Wal-Mart, time to boycott?
Ewiges — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 13:17
Everyone loves Wally World! Wal-Mart is the only place in the world where you can walk in, and walk out with whatever you wanted at the cheapest price around. At Wal-Mart I can go back to school shopping, grocery shopping, buy some dickies shorts, and pick up a case of beer and anything I need for my truck all in one shopping trip. Not only that, but know I didn't over spend.
Over the years Wal-Mart have been putting thousands of businesses out on the street. This includes everything from ma and pop stores to national retail chains. Now Wal-Mart has declared they will be starting 'Project Impact' in which they will be aiming at closing Rite-Aid, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us. Has Wally World gone to far?
As a consumer, we have to come to a decision of whether we want a choice, or one simple place that makes all your dreams come true. When is it time to boycott Wal-Mart? Is it bad what they are doing? What do you guys think? Will Wally-World be the new circle K, one on every corner... but no where else to go to?
I try to avoid these large
Agoney — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 08:56I try to avoid these large superstores as much as possible. I'm lucky enough to live where I have a myriad amount of places to shop at. Like Dufe and others said, each of these companies have they're "negative" qualities, but each are guilty of similiar things.
While my purchases are on a really small scale considering the big pictures, I'd rather give my business to a larger variety. Maybe not as convenient, but, at least on some small, drastic level, it does encourage competition between the retailers in the area. (IE, not buying video games at walmart, buying them at an EB/Game Craze). This is, of course, assuming prices are reasonably similiar and there will be exceptions with sales and deals etc.
You get what you pay for.
Karli — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 16:37I know that this was briefly touched upon earlier by this notion of how some people may choose to pay higher prices because it gives them *warm fuzzies* (to sum it up) when they feel like they are making a socially conscious decision in place of a purely financially driven one.
I often find myself in an interesting vantage point when it comes to money. I grew up extremely poor, but my parents were very hard workers who found themselves in an unfortuante situation. As a point of reference, my dad was a Stock Broker making 6 figures in the 80s and mom was a SAHM, and then his company (Meryl Lynch) was bought out and the one office in our town was closed as a result. There were no stock broking agencies elsewhere in town, so he had an essentially unmarketable job skill, and relocating was not an option. It's taken the better part of a decade but they have bounced back and are doing fine now.
That being said, I grew up on hand-me-downs, the free lunch program, and trips to K-Mart (before there was a Walmart) and got a paper route when I was ten just to be able to afford any sort of frivolous thing (like vacation tours with my singing group). I did not enjoy being poor.
As an adult, I am not well-off. Money is tight, especially now that we have a child, but we make ends meet. I have, however, found myself one both sides of the "poor" spectrum, and this is where Walmart comes in.
One kind of poor is where I spent most of my early 20s. That was the result of poor (read: no one ever sat down and taught me to manage my own money, and having the magic money of student loans in college did not help) money management skills and values, coupled with the instant gratification and the "oh I'll worry about that later" that plagues all young adults. I honestly do have sympathy for this kind of poor, as you've got to figure it out one way or the other, even if the hard way leaves your credit worse for the wear down the road. When you're this kind of poor you will tell people you have to shop at Walmart because you know that between your trips to the local pub and buