions from poverty in China.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D
Peace

[Hattie]

Our local economy has proved resilient in the face of the Wal Mart onslaught. That's because by the standards of this place they are not cheap.

[Ryan M. Powell]

I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone hit the mark pretty well when "Wal-Mart" invaded their notorious cartoon town. Everyone in South Park believed "Wal-Mart" was bad for the town, but they kept shopping there anyway. They couldn't get enough "Wal-Mart," even after it turned their vibrant business district into a ghost town.

How many of you folks do the same thing?

If you do, you need to stop. By supporting Wal-Mart in ANY way, you support poverty. It's that simple.

No more "I tried not to shop there" excuses like I hear from my mom whenever I confront her about the recently acquired Wal-Mart bags in her house.

Like my mom, I try not to shop at Wal-Mart, except I succeed. It's easy. Step 1: I don't go there. Step 2: Hmmm, all I needed was Step 1.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Bobby Decker]

Read your new editorial on Wal Mart today{ Im one of your nickle and dimed readers,and your one of the people who I recorded and saved every time you appeared on C SPAN along with some of my other heros like Ralph Nader. Was reading your responses on Wal Mart and would like to comit on Meijers,I presently live in a small Kentucky town a few miles from the Lovisville Metro Line boundries, Im 7 miles from the Super wall Mart and allmost never go there Meijers is allmost twice the distance but I,ve found It to be less expensive plus they double and every month or two they triple coupons,unfortunly Kentucky is the only Southern state thier located in and then only the Louisville Metro Area {4} and the one in Florence Ky.across the ohio River from Cincinatti.Oh and one last quick comenterie on Wall Mart one morning when I coun,dt sleep the only times Id go there thier was a women around my age [49 Oct.] I was geting my cheapie breakfast in the Mc Donalds in the frount of the store and noticed her requsting to only order scrambeld eggs only off the menu I also obsur ved she had a Wal mart shoping bag with her containing a bananna a small bag of pitta bread I assume she purchased in the store to fill with the scrambeld eggs,the first thing that came to mind was your book {NICKEL AND DIMED}the sad part thier are two Americas THE NICKEL AND DIMED,WHATS THE MATER WITH KANSAS.And THE ZERO SUM SOCITY....that exists in David Brooks BO BOS IN PARIDISE AMERICA who feel compleatly comfortable with some louser working at Wal Mart and living in thier car so long as thier 16 year old gets to drive a new BMW convertable to High School.

[JP Merzetti]

Walmart truly is a canker on the tender part of America, what?
The itch that just hovers out of reach of the scratch.

Basic economics say that the extra "mad money" (otherwise known as disposable) that's all disappearing in order to keep old Betsy running - tumbles through the bottom fed troughs in strange and wonderful ways. Joe McJob sells less burgers (Kraft McCheese at home tonite, kids!) subsequently Joey Mack ain't shopping for cheap trinkets quite so much.

I'm the first one to admit a deep and abiding love for Main Street. I've courted many a bustling downtown in my time. Walkable, sociable, and subdivided into astounding array of smallish and family enterprise.
Walmart (and its attending brethren) killed that.
For that I have no forgiveness.

Hoots and hollers - Wally will now court the Michael Jordan wannabes and cheap pretenders - who still have more cash by far than Joe McJob can ever dream of.
We will please now enlarge the parking spaces for Hummers (dinosaur alley) and ramp up the gold display counter...spewing diamond encrusted everything!

Old crusy Henry F. did get it right - for all his strange ways. He understood a basic thing that has since gone south - all the way to Mexico and beyond.

Imagine Wally doubling salaries? (that's what Henry did.) No doubt the Rocky fellers blanched somewhat - but it proved a smart move, nonetheless.
Look what happened: Highways to heaven (but especially straight to Wal*Mart.)

The last time I checked - the late great middle class was still the largest demographic in the country.
Discounting the desperately poor, and the stinking rich, this is where much of what actually drives our sad economy resides.
They have been McJobbed silly and sideways....and I suspect they are now beginning to fight back with their wallets (unbeknownst to even their glorious selves) - it takes no particular political rhetoric at all, folks. Just a wee bit of attention to the ledger. When the house has been refried to death, there ain't no more cash left, no matter how hard you squeeze the pig.

While Wally's big "just in time" warehouse keeps on rolling down the line - the profit margins just float off to China.

Who the hell ever thought this was a good idea in the first place?

I suspect that what used to be the rather proud "Buy American" has now morphed into "Bye - American!"
(and only an American would even notice the subtle difference in the vernacular.)

[Rainshadow]

How many of you who posted here have shopped at Wal-Mart in the past 5 years? Enough said.

You get the impression from reading these things that they are offering something of value, but too bad they do it wrong. The food is no good, the stuff is not going to last a year, and the experience of being there is a step above (maybe) being in a parking garage.

We Americans are too much into THINGS. We collect them all our lives then spend the last 5 years of our lives trying to figure out how to redisburse it all.

P.S. I have been in one once, and they didn't have ANTHING in the store I would buy. Who needs this junk anyway?

[A Canadian]

J.P - Great post - very creative....

Where the heck is realpc? Conspicuously absent from this discussion.... :)

[Jan Chapman]

Could Walmart be deserting their base for more upscale customers? I guess that eliminates the standard Walmart apologia about providing cheap goods for the poor…

[fromthesubmergedtenth]

I think it shows rather shallow thinking to blame Walmart for what Congress did to our trade policies. NAFTA has made it possible for Walmart's present status.

It was President Clinton who ushered in NAFTA, assisted by "progressives" Democrats like loudmouthed Joe Biden, and John Kerry and Tom Harkin and many other Democrats. I think its so humorous and deceptive for congress members who voted for NAFTA to jump on the anti-Walmart bandwagon like Senator Joe Biden did in his roof top tirade against Walmart in Des Moines Iowa recently. Old Joe voted for NAFTA.

And before Walmart, the shopping centers all across the nation had pretty much wiped out the nostalgic Mom and Pop stores and had left many downtown areas to be like a ghostville.

Almost all retail stores are selling imported goods these days, even Dillards, and Younkers, and Tolbots, and you name them and you will find that they are mostly selling imports.

I doubt that wages and benefits at Walmarts are must different from other similar jobs at most retail stores. Retail low skill jobs have always brought low pay.

Jumping on Walmart misses the main bigger trade policy picture that has ruined US manufacturing.

[lc2]

submerged, I agree with you in almost every way ... particularly re Hillary (whom I try to cut a lot of slack b'c she's a sista, kwim?) jumping on the Anti-WM bandwagon. Give me a f-ing break! She was on its Board of Directors!

BUT, where you're wrong, very wrong, dangerously wrong, is in your assumption that all retail work is low-pay and no-benefit. My spouse makes almost twice the average WM salary and until leaving the union for mgt. ranks recently, had pre-paid health/dental/vision (as in no premiums charged to us per union negotiations), college tuition assistance, 13 weeks maternity leave at 80% pay, and a host of other benefits, including 5 weeks paid vacation. He did better financially and benefits-wise in the union for base pay, but would like to be in line for bonu$e$. Company is full of similarly loyal and productive employees.

It's worrisome to me that more people with progressive politics aren't aware of the huge range of pay and benefits in retail, the fastest growing sector of our economy.

[fromthesubmergedtenth]

1c2 -- Your husband may have had good pay in retail but I bet he was not working as a check out clerk or shelf stocker like **most** jobs at Walmart or Kmart or Target or non-owners working in little shops and kiosks in shopping centers.

I don't doubt that some high end retail stores are able to pay their sales staff well. But you have to compare similar jobs in order to be fair.

[eddy]

**We Americans are too much into THINGS. We collect them all our lives then spend the last 5 years of our lives trying to figure out how to redisburse it all.**

This sums up the beginning and end of the debate. If we did not allow ourselves to be brainwashed into consuming, places like Walmart could not be what they are. They'd still exist, but it would not be the devouring monster it is now.

From the time you are a wee one you are assaulted by advertising. The average young person sees over five years worth of commercials by the time they are 21 (assuming about four hours of TV a day). You think that doesn't carve a path in the brain?

And not even talking about the hidden advertising. Product placements in movies, videos and the like.

That being said, did you know WM charges outside truckers to have their trucks unloaded? You are bringing in THEIR stuff, and the driver has to PAY THEM to unload it. Little known fact about WM, and the truckers hate it, but companies keep doing business with them. It can cost anywhere from 60 - 200 bucks to unload, depending on what you are hauling in.

Keep in mind diesel is over 3.00 gallon now. Like these guys can afford it. There's drivers out there who have not been home in over a month, cuz they can't afford to stop the truck.

So that's another reason why their prices are so 'low'. The truckers are subsidizing WM. That's like you charging the UPS man to deliver a package to you. Exact same thing. Would UPS go for that?

[rdf]

Walmart has just put wage caps into effect. When you reach the top of your bracket you won't get another raise for life.

The Walton family owns 40% of the Walmart stock and thus collects 40% of the dividends. These have been increasing at a rate of 25% per year for the past several years. Thus their earnings are also rising by 25% per year.

Zero raise for the workers, 25% for the Waltons (who are already worth $70+ billion plus). And unlike Bill Gates or Warren Buffet their contributions to charity are minimal. They are the most miserly people in the country.

If you are interested in tracking Walmart issues please visit us at the independent Walmart specific web site:
TheWritingOnTheWal.net

All comments welcome.

[lc2]

Submerged,

It is comparable retail -- grocery, actually, and Wal-Mart is its biggest market threat at the moment as it opens up more supercenters that sell food. And until a couple of months ago, stocking (overnight mostly) is exactly what he was doing, for close to two decades. Granted he was full-time so we have family benefits, but part-time workers in that company have pre-paid single benefits (medical, dental, vision) and the 13 weeks maternity leave I mentioned. That's why so many people work there part-time at night, because their full-time jobs don't provide health insurance.

The biggest difference? You guessed it -- the union. It's the same one WM keeps having to pay fines to the NLRB over, when it fires employees who want to organize and get a vote.

When my husband went into mgt. recently, I was looking throught the stack of company literature he was given and noticed that in its corporate history/statement, his company talks about "being proud of its long relationship with its union." Wal-Mart is dragging good companies like this down with them. There is a much bigger variation in low-end retail than you think. Besides, what's the diff when WM is trying to go after the Williams Sonoma types now?

[lc2]

Barbara,

If you read this you might be interested to know that in my husband's company, employees are periodically made to watch anti-WM propaganda in which the CEO gravely pronounces it an "evil empire" and tells employees it's tantamount to infanticide of their firstborns to shop there.

I laughed my ass off when I heard this b'c it is so similar to the union-bashing video you had to watch in your WM orientation. Although I must say it's nice to see union and mgt. in such a united front. And of course you can't lose your job for talking to a WM representative during your dinner break either.

[JP Merzetti]

Really - Wal*Mart is just the glamorous poster child of de-industrialized America - the sexiest symbol and symptom of the disease / an historical opportunist par excellence.
Sam was shrewd enough to float his game plan through a half-dozen administrations.
People need to start somewhere when focusing in on what's happened to a McFranchised America - and Wal*Mart is not a bad place to start.
It really is just the tip of the iceberg - something so huge that the mind really needs to tackle a piece of the puzzle before contemplating the entire picture.
The point still remains the same. Enormous profits are systematically siphoned off while a quality of life goes down the tubes.
The damage done is real and measurable.
Either the standards we use to measure by and compare these changes show us what we have lost - or we throw in the towel and decide we just don't care enough anymore.
The patient may be languishing, but I think there's still a pretty strong pulse showing signs of life within the populace.
I dunno - it didn't take a whole lot of effort to dump a bunch of tea into Boston harbor...way back when.
Might be a bit of fun in store - trashing a bunch of cheap trinkets from China.

[trollumination]

I don't get the big deal about Wal-Mart or why everyone loves shopping there so much. I'm from Michigan and I always liked Meijers. Which, as has been previously mentioned, is at least unionized and isn't always getting busted for working people off the clock. And in a certain college town I lived in for a few years, jobs at Meijers were actually highly sought after. They paid better than the stupid small businesses that infested the town - no I have no love for quaint downtowns. Not if it's supposed to be an imitation of a "small European city" and you're supposed to live off of $4/loaf organic bread - hell with that! I'd go to Meijers.

So why does everyone like Wal-Mart? I'm out East now and there's nothing but Wal-Mart and it sucks. It's not open 24/7 and the selection is totally Soviet and the prices are not that great compared to Meijers, and if I buy anything cheap there it falls apart. I can't afford a $12 chair that breaks the first day, nor can I afford a $3 can opener that bends into twisted metal the third time I open a can with it. I'm poor and too poor to buy cheap crap that doesn't work. Why does everyone like Wal-Mart so much?

So I hate Wal-Mart but I have no love for cute little downtown stores either. I like Meijer's.

Why can't we have Meijer's out where I live? What if you want a bicycle and a jug of hydrochloric acid and a can of gunpowder and a pet rabbit and it's 4 in the morning, where are you gonna go?

[Gar Lipow]

My brother lives in rural Virginia. He shops at Walmart cause there the next nearest grocery store is about 15 miles further from his home. He knows exactly how bad Walmart his, but does not have a whole lot of other choices - especially since he has a bad back, and driving long distances is extremely painful for him.

[Ghost]

I work for wal-mart and I feel somehow...sullied. Where I live now, it's the only store. I'm from Philly and I'm used to corner stores. Mom and Pops. I much prefer to shop at a locally owned store than some giant retailer where the mistreat their employees.

[chris]

Ah Wal-Mart, today's favorite scape goat. What did Sears and its famous catalog do to local stores beginning in the late 1800s? Sears, aided and abetted by the US Post Office, relieving the company of the need to buy real estate and operate a store in every town it served.

Speaking of Henry Ford, how much damage did the arrival of his product do to Main Street. Suddenly driving to the big town was a breeze instead of a burden. Bye-bye Main Street. The interstate highway system helped that way too.

Fast-forward to today. Has anyone visited a Dell Store on Main Street? An Amazon Store? Wasn't the extraordinary excitement about the Internet based on the promise that it would relieve shoppers of paying for the bricks and mortar and employees of retail stores?

New York City has Fresh Direct, an Internet-based supermarket. No stores, just delivery trucks. Not too many employees.

New York City is also dotted with 99-cent stores, which sell a limited inventory of junk. No high wages, no healthcare, no advancement. Just selling low-quality products for more than they're worth.

WalMart would be a boon to NYC. Shoppers want it, co-opted politicians don't, until a WalMart arrives just outside city limits.

[eddy]

**What did Sears and its famous catalog do to local stores beginning in the late 1800s? Sears, aided and abetted by the US Post Office, relieving the company of the need to buy real estate and operate a store in every town it served.**

Chris, your basic assumption is sound, but what was different back then?:

1.We were primarily an agricultural economy

2.There were a lot less people here.

You are also misreading the impact of the motor car back then. Before that, horses were the primary mode of transport. Streets and roads were covered with droppings, and you could only go as far as Old Paint felt like going. Yes, the car destroyed the horse industry, but the benefits outweighed the losses.

That's the point. Back then, the benefits of a new biz model outweighed the costs. Not so today.

No one sat and did the math back then and figured out how many people we'd have now. No one planned for 200 million cars, because the population itself was a mere portion of that number. No one figured we'd breed like rabbits and suck up 25 percent of the world's resources with only 4 percent of world population. So it's unfair to 'blame Henry' for these things. No one gets pregnant from drinking bad tap water. It's a mutual act involved.

Having said that, yes there's benefits to the non brick and mortar approach. Only someone in complete denial would say otherwise. But it's a self defeating plan if your customers cannot buy your product. If people are not making enough to actually BUY what is sold, how you gonna sell it? Henry foresaw that. WM seems not to get that.

If WM actually paid a real living wage, they'd grow faster than they could count the money. Any first year business major knows what Ford figured out 100 years ago: your employees should be your best customers. This tells me there's another agenda in play, if this basic principle is actively avoided and discouraged.

Fact is, our economy is running on credit cards. If we paid cash for everything, it'd collapse before I finish typing this.

So when analyzing past trends, never forget context. It was a different time then, different economy, different paradigm, different expectations of the future. All that changed after WW2 when we emerged as the main western superpower, TV became common, along with mass advertising, and we became essentially a consumer society, as opposed to a manufacturing/agricultural one.

China is now becoming what we were in the immediate post WW2 era. Before that, it was mainly an agricultural/manufacturing society as well. The difference being, they understand growth is limited without resources like oil, and are planning ahead. Americans seem to not be able to think beyond 'what's in it for me TODAY?'. That will be our fatal undoing.

[eddy]

BTW, you DO know Sears primarily sold farm implements back then, right? The catalog approach was designed for the convenience of the FARMER. Being a rural economy, with few cars and fewer roads, it simply made sense to make things easier for the farmer to do his job.

The point being, they sold a SERVICE first, not the products themselves, so much.

Fast forward to now, the primary goal of WM is MAKE MONEY, whatever it takes to do so. Basically answering a question no one asked. No one is asking for 'good stuff cheap'. People are asking for a chance at a real middle class lifestyle with a decent wage.

[chris]

eddy,
Sears, like WalMart was and is in business to make money. Beyond giving the customer what he wants, there's no altruism in business. It's all about earning a profit, even if the profit is not large.

By the way, WalMart profits are very low -- net margin is around 3%-4%.

Moreover, there is no relevance to your claim that "it was different back then." While it's true when Sears was founded there were no TVs, radios, computers, cars, movies and many other products, Sears experimented with every product imaginable.

At one point Sears sold kit homes, some of which are still standing today.

As for what other items Sears peddled, well, you'd better look at a catalog from those days before you claim Sears was just hawking farm implements. Like Amazon today and WalMart, Sears sold anything and everything it had via its catalog. That includes women's clothes, jewelry, patent medicines and bicycles.

Meanwhile, you made my point about Henry Ford and the impact of cars. Based on your view, the horse-dealers, farriers and saddlemakers were in the same boat as a few of today's storeowners who chose to price their goods above WalMart.

Cars killed employment in the horse business. Trains, killed the stagecoach business leaving the stagecoach people unemployed. The telegraph killed the Pony Express, leaving all those riders with nothing to do.

The airline industry killed the passenger train industry, except in areas where commuters ride the train to work, and the demise of railroads caused such havoc for railroad employees that the US government established special pension rights for them.

What you and Barbara Ehrenreich fail to grasp is that change is the only constant. In the context of this discussion, Main Street has been under seige since the concept of Main Street was first dreamed up.

The idealized Main Street is a myth. Yet we seem to have developed poignant memories about it and a past that never really existed. These memories are usually tied to childhood.

I remember Joe the butcher in my hometown, and I can still name lots of shops and vaguely recall their owner/operators. Big deal. I'm reminded of my grandmother and joining her for a malted at the soda fountain in the drug store. All very touching.

Now people go to Barnes & Noble to read in coffee shop with family and friends. Or go to Ikea to eat Swedish meatballs and shop.

Why on Earth would you think WalMart is obliged to pay high wages for low-skill and no-skill jobs? No one else does?

I pumped gas while in high school. That job has almost entirely disappeared, however. Why? Because credit cards proliferated, and card readers at the gas pump allowed gas customers to handle the no-skill work of putting the gas in the car. While you complain about WalMart wages, I note that advancing technology eliminated a job that millions of kids once held.

Technology is doing the same to many supermarket jobs. Lots of inventory tasks are now handled electronically.

Technology has vastly reduced the number of phone operators too.

Better technology and better business practices will always result in the destruction of job categories.

Meanwhile about 5% of WalMart's products come from China. They seek suppliers all over the world, including in the US. WalMart does not bankrupt its suppliers. WalMart maintains strict controls on quality and pricing, but buys huge quantities from its chosen suppliers.

But if you think WalMart is a tough boss, you should check with the suppliers to the big auto-makers.

Take a course in economics. That might help.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"If WM actually paid a real living wage, they'd grow faster than they could count the money."

That's absolutely false. You cannot raise earnings by increasing expenses. This is doubly true when the jobs in question are no-skill and low-skill positions.

You wrote:
"Any first year business major knows what Ford figured out 100 years ago: your employees should be your best customers."

More nonsense. Employees always get an employee discount. Thus, as customers, they add almost nothing to the bottom line. Hence, they are lousy customers.

Meanwhile, few employees are ever huge boosters of their employers, unless they work in sales.

You surmised:
"This tells me there's another agenda in play, if this basic principle is actively avoided and discouraged."

What could that be? Losing money? Screwing customers?

[eddy]

**Sears, like WalMart was and is in business to make money. Beyond giving the customer what he wants, there's no altruism in business. It's all about earning a profit, even if the profit is not large.**

That's right. Earn a profit. But when profit becomes the supreme god of all, that's what causes problems. The Nazi's made a tidy profit on the teeth, hair, and personal effects of the millions they killed. By your reasoning you are saying that's okay? "Well, they made a profit". Screw the victims? It was the most efficient state in modern history(since you are talking about pure economics). Therefore musta been a good thing. Right?

That's exactly what you are defending. Granted, WM had not gone that far, but the spirit is the same.

So what if they only make 4 percent? that means what? What's 4 percent of 500 billion dollars? That's still a chunk o change. How much is enough, chris? When do the people DOING THE WORK get a cut of that?

You're sitting here defending this travesty and missing the point completely. WM makes a ton of money. The Walton family is consistently among the top ten richest Americans. Why does the average WM worker make less than 20k a year?

If we're going to call ourselves the greatest country in the world, we'd better live up to it. If that greatness is simply measured in how much profit our companies make, well so what? By that measure Saudi Arabia is the greatest country, innit? How much does the House of Saud make in oil revenues?

When we cease to be good, we will cease to be great. America has ceased to be good, and our greatness is fading. Because we get people like you defending what by all measures is inhumane, if not predatorily evil, just because it's making money for a FEW PEOPLE. What did Jesus say about the love of money? I don't think He changed his mind on that just because WE think it's okay, cuz it's 'The American Way'.

Having said all that, yes advances bring change. Change is good and bad, depending on which side of it one is on. But the fact remains the impact was different for the reasons I said. Also back then was more of a sense of civic obligation on the part of large companies like Sears. Now, that only comes by media and social pressure. You didn't have to 'guilt' people into doing what's right. That's no longer true.

It's not about nostalgia, profit, or the dynamics of change. It's about right and wrong. Or did that go down the tubes with our quality of life? What have we become when we actually have to sit here, in the 21st century, and have the same conversation we had back in Robber Baron days? Have we learned nothing? Shouldn't America be better than that, or are we really just lying to ourselves when we talk about how 'good' we are? You tell me.

[eddy]

**That's absolutely false. You cannot raise earnings by increasing expenses. This is doubly true when the jobs in question are no-skill and low-skill positions.**

Again, they are the largest retailer in the country. They make plenty of profit as it is. How much more do they need?

**More nonsense. Employees always get an employee discount. Thus, as customers, they add almost nothing to the bottom line. Hence, they are lousy customers.**

Maybe in the sense of pure profit, but what about volume? What about exposure of the product? What about the gain to the company when money paid out goes right back in?

Is profit the supreme god here? Or are there other things that are not always measured in pure dollars?

**You surmised:
"This tells me there's another agenda in play, if this basic principle is actively avoided and discouraged."

What could that be? Losing money? Screwing customers?**

The customers are already screwed, chris. They just really have no choice in some places.

Losing money? You're right. Making money is the be and end all of our existence. He who dies with the most toys wins. That's the only we reason we as a people and as a country exist. You're right. I just hope God sees it that way when we face Him.

You're a good Republican, my friend.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"That's right. Earn a profit. But when profit becomes the supreme god of all, that's what causes problems."

Crime is a problem. Running a lawful profitable business is a very good thing, even though you're a little to stupid to grasp this simple concept.

You wrote:
"The Nazi's made a tidy profit on the teeth, hair, and personal effects of the millions they killed. By your reasoning you are saying that's okay?"

You seem to be out of your mind. You are now comparing WalMart to Nazi Germany, suggesting WalMart murders millions and depends on outright slavery to survive. You're nuts.

You wrote:
""Well, they made a profit". Screw the victims? It was the most efficient state in modern history(since you are talking about pure economics)."

Look, your statements are so ignorant they're off the charts. You don't know enough to debate the time of day.

You wrote:
"That's exactly what you are defending. Granted, WM had not gone that far, but the spirit is the same."

Yeah, WalMart is run by murderous managers who want to kill Jews after enslaving them and forcing them to provide labor for the economy. You're an idiot.

[eddy]

**You seem to be out of your mind. You are now comparing WalMart to Nazi Germany, suggesting WalMart murders millions and depends on outright slavery to survive. You're nuts.**

And you obviously cannot READ. I said in the next paragraph that WM has not gone that far, but the spirit is the same.

Try reading the whole post before responding, and you won't taste so much toe, dude.

**Yeah, WalMart is run by murderous managers who want to kill Jews after enslaving them and forcing them to provide labor for the economy. You're an idiot.**

Who said Jews? I didn't mention Jews. Who mentioned Jews?

If you knew your history as well as you know how to preach the gospel of profit, you'd know Germany went from hyperinflation in the late 20's to the most powerful war machine on the continent by 1938. Largely using slave labor.

A multi-billion dollar company whose FULL TIME employees largely qualify for state assistance is basically doing the same thing. It's slave labor, but we cannot call it that. In China and Bangladesh, it is slave labor, where they work 12-14 hour days for cents, to make stuff for WM.

I may be an idiot, but I know my history, and I know right from wrong. A concept you do not seem to grasp as well as you do WM's business model. If having conscience and a sense of basic morality is idiotic, then I should we'd all be idiots. The country won't survive being full of such wise folk as you.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"If we're going to call ourselves the greatest country in the world, we'd better live up to it. If that greatness is simply measured in how much profit our companies make, well so what? By that measure Saudi Arabia is the greatest country, innit? How much does the House of Saud make in oil revenues?"

The answer to your moronic and irrelevant question is this: Saudi Arabian oil revenue will probably hit close to $200 billion this year -- less than WalMart's top line, but virtually all of it is profit. In other words, a profit margin of probably over 90%, which is quite a bit higher than WalMart's 3%-4%.

I don't think Saudi Arabia is anyone's idea of paradise, unless one is a member of the Saudi royal family.

Meanwhile, WalMart pays a dividend which is given to all stockholders and it provides jobs to over a million people.

I suppose the company could restructure and cut its number of employess by half and boost wages of some people, but that would leave over 500,000 people without jobs. Based on your ridiculous views on economics, this is a good idea.

That aside, you're one of those nuts who believe it's a company's business to lose money rather than make a buck. You should be quite happy with GM's performance over the last couple of years and you can look forward to more losses. In addition to net losses on the income statement, you can look forward to job losses as the company scales back production. Ford is doing the same.

It must be news to you that companies losing money have to fire employees when they're no longer capable of paying them.

As for your other rantings about the past, well, all I can say is you have absolutely no grasp of facts. You probably heard all that crap from your grandmother.

[eddy]

**Crime is a problem. Running a lawful profitable business is a very good thing, even though you're a little to stupid to grasp this simple concept.**

That's right, and isn't it funny that crime becomes more rampant when people resort to desperation to survive? Keeping people poor is a main cause of crime. When you have to break the law just to survive, what do you expect? If you want to create a monster, don't be surprised when it turns on you.

Second, WM has been fined several times on various labor, environmental, discrimination, and zoning issues. So what 'lawful business' are you referring to, chris? WM routinely breaks the law, they just happen to get caught.

Please tell me you are NOT this naive and cynical. You really believe the tripe you are trying to push on me?

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"That's right, and isn't it funny that crime becomes more rampant when people resort to desperation to survive?"

That means when WalMart creates a job it is really creating a desperado. But, to extend your logic, if WalMart created half as many jobs, it would only create half as many desperados. And it the company created NO jobs it would create no desperados. Compelling logic on your part.

You wrote:
"Keeping people poor is a main cause of crime."

Having a job does not cause poverty. If it did, we'd all stop working and take up lives of idleness and safety.

You wrote:
"When you have to break the law just to survive, what do you expect?"

You're arguing WalMart causes crime. You're really a dummy.

By the way, WalMart, like every company in the US has been sued for one thing or another. The fines and other compensation WalMart has paid to some aggrieved employees totals very little because the company's misdeeds are relatively minor.

I guess you're a fan of cigarette companies, however, because they pay enormous sums to remain in business. In fact, every state in the union now counts on the annual payments from the cigarette companies.

[eddy]

**Meanwhile, WalMart pays a dividend which is given to all stockholders**

SO FREAKING WHAT? What benefit is that to the 8.50/hr employees? Do they console themselves on mac and cheese night that WM paid a dividend this quarter?

**and it provides jobs to over a million people.

Yah, what kinds of jobs? So the plebes should be grateful that massah has given them a job? Even though most of the non-managers qualify for WIC, secton 8, Medicaid, and other public assistance because they are paid so LOW?

As someone who seems to trumpet loudly about the virtue of free-enterprise and keeping govt out of it, it should offend you that WM uses the very same govt as an impromptu health care plan for it's own workers. You're contradicting yourself, chris.

**I suppose the company could restructure and cut its number of employess by half and boost wages of some people, but that would leave over 500,000 people without jobs. Based on your ridiculous views on economics, this is a good idea.

OR, they could take some of that precious PROFIT, and give a little more so their employees can have a LIVING WAGE.

Dude, you act like WM will go under tomorrow if they paid their people just TWO more dollars an hour. At 1.7 million employees that's 3.4 million an hour. Their net income was 11.6 BILLION this year.

You gonna tell me they can't afford that?

If your business model requires paying slave wages to succeed, then your model sucks. Period.

**That aside, you're one of those nuts who believe it's a company's business to lose money rather than make a buck.

No one said anything about losing money, but you're one of those nuts that believes anything that increases the bottom line is inherently good, regardless of the human cost. Which nut is worse?

You're a predator, chris. You are actually going to sit here on a public blog and defend manufactured poverty in the name of profit. In your world, profit is god. People are just tools to reach that end. The plebes should be happy massah lets them work for him, right?

It's the same BS the plantation owners used to justify slavery. "Be glad you allowed to work, boy."

And I know I'm hitting home cuz you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and personal digs. That means you know what you are defending is wrong. Maybe there's hope for you.

Try being a freaking human being instead of a walking cash register. Take that profit and buy a soul. You need it.

[eddy]

**That means when WalMart creates a job it is really creating a desperado. But, to extend your logic, if WalMart created half as many jobs, it would only create half as many desperados. And it the company created NO jobs it would create no desperados. Compelling logic on your part.

Huh? Wha? Dude are you even READING the posts or just keeping your fingers busy?

And farther down in your post you actually DEFEND corporate crime.

So, your logic:

Corporate crime = minor
Individual crime = major

That about right? If WM does it, and pays a fine, it's no biggie. But if one of their employees sells dope on the side to make enough to pay their bills, throw them under the jail?

You can't even keep your OWN logic straight. Don't you DARE criticize mine.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"And I know I'm hitting home cuz you are resorting to ad hominem attacks and personal digs."

You're wrong. I really think you're just stupid.

Here's a few facts and figures for you. For the latest full year Walmart reported revenue of $315 billion.

The cost of the inventory was $240 billion, leaving a gross profit of $75 billion.

Wages and salaries were $57 billion.

Interest expense was $1 billion.

Pretax income was $17 billion.

Income taxes were $6 billion.

That leaves $11 billion for net after-tax profits.

From that, almost $3 billion was distributed as dividends to stockholders.

That leaves $8 billion. Do you think that $8 billion is in someone's pocket? Or sitting in a bank account?

It's not. The company spent $15 billion on capital expenditures -- that's building new stores, remodelling older ones, buying and replacing equipment -- but it's mainly the money spent to build the business.

While you may not care about any of these facts, they are vitally important.

If the company were to regualrly break even or earn a marginal profit, it's stock price would decline and its borrowing costs would rise. It's pricing power would decline and all in all, the company would contract, leading to a reduction in its headcount.

If it were unionize, the headcount would decline. And many of the very people who take the jobs WalMart offers would be barred from working there by the fact that a union would control the terms of employment. While unionized employees might earn higher wages, the overall payroll of WalMart would decrease.

There are many discount retailers that have failed in recent years. Ames, Bradlees, Caldors, KMart and many more whose names I can't recall at the moment. With the exception of KMart, they all closed their doors and fired everyone.

Apparently in your world employers simply command profits and that's all there is to it. But things don't work that way and you can be sure that WalMart will find itself knocked out of the top spot for retailers sometime in the next 25 years.

Anyway, what's your idea of a fair profit?

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"Corporate crime = minor
Individual crime = major"
and
"That about right? If WM does it, and pays a fine, it's no biggie. But if one of their employees sells dope on the side to make enough to pay their bills, throw them under the jail?"

Do you have any basis for claiming WalMart employees moonlight as drug dealers?

Frankly, you know you're full of crap and manufacturing nonsense because you think it develops your arguments. But it doesn't.

Where I live, which is Brooklyn, NY, drug dealers don't work part-time jobs at the deli. They deal pretty intensively.

Oddly, there's no WalMart in New York City that causes them to deal drugs as a result of working for the big retailer. Moreover, New York City is heavily unionized. Yet drug dealing is a huge problem. But there's no WalMart on which to blame the drug-dealing problem.

I suppose the city should permit WalMart to open a facility here and then we'd have no problem identifying the root cause of our local drug problem.

Meanwhile, the convenience store near my house employs an illegal alien who works there about 12 hours a day for a low wage and no health benefits. Yet despite his low wage, I still pay high prices for goods at the convenience store. I guess the Korean proprietors are stinking rich.

[chris]

eddy, are you capable of identifying the misdemeanors for which WalMart has paid fines?

I think you can't.

[eddy]

***If it were unionize, the headcount would decline. And many of the very people who take the jobs WalMart offers would be barred from working there by the fact that a union would control the terms of employment. While unionized employees might earn higher wages, the overall payroll of WalMart would decrease.

Oh, I'm bout to bust out crying. Poor WM. It's so haaaard to make a buck innit?

So this is why in the pre-WM era, companies with unions not only made a decent profit, but the people that worked for them also made a decent living, and for a long time we were the envy of the free world? Everybody won, unless you were just a loser who didn't want to work.

Those bad bad unions that just sucked the life out of GM and Ford, which until recently, were the largest automakers on the planet, both in volume and net profit.

Now eclipsed by Toyota, for one, who not only makes good product, but pays it's people well on top of it. Being an economics guru, you'd know that the profit margin in the car biz is also 4-5 percent, but they manage to survive, huh? Go figure.

FYI--GM and Ford sunk all their capital into SUV's, and with gas going at 3.00 and up, people are not buying them. Same mistake they made in the 70's, when they were buried in big cars and the Japanese were ready with small, high quality cars when the gas crisis hit.

It had nothing to do with what they paid their workers. It had to do with putting too many eggs in one basket. That's not the union's fault.

You obviously DO think I'm stupid. But whatever. My self esteem is not tied to what some moron on a blog thinks of me. I'm here you're there.

All I'm hearing from you is profit profit profit. I'm sure anyone reading this can see it as well. The question is not "what is a fair profit?". The question is, "why does their business model require slave wages to be successful?" You actually want me to feel bad for a family that has more money than many countries?

I'm done with you dude. I made my point, and this debate is there for all to see. I won't convert you, and you damn sure won't convert me, no matter how many financial statements you recite. But we can all see where you heart is, and it's people like you that are the problem.

Rest assured, when the plebes finally get fed up, such people will be the first against the wall. History bears this out. Only a matter of time. Spend the money quickly, chris. People will only stand for so much, then the guns come out.

[eddy]

**eddy, are you capable of identifying the misdemeanors for which WalMart has paid fines?

I think you can't.**

Don't need to. That's why Google exists. Do your own homework, chris.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"Rest assured, when the plebes finally get fed up, such people will be the first against the wall. History bears this out."

Really? When?

You wrote:
"Only a matter of time. Spend the money quickly, chris. People will only stand for so much, then the guns come out."

Really? And how would shooting people improve wages?

You wrote:

"FYI--GM and Ford sunk all their capital into SUV's, and with gas going at 3.00 and up, people are not buying them. Same mistake they made in the 70's, when they were buried in big cars and the Japanese were ready with small, high quality cars when the gas crisis hit."

The US auto industry is loaded with failed manufacturers. The list of bankrupted car companies is very long. GM was formed from a collection of bankrupt companies in the 1920s.

The fact that carmakers aren't nimble enough to switch from building SUVs to gas-sipping go-karts isn't news. It's also interesting that you and others seem to think SUVs guzzle gas. Many get very good mileage.

It's also notable that when it comes to cars you are quick to point out the failings of management. But you can't grasp the simple fact that the number of members in the United Auto Workers Union is declining rapidly because auto jobs are disappearing. The jobs are disappearing because high union wages induce the carmakers to add more robots to assembly lines and outsource more work.

Thus, the UAW and its high wages have not preserved any jobs at Ford or GM. In fact, they will hasten the arrival of the end-game faced by both companies.

On the other hand, Saturn -- a GM subsidiary -- has always made small high-mileage cars. But that market segment isn't big enough to employ all of America's auto-workers.

Meanwhile, what preserved the strength of the US auto industry was having two oceans bestriding the country, making it rather difficult for foreign manufacturers to get their cars into the US. But they did, eventually. And then they built factories here.

Toyota, by the way, pays US workers quite a bit less than wages earned by those who still have jobs at GM.

By the way, you seem to think it's good for the economy if a small number of people extract an artificially high wage from a shrinking employer rather than a larger number of workers collecting a market-driven wage from a growing employer.

YOu will flunk Economics 101 based on that alone.

[eddy]

**YOu will flunk Economics 101 based on that alone.

Good thing I'm not taking it then, huh? YOU flunk Basic Humanity 2006, dude. Bite me.

**"Rest assured, when the plebes finally get fed up, such people will be the first against the wall. History bears this out."

Really? When? **

When people have finally had enough of being exploited, lied to, and told they have to stay poor so the rich can stay rich.

French Revolution, American Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, ad nauseum. All started as a reaction against real or perceived exploitation by the ruling classes. "Let them eat cake" Remember that?

You are saying, in a roundabout way, let them eat cake. They will say, no, you eat lead. I still believe in the America people, if not it's govt or corporations. They have heart, which is way more than than you have. Revolutions aren't always good, but they tend to be decisive. That's really all that matters.

**The US auto industry is loaded with failed manufacturers. The list of bankrupted car companies is very long. GM was formed from a collection of bankrupt companies in the 1920s.

No. Alfred P Sloan actually started it with some very GOOD companies. GM's biz model was 'a car for every purse and purpose'. The idea being that a man would start with Chevy, and move up to Cadillac/Lasalle, thus cementing a lifetime customer. Very smart at the time, when the US auto industry was the most diverse in the world. At one time we had over 500 carmakers, many small proprietary firms. Too saturated a market.

**The fact that carmakers aren't nimble enough to switch from building SUVs to gas-sipping go-karts isn't news. It's also interesting that you and others seem to think SUVs guzzle gas. Many get very good mileage.

Not the point. The point is public PERCEPTION. Fact is, regardless of whether they get comparable mileage, SUV's are PERCEIVED as gas guzzlers. Plus many are too much vehicle for a lot of people, and they routinely have huge gas tanks, which are expensive to fill.

Never mind many are already buried in their cars as it is, and the last thing they want is to buy something BIGGER. You are so freaking out of touch, you have NO idea what the man on the street is thinking. May that be your undoing.

***On the other hand, Saturn -- a GM subsidiary -- has always made small high-mileage cars. But that market segment isn't big enough to employ all of America's auto-workers

Funny, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda seem to have no problem, do they? Maybe if Saturn made APPEALING small cars, they'd tip the balance. How many people shop Saturn and go with Honda? Seems to be enough room for everybody, to me.

**Toyota, by the way, pays US workers quite a bit less than wages earned by those who still have jobs at GM.

Not the point. Even so, Toyota still pays a living wage. WM does not. Congratulations on completely missing the point yet again.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"When people have finally had enough of being exploited, lied to, and told they have to stay poor so the rich can stay rich."

You're another nitwit who thinks there's a fixed amount of money in the economy and it's controlled by a handful of people.

That's a ridiculous assumption since the fortunes in this country rise and fall very rapidly. Bill Gates was a man with very little 20 years ago.

You wrote:
"French Revolution, American Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, ad nauseum. All started as a reaction against real or perceived exploitation by the ruling classes."

As far as your list of revolutions go, I can only say you have no concept of what they were about. The American Revolution had nothing to do with wages. And as far as the Russian Revolution goes, well, that only led to the deaths of an estimated 50 million people -- in the Soviet Union -- after the communists gained control. So, I guess mass murder is good in your mind.

The French Revolution comes closest to matching your belief that wages were a driving force. But frankly, the oppressiveness of the monarchy and the Catholic Church were key issues.

WalMart isn't the government, doesn't levy taxes, can't force the general public to shop in its facilities. All it does is sell decent products at low prices and employ over a million people who are free to leave for higher paying jobs at any time.

Not exactly the basis for a revolution.

You wrote:
"Alfred P Sloan actually started it with some very GOOD companies."

Guess again.

[eddy]

**You're another nitwit who thinks there's a fixed amount of money in the economy and it's controlled by a handful of people.

Now where is THIS coming from? Are you just trying to display your knowledge? You have yet to address any of the issues I bring up. Just spouting your textbook economic BS to save face cuz you completely ignored the original issue...

Which was....

WHY DOES WM'S BIZ MODEL REQUIRE SLAVE WAGES TO SUCCEED?

You're just trying to get me off on a tangent, and not falling for it. You lost, chris. Barbara E's bloggers are not stupid.

**As far as your list of revolutions go, I can only say you have no concept of what they were about. The American Revolution had nothing to do with wages.**

Who the f*** said it did? It was over unfair taxation and lack of a voice in Parliament, as well as other things.

**And as far as the Russian Revolution goes, well, that only led to the deaths of an estimated 50 million people -- in the Soviet Union -- after the communists gained control. So, I guess mass murder is good in your mind.**

Again, who said that? Check your history again. It was rebellion against the czarist regime, a hereditary ruling class that had been in power for centuries.

BTW--you are talking about Stalin's purges, well after the original revolution itself.

No one said mass murder is good. But the way you been talking, it's almost laughable you actually seem to *care* about whether anyone lives or dies. No one is fooled. This is just rhetoric to keep from addressing the original issue...

which was....

WHY DOES WM'S BIZ MODEL REQUIRE SLAVE WAGES TO SUCCEED?

**The French Revolution comes closest to matching your belief that wages were a driving force. But frankly, the oppressiveness of the monarchy and the Catholic Church were key issues.**

Umm, DUH. Show me where I said "wages were the driving force". QUALITY OF LIFE is the driving force, my friend, of which wages are a small yet significant part.

You're so busy trying to win a debate you already lost, you are resorting to misquoting me entirely, even when what I said is plain to be seen.

BTW--it is a significant historical pattern that all revolutions begin with the MIDDLE CLASS. Ironic that is the segment of society now in the wringer. So do you relly think history will not repeat given long enough to simmer? You think people are gonna just shrug and be OKAY with this?

**WalMart isn't the government, doesn't levy taxes, can't force the general public to shop in its facilities. All it does is sell decent products at low prices and employ over a million people who are free to leave for higher paying jobs at any time.

Again, for the 2038th time, not the point. WM is a symptom of a larger disease, which is the prevailing love of money in this country, and the attitude you been giving me, which seems to think making money is some noble cause akin to near sainthood if done well. You actually defend WM's policies, which tells me you are not the only one who thinks this way, if you are confident enough to continue trying to derail the real issue....

which was...

WHY DOES WM'S BIZ MODEL REQUIRE SLAVE WAGES TO SUCCEED?

** You wrote:
"Alfred P Sloan actually started it with some very GOOD companies."

Guess again.

Interesting. So why do they survive to this day? Exception of Lasalle and Oakland? Oldsmobile only went under a few years ago, by GM's choice.

BTW--He died broke. Apparently he was not the genius in his personal finances that he seemed to be in business.

I'm not going to debate the history of the auto industry with you, because it's simply another distraction so you do not have to address the main issue...

which was....

WHY DOES WM'S BIZ MODEL REQUIRE SLAVE WAGES TO SUCCEED?

[eddy]

I said:

**All started as a reaction against real or perceived exploitation by the ruling classes

How do you get 'wages are the driving force' from that?

Dude, don't post and smoke the ging. One or the other.

[chris]

eddy, you wrote:

"**As far as your list of revolutions go, I can only say you have no concept of what they were about. The American Revolution had nothing to do with wages.**"
and
"Who the f*** said it did? It was over unfair taxation and lack of a voice in Parliament, as well as other things."

You brought up the issue of revolutions to inform me that WalMart supporters were likely to face a gun barrel. You claimed WalMart was a cause of revolutionary sentiment. But your argument against WalMart boils down to the wages WalMart pays.

Therefore, if the revolutions weren't about wages, they have no connection to your WalMart argument.

As for the Russian Revolution, do think no one died. Battle deaths are estimated at 15 million.

You wrtoe:
"BTW--it is a significant historical pattern that all revolutions begin with the MIDDLE CLASS."

Prior to the Revolution Russia didn't have much of a middle class. Mostly peasants and a few wealthy subjects of the Tsar.

You wrote:
"**All started as a reaction against real or perceived exploitation by the ruling classes."
and
"How do you get 'wages are the driving force' from that?"

I didn't. You did. Your belief that WalMart wages are low was the basis for your threat that a revolution was approaching.

However, in a relatively free-market economy, workers are not oppressed by a single employer. They're able to sell their labor to the highest bidder. Apparently over a million people currently accept WalMart's bid.

WalMart is not a "ruling class". While it is a company with a big top line -- $315 billion in sales last year. It earned less money than Microsoft. It will earn a fraction of the amount earned by several oil companies this year. It's not very profitable -- and the company will not last forever. It is not an arm of the government, like, say the Post Office, which has suffered from various inefficiencies for decades.

But on to your big question.

You asked:
"WHY DOES WM'S BIZ MODEL REQUIRE SLAVE WAGES TO SUCCEED?"

First, the company doesn't pay "slave wages", which is an oxymoron. WalMart pays an average of nearly $10 an hour while slaves are paid exactly $0 an hour. Moreover, WalMart does not own its employees.

That aside, WalMart pays more than minimum wage. Management has determined that it can attract enough quality employees offering the wages that it offers -- and this is the answer to your question. WalMart pays the wages it pays because the wages offered bring in enough capable people.

When WalMart is hit with labor shortages that have occurred because its payscale isn't high enough to attract decent workers, pay will increase.

But there's no reason to believe people who perform no-skill and low-skill work are entitled to high wages.

The convenience stores near me in Brooklyn, NY don't pay as much as WalMart. Meanwhile, New York City is home to at least 500,000 illegal aliens. They perform day-labor, cut lawns, paint houses, do demolition work on homes to be renovated. They work in delis and restaurants and shops.

And they do it all for less than WalMart workers. That means in NYC alone, there are hundreds of thousands of workers earning less than legal residents handling the same tasks.

That means you probably want to through all the small business owners in jail.

You wrote:
"WM is a symptom of a larger disease, which is the prevailing love of money in this country..."

You've been talking to too many 60s radicals. I'm sure they love you as an audience. There's 300 million people in the US. Who among them "loves money"?

What country in the world offers a better life and more opportunities than the US? That's a real question. Not rhetorical.

You wrote:
"...and the attitude you been giving me, which seems to think making money is some noble cause akin to near sainthood if done well."

You're back to creating more fiction. But I do think anyone who builds and operates a successful business is doing a good thing.

On the other hand, you have the basic liberal schizophrenia that says losing money is better than making money. Yet you don't realize nations go broke.

Like the Soviet Union. No businesses were legally allowed to earn profits there. They simply took their marching orders from the Central Planning Committee and went forth. Communism, which you seem to favor, lasted in the Soviet Union for about 65 years. And the leaders murdered millions and millions of Soviet citizens simply for not willingly participating in the grand experiment. Yet, you seem to want an economic system controlled by the government. But that always leads to perversions like communism and nazi-ism.

You wrote:
"You actually defend WM's policies, which tells me you are not the only one who thinks this way..."

Yes, I do. And you can be sure the stockholders like most of WalMart's policies, too. But with the stock price down somewhat, you can be sure the stockholders are looking for more growth and higher profits.

By the way, can you identify a company that meets your criteria for decency and fairness? You know, name the best corporate citizen in the country.

[WereBear]

Economics is a tough nut. It's no surprise a lot of people don't get it. People like "chris" who gnaw on the bleached bone of "holy profit" and miss the Big Picture.

The Big Picture is: Who is the consumer of the products? And can they afford to buy?

Wal-Mart employs the very people who shop at Wal-Mart. That's the pull--your dollars go further at WM. People with plenty dollars don't go there.

Yet, and here's the kicker: People who work for WM can't afford to shop there.

WM is killing its customer base. And the more rapacious their cost-cutting, the more it drives business into the same mode to compete. So the other businesses lay off potential consumers who now can no longer afford to shop at WM.

WM, by being such a Prime Mover in lowering wages, at first forces people who could do better into shopping at WM because they think the prices are lower. Though they are not. WM competes by eliminating competion, not by beating it.

And there's a world of difference. So while at first one saves money by shopping at WM instead of Nordstom's, eventually, in a basement wage economy, people stop shopping AT ALL.

And where does that leave WM?

[chris]

werebear, you wrote:

"Wal-Mart employs the very people who shop at Wal-Mart."

WalMart employs somewhat more than a million people. But you don't know the shopping habits of any of them. Meanwhile, over 100 million people shop at WalMart. Thus, at most, the employees would account for less than 1% of shoppers.

You wrote:
"That's the pull--your dollars go further at WM. People with plenty dollars don't go there."

Really? On what facts have you based this silly claim?

Meanwhile, the company is finding more products to offer. It is or will sell large TVs at very competitive prices. But it will sell the service contracts sensible buyers want at very low prices -- beating the competition at Best Buy and others by a mile.

You wrote:
"Yet, and here's the kicker: People who work for WM can't afford to shop there."

You've fabricated this from whole cloth and can't site any facts to support it. The claim is merely wishfulness on your part.

You wrote:
"WM is killing its customer base."

WalMart sales were $315 billion last year, which exceeded the sales in the previous year and the year before that. Rising sales -- including rising same-store sales -- puts the lie to your claim

But tell me, where do WalMart employees shop if they can't afford WalMart -- even after receiving their employee discount?

Are you suggesting they all shop at thrift stores? Is so, are they the only people who shop at thrift stores?

[chris]

werebear, you wrote:

"WM is killing its customer base. And the more rapacious their cost-cutting, the more it drives business into the same mode to compete."

There is a simple and effective strategy for businesses hoping to co-exist with WalMart:

Sell different products -- and there are many -- and give better service to customers. That is the value-added by competitors.

Few can compete on price. Big deal. That only proves Mom&Pop stores were overcharging customers.

However, not all goods at WalMart are rock-bottom cheap. Thus, a competitor must identify those higher-priced products and compete there. That's hardly a new idea, but it seems to baffle the anti-WalMart crowd.

Meanwhile, though we still have gas stations, we no longer have gas-station attendants, except in rare cases. I'm not sure of the total number of gas stations and the total number of attendants once employed by them, but that job has all but disappeared.

The retail gas-station business is much bigger than WalMart, yet the loss of gas-station attendants has gone unnoticed in the economy.

But WalMart EMPLOYS over a million people and the number is growing. Yet the anti-WalMart crowd opposes WalMart jobs but ignores the disappearance of many other jobs that paid less than WalMart wages.

By the way, I previously mentioned the proliferation of 99-cent stores in New York City. They pay less than WalMart and truly sell junk. Their employees do not receive healthcare, though the store owner may have a policy of his own. And many depend on family members working practically for free to keep these stores operating. Yet there are no WalMarts in New York City.

[lc2]

A couple of points, from someone who lives (at least tangentially) a life of retail work and consumption:

There are still unionized retailers in this country, and they manage to make a healthy profit and pay 30-75% more than WM -- with benefits. I should know -- my husband has worked for one for his whole adult life. When people talk about a living wage, they're not referring to teenage cashiers working for gas and beer money. They're referring to the career employees in the 26 states in which WM is the biggest employer. Of course, the fact that chris doesn't realize such people exist and after six months or so on the job are not "unskilled" only illuminates the prejudices with which s/he entered this discussion.

For anyone who reads this and who thinks that retail workers are monkeys who only know how to push a couple of buttons and therefore aren't worth more to a company than the cost of replacing them, let's talk when it comes to getting a business up and running after a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Computers take care of the inventory? Who do you think troubleshoots and programs them at the store level, having been trained to order by hand because computers do go down, and customers still want their stuff? Services deliver groceries in NYC? Who do you think is familiar enough with the product and can load trucks at an acceptable pace for the yuppies waiting on their organic doritos? I don't know too many people of any skill level who have the physical strength and time management skills to put up 350-500 cases of food overnight in an 8-hour shift and order by hand to boot if the computers are down -- with one half-hour break. Speaking of inventory, does anyone actually think about how small a backlog there is in the food and necessary goods supply chain? You might want to consider that the next time you disparage the people who make those products ready to be plucked off the retail shelf. Kind of reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw in an agriculture-heavy area recently, which said: Don't talk about farmers with your mouth full. Perhaps we should include truckers and retail workers as well, particularly since WM is increasingly putting the screws to grocery retailers with its "supercenters." chris's analogies about WM replacing the corner bakery are absurd: retail, even that of the bricks-and-mortar type, isn't dying: it's is the fastest-growing sector of the labor market in the U.S. And we're letting this joke of a company dictate the terms of employment and delivery of customer service for everyone, for every company that goes into business to make a profit? For whom, exactly, is that a triumph?

The beauty of Barbara's book "Nickel and Dimed," to me, is not that she shed a huge amount of light on the macroeconomic struggle of low-wage workers (too many logistical flaws, chief among them the fact that she had a car), but that she had to challenge so many bourgeois assumptions about entry-level work -- that a monkey could do it, that you only carry out orders without relying on judgment and skill, that it's _easy_. She already made some of these points, but they bear repeating here. Factors that should entitle retail workers to the recognition that this work is tough, and worth more than what WM's paying? How about the fact that one is on his or her feet their entire shift -- the watercooler and coffee breaks people take for granted in office settings do not happen in retail. Or that their work schedule takes them away from their families in the evenings, on weekends, and holidays --when the customers want to part with their hard-earned 9-5 wages. "Weekends" don't exist for retail workers; like those in food service, they get day off in the middle of the week, and Sunday is optional by law but, shall we say, heavily encouraged. As in, the first question on your job application (literally, before you write your name) is, "Are you willing to work Sundays and/or holidays?" Besides, who can give up the time-and-a-half on Sundays when gas prices are now half a gallon what minimum wage is per hour? [Of course, WM lobbyists are working hard as we speak to get rid of time-and-a-half -- they've crafted two different bills to eliminate Sunday and holiday pay.] Finally, how about retaining a semblance of cheeriness and servitude in the interest of customers --particularly those who stupidly blame the employees for bad company policies, or take their bad days out on someone they see as inherently inferior because of their "skill level"? Sure, nobody forces anyone to work in retail, but at least see the job for what it is.

The fact that it looks so easy to run a retail operation smoothly, and the fact that it _is_ so easy to procure just about anything you want, 24 hours a day, is proof that apart from the high-turnover cashiers and clerks on the floor seen by the public, the bulk of retail work is not "unskilled." And it should be paid accordingly. And is, by responsible employers who've expanded their operations in reasonable degrees, without putting undue stress on the public health infrastructure of this country, which makes it harder for ethical retailers to provide affordable health care for their employees!

Yeah, I'd say WM has more than earned most of its public criticism. Among the infractions or legal but unethical practices they've paid for in fines or confessed to: consumer (mainly pricing) fraud; forced and/or unpaid overtime; fines paid to the NLRB for illegally firing workers seeking a union vote; locking workers in overnight; employing illegal aliens. Locking employees in overnight? Yes, you read right. I particularly enjoyed the stories of those whose shift was over at 1pm, because anything past that would exceed the 36-hour a week limit over which employers must pay higher payroll tax. So these employees had to punch out, then sit around and twiddle their thumbs until 6 or 7 am when a manager arrived to unlock the doors for customer business. A WM spokesperson defended this practice (after all, it is their legal right to do whatever they want on their property), saying it was in interest of employee safety. Apparently they've never heard of those newfangled doors that you can lock from the outside and still use as an exit. Lock hardware must be a product line WM hasn't investigated too closely.

Every time I go to the grocery store I inwardly cringe at the thought of giving the company its money back. But when its profits are reasonable in relation to its prices and payroll, not to mention its charitable work in the community, my irritation is assuaged. My opinion is that WM is banking on the fear of its employees to keep the engine running at its current overheated state. Most of the stores are located in areas where there aren't many or any options for employment. As I said before, WM is the biggest employer in 26 states, the last time I checked. That is not a minor role to play in society. The greed that has driven WM to this supremacy has had a permanent impact on us as a people, and I challenge anyone -- this means you, chris -- to tell me how we are better for it. This is about much more than nostalgia for Sam the Butcher -- this is about watching an industry run amok, exploiting its personnel in the most cynical ways imaginable, and ultimately unduly interfering with that most crucial of capitalist virtues -- consumer choice.

Sorry this post is so long, but this is Labor Day, and having my husband go to work at 8am, having worked until midnight last night (another common retail practice -- only an 8-hour break is required between shifts) made all of chris's comments hit a little close to home. Of course, the upside is that he's making enough overtime for us to buy back to school clothes next payday. But the opportunity to set a few points straight regarding the fallacious "poor little Wal-Mart that just wants to eke out a measly 4% profit and increase employment opportunities in the inner cities under the constant chafing of ungrateful unskilled greedy employees who want to milk their worthless labor for all its worth in a changing world" ideology that drives policies to eliminate hourly overtime pay and wrench away hard-won labor victories just proved too great.

[chris]

lc2, your comments were skillfully written -- and logically flawed.

You wrote:

"There are still unionized retailers in this country, and they manage to make a healthy profit and pay 30-75% more than WM -- with benefits."

While true, this in no way obligates any other employer to follow the same business model. Meanwhile, the US corporate landscape is littered with bankrupt retailers.

You wrote:

"When people talk about a living wage, they're not referring to teenage cashiers working for gas and beer money."

How do you know? In fact, WalMart and many other retailers hire lots of young people living at home who enter the work force through the many no-skill and low-skill jobs that exist in retailing. Obviously not all retail jobs are low-skill and no-skill, but a substantial percentage are.

You wrote:
"They're referring to the career employees in the 26 states in which WM is the biggest employer."

Says you. So tell me what WM pays these "career employees" and the jobs they hold.

You wrote:
"Of course, the fact that chris doesn't realize such people exist and after six months or so on the job are not "unskilled" only illuminates the prejudices with which s/he entered this discussion."

Utter nonsense. Stocking shelves or moving inventory around a facility is, at most, a low-skill job, even if the worker has performed the task for years.

You wrote:
"For anyone who reads this and who thinks that retail workers are monkeys who only know how to push a couple of buttons and therefore aren't worth more to a company than the cost of replacing them, let's talk when it comes to getting a business up and running after a disaster like Hurricane Katrina."

Nice tactic. Since you know that many retail jobs are, in fact, simple tasks requiring no special training or ability, you change the subject to disaster recovery. Nice try, but irrelevant.

You wrote:
"Computers take care of the inventory? Who do you think troubleshoots and programs them at the store level, having been trained to order by hand because computers do go down, and customers still want their stuff?"

I think the computer people and the inventory specialists are paid more than many others at WM.

You wrote:
"Services deliver groceries in NYC? Who do you think is familiar enough with the product and can load trucks at an acceptable pace for the yuppies waiting on their organic doritos?"

Fresh Direct is an online supermarket. Since virtually everyone in America is familiar with food shopping, I don't think the skill level of the warehouse "shopper" rises above "low."

By the way, when you refer to customers as "yuppies" I detect a sneering contempt for them.

You wrote:
"I don't know too many people of any skill level who have the physical strength and time management skills to put up 350-500 cases of food overnight in an 8-hour shift and order by hand to boot if the computers are down -- with one half-hour break."

You may not know many people capable of the tasks you listed. But knowing them isn't your business. It is the business of retail companies who hire them. Are retailers complaining of a shortage of people to fill those positions? If yes, then hire wages will appear. If retailers are filling those positions at current pay-rates, well, that's that.

You wrote:
"chris's analogies about WM replacing the corner bakery are absurd: retail, even that of the bricks-and-mortar type, isn't dying: it's is the fastest-growing sector of the labor market in the U.S."

I never said retail was dying. But it is changing -- it's always changing. But many retailers have folded: Bradlees, Caldors, Ames, KMart, and more. Meanwhile, Home Depot has had a huge impact on the hardware business. And there was once a time when department stores were a novel business and they impinged upon the specialty store on Main Street. Is this news? No.

However, if the retail labor market is growing at a rapid clip, WHY is it growing?

You wrote:
"And we're letting this joke of a company dictate the terms of employment and delivery of customer service for everyone, for every company that goes into business to make a profit?"

You say: "we're LETTING this joke of a company...",

Wow. Your statement suggests private citizens are or should be empowered to dictate operating terms to lawful businesses. That sounds rather ominous.

You asked:
"For whom, exactly, is that a triumph?"

Answer: Consumers, stockholders and employees -- in that order.

You wrote:
"...but that she had to challenge so many bourgeois assumptions about entry-level work -- that a monkey could do it, that you only carry out orders without relying on judgment and skill, that it's _easy_."

I've worked in gas stations, now-defunct Bradlees (automotive department), restaurants, and bars. It's true. A monkey could handle the work -- pumping gas, stocking shelves, washing dishes, etc. Sorry, but my on-the-job experience contradicts your view that pumping gas is tough work. In fact, oil companines realized they could relieve themselves of paying gas jockeys by requiring the customers to handle that job for free because the job is so easy.

You wrote:
"...--particularly those who stupidly blame the employees for bad company policies, or take their bad days out on someone they see as inherently inferior because of their "skill level"?"

Oh. In other words, customers who shop at Bergdorf's don't complain or berate the staff? You should return to Earth.

You wrote:
"...consumer (mainly pricing) fraud; forced and/or unpaid overtime;"

Small-scale nonsense made ominous by the descriptive term "fraud".
and
"...fines paid to the NLRB for illegally firing workers seeking a union vote;"

WM defines itself as a non-union workplace. Workers seek employment at WM knowing the rules of the road. I'm not sympathetic.

You wrote:
"...locking workers in overnight; employing illegal aliens. Locking employees in overnight?"

Yeah, I read about that. It happened in a few cases and I think it involved cleaning crews. Definitely a bad idea to lock people in a building that could catch fire. I doubt WM has continued this practice.

You wrote:
"Most of the stores are located in areas where there aren't many or any options for employment."

Really? That means everyone in town works for WM. I don't think WM is building stores to hire everyone in the county.

I am connected to Creston, Iowa, a small town 70 miles southwest of Des Moines. Creston has been dying since the Depression. But a few years ago WM arrived. The store has succeeded magnificently and WM is replacing it with another. The Creston economy has perked up as a result.

Iowa seems to be a state that produces some good students who attend college. Many of them do not return to the small Iowa towns from which they came. This has been true for generations, for many years before WM existed.

My mother's family landed in the US in the 1600s and generation by generation ambled westward till settling in Iowa among the farmers. Well, those days are over for Iowa; it has become a state of emigrants. Like many of the other states in which WM operates.

There's an excellent study of WM's impact on the state of Iowa available on the Internet. Look it up.

You wrote:
"As I said before, WM is the biggest employer in 26 states, the last time I checked. That is not a minor role to play in society."

There are 300 million people in the US -- more if an accurate count of illegal aliens were available. WM employs about a million of them. That's one-third of one percent of the population. Not so much.

Over 100 million people shop at WM. That's a lot. Shoppers obviously love the place. And that's what matters.

You wrote:
"The greed that has driven WM to this supremacy has had a permanent impact on us as a people..."

Greed? Why is a well run business always attacked as a "greedy" enterprise? No one is forced to shop at WM. It is not the "company store."

Nevertheless, WM has had an effect. Millions of New Yorkers would love to feel that effect. But various unions have blocked WM's arrival into NY City, thus ensuring 8 million New Yorkers pay more for almost everything.

You asked:
"...and I challenge anyone -- this means you, chris -- to tell me how we are better for it."

Easy. One hundred million shoppers saving 25% by shopping at WM is a very good thing. These savings bestow greater benefits on 100 million people than would increasing the paychecks of 1 million people who work at WM.

You wrote:
"This is about much more than nostalgia for Sam the Butcher -- this is about watching an industry run amok, exploiting its personnel in the most cynical ways imaginable, and ultimately unduly interfering with that most crucial of capitalist virtues -- consumer choice."

Totally false. WM sells a lot of items. The items it doesn't sell are exactly the items stores expecting to co-exist with WM should offer.

I was in Creston, Iowa last year. The town is getting along. While it doesn't offer all the goods found in Des Moines, the local stores and WM serve the community reasonably well. The economic problems in that area are not the fault of WM.

WM earns, as I stated, a profit margin of less than 4%. Lst year the company earned about $11 billion on sales of $315 billion.

Meanwhile, Microsoft earned more than $12 billion on sales of $44 billion, for a net profit margin of about 27%.

Bottom line, if you don't like WM, don't shop there and don't work there. By the way, Costco hires WM employees. Thus, the WM experience helps those who have it to move on.

[Geoff]

"Wow. Your statement suggests private citizens are or should be empowered to dictate operating terms to lawful businesses. That sounds rather ominous."

That's not true. Corporations are chartered by the U.S. Government, i.e., "We the People...".

[chris]

Geoff, you wrote:

"That's not true. Corporations are chartered by the U.S. Government, i.e., "We the People..."."

Corporations are NOT chartered by the US government. That is a state function and due to certain favorable laws, most are chartered -- incorporated -- in Delaware.

Meanwhile, individuals unconnected to companies have no right to control their operations.

Stockholders have many powers -- mostly underutilized -- directors have powers, and there are many applicable laws that guide each business.

But those who simply hate a legally operating company should never have power over it.

[Geoff]

A point and a point well taken.

[Jacqueline]

Some previous commentaries back and forth here need a recap and Chris needs a history lesson.

Eddy wrote: "Rest assured, when the plebes finally get fed up, such people will be the first against the wall. History bears this out."

Chris responded: "Really? When?"

My response is to Chris as follows:

Does the French Revolution in 1787 ring a bell? How about the Peasants Revolt in 14th century England? Remember that from history class (or is the history department at the Wharton School or whatever Ivy League school attended by spoiled, over-privileged rich brats that incompetent?). The Bolshevik Revolution - you know - the Russian Revolution where the Czar and his (the royal)family were all shot to death and dumped in a common, shallow grave in the mud, do you remember that? Now let us look at Cuba, you know - that tiny island about 90 miles away from Florida - the one that Fidel Castro and his rebels seized control over after YEARS of extreme polarization and classism - are you familiar with that? Does the Sandinistas and the COntras ring a bell? Can you say b_a_n_a_n_n_a _ _ r_e_p_u_b_l_i_c, Chris? Give it a try. It's not too hard and won't hurt much. Really. You can do it. These are only SOME of many examples throughout history where the "plebes" as Eddy puts it, were pushed beyond the pale and lashed back - with grave consequences for their oppressors who were elitists that thought they had gotten over on everybody else and things would only continue to favor them.

[chris]

jacqueline, you wrote:

"...French Revolution in 1787...Peasants Revolt in 14th century England...The Bolshevik Revolution - you know - the Russian Revolution where...Cuba - the one that Fidel Castro...?

Let's see, French Revolution -- overthrowing the monarchy, not Walmart.

14th century England. Please. The world was different enough at the time of the French Revolution, but looking to the 14th century to support your argument, well, who cares?

The Bolsehvik Revolution. Well, interesting that you mention the upset that brought Stalin to power in the early 1920s. The dictator who sent MILLIONS of his unfortunate citizens to their deaths in work camps.

Are you suggesting that WalMart has the power of a dictator to send people to their deaths while SLAVING for the revolution? In the gulag they worked for FREE, and many worked until the labor killed them.

And by the way, is it news to you that the Soviet Union collapsed because its economic policies were utter failures?

Oh. Cuba. The island prison. Run by Castro, the Stalinist dictator whose economy squeaks by on handouts from Caesar Chavez and other dictators.

I am certain there was no WalMart in pre-Revolutionary France, England, Russia and all the other countries forming the Soviet Union as well as Cuba.

You can be sure that an organization like WalMart would have been welcomed by the citizens of all the countries you mentioned. They would have rejoiced over the opportunity to purchase decent products at low prices.

If anything defined the anger of the underclasses before those various revolutions it was their inability to participate in the economies in which they lived and suffered for.

An organization like WalMart would have been embraced.

You seem to think private enterprises like WalMart possess the powers of dictatorial governments. Is there a single shred of evidence to support that? No. Nothing.

There is no valid or rational comparison between WalMart and oppressive monarchies or dictatorships.

The Soviet Union collapsed. Cuba is moving toward failure. The monarchies of Europe are gone.

In Cuba, the citizens have little or nothing, not unlike peasants in earlier monarchies. Nothing about the Cuban economy is good due to the prohibition against free profit-making enterprise. Meanwhile, if given the chance, the vast majority of Cubans would relocate to the US tomorrow. But Fidel keeps them locked inside the island prison.

After Fidel croaks, which is not far in the future, Cubans will get a shot at democracy and capitalism. WalMart will receive a huge welcome in Havana when the embargo is ended and the people actually exercise their power.

The people of Nicaragua would feel equally grateful for a WalMart. Or a WalMart equivalent.

You've shown a complete misunderstanding of class-oriented revolutions relative to WalMart. WalMart would be the hero of the underclass. Not the enemy.

[Jacqueline]

Oh noo....there's no misunderstanding class-oriented revolutions on my part. You obviously are the one having a problem grasping it. See, it's like this, groups of have-nots eventually get pissed off enough to revolt against the "haves" when the gap and classist polarizations between the "haves" and "have-nots" becomes too wide of a dichotomy.

In Cuba, the have-nots were Castro's rebels (mostly Cuba's poor class). In Russia, the Bolsheviks who revolted were mostly poor people. Same deal with Nicaragua. Same deal with the French Revolution. And Chris, don't be so naive in claiming that the Walton family empire isn't as powerful as royal ruling classes. C'mon. Think about it.

The Walton family of the Wal-Mart enterprise has done its share of throwing its wealthy weight around heavily enough to pursuade COngress from raising the minimum wage a long time ago, helped encourage the Clinton administration's signature on the welfare reform laws in 1996 because forcing poor welfare moms into low-paying jobs ensured Wal-Mart would have no shortage of poor women with little to no other job options to staff their stores on wages low enough to maintain their eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps.

And because a Wal-Mart job with company discounts is a dream job to many underclass women, Wal-Mart IS the hero to many members of the underclass. GO to the Wal-Mart Watch website and read how many lower income women defended Wal-Mart because they sold plus sized clothes at affordable prices, read one reader's commentary how she thought a $12,000/yr Wal-Mart job would be a boon for her since she was only presently getting $6000/yr or so to live on from SSI. Can YOU live on $6000/yr, Chris? Can you live on $12,000/year (BEFORE taxes) with student loans to repay, no affordable and decent health benefits, etc?

[chris]

Jacqueline, you wrote:

"Oh noo....there's no misunderstanding class-oriented revolutions on my part."

Based on your smug statement, you think dictatorships are preferable to democracy.

You wrote:
"In Cuba...In Russia, the Bolsheviks...Same deal with Nicaragua.

Cuba is a failed marxist state ruled by a dictator who hopefully will die soon. Batista may have run a country with a small powerful elite and many peasants, but Castro runs a country with a small powerful elite and 11 million poor citizens who are not permitted to leave. If they could, they'd all move to the US where they could shop at WalMart.

I happen to live in Brooklyn, NY which is home to many Russians and former residents of the Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution opened the door to Stalin who ruled from about 1922 to 1953. He murdered millions of citizens by sending them to work camps where they were SLAVES -- No Paychecks. Slavery. Estimates run to 30 million victims in Stalin's work camps.

You seem to think this is desirable. I can't imagine why.

You wrote:
"And Chris, don't be so naive in claiming that the Walton family empire isn't as powerful as royal ruling classes."

The Waltons may be more influential than you and I, but they don't legislate anything. They don't levy taxes, and their company isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think.

There are ten larger companies -- measured by the total value of their stocks. There is one -- Philip Morris -- which is about the same size as WM, that you could take aim at and show more common sense. Consuming PM's chief product -- cigarettes -- will kill you eventually. That company -- and its fellow industry members -- sells harmful products that consumers should reject.

You wrote:
"The Walton family of the Wal-Mart enterprise has done its share of throwing its wealthy weight around heavily enough to pursuade COngress from raising the minimum wage a long time ago..."

The Waltons support an INCREASE in the minimum wage. Their support may be cynical, however. A higher minimum wage will hurt some of WM's small competitors. But it won't hurt WM because it already pays more than minimum wage.

You wrote:
"...helped encourage the Clinton administration's signature on the welfare reform laws in 1996 because forcing poor welfare moms into low-paying jobs ensured Wal-Mart would have no shortage of poor women with little to no other job options to staff their stores on wages low enough to maintain their eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps."

Oh. I get it. You want as many people as possible to collect welfare, food stamps, depend on Medicaid AND not work.

Frankly, I'd rather see eligibility for food stamps and Meidcaid expanded to include people higher up the income scale.

People at the low end of the income scale can work AND receive the Earned Income Credit, which basically gives them a BONUS for working rather than an income TAX on their labor. Meanwhile, Medicaid is hugely expensive. But the expense is much easier to accept when recipients hold a job. Moreover, WM is a huge taxpayer, which means it is contributing a very large share of the tax revenue that is returned to citizens as Medicaid.

You wrote:
"And because a Wal-Mart job with company discounts is a dream job to many underclass women, Wal-Mart IS the hero to many members of the underclass."

If you believe the preceding sentence, why would you take the cruel step of attempting to deprive the willing employees of the opportunity to work at WM?

You wrote:
"GO to the Wal-Mart Watch website and read how many lower income women defended Wal-Mart because they sold plus sized clothes at affordable prices, read one reader's commentary how she thought a $12,000/yr Wal-Mart job would be a boon for her since she was only presently getting $6000/yr or so to live on from SSI."

WM did not cause her problems, but a job at WM, based on her beliefs, would do much to improve her life. Where's the problem?

If you want WM to pay higher wages it will employ fewer people. Perhaps, as a result, the woman you mentioned won't have a job at WM, leaving her no choice but to somehow survive on $6,000 a year. Sounds tough.

You wrote:
"Can YOU live on $6000/yr, Chris?"

No.

YOu wrote:
"Can you live on $12,000/year (BEFORE taxes) with student loans to repay, no affordable and decent health benefits, etc?"

First, it is not WM's obligation to pay an employee's student loans or any other bills that person might face. Meanwhile, WM does offer health benefits, but like most businesses, those benefits are not given readily to those at the lowest levels of employment. There's nothing odd about this practice.

As for myself, I paid off my student loans by writing a single check. Done. Poof. Gone. I paid all my college expenses myself -- no help from the folks. That proves anyone can go to college and pay for it without a lot of trouble. I received some grant money, took some student loans and worked. I lived off-campus in a big old dump of a house and had a great time. I did not attend college immediately after high school, choosing to work instead. Thus, my bank account was ready for college when I was.

No revolution is about to begin over WM wages. Labor is mobile in this country and few people are prevented from moving to new towns to find it. Cuba does not permit free movement of people. Cubans must file with the government before relocating. Especially for those relocating to Havana, especially females relocating to Havana. Castro isn't happy about the large number of young women who move to Havana to become prostitutes. But this is not an unusual development in dictatorships.

By the way, have you noticed that Cuba produces nothing more than cigars and sugar? Have you noticed that while US energy companies extract vast amounts of energy from the Gulf of Mexico, Cuba can't find any of it?

The country still depends on 1950s US cars. Electricity is available only part of each day, buses are sometimes pulled by horses and there is no paint. Food is rationed and Castro does not let Cubans shop in stores set up for tourists.

Yeah, great way to run a revolution.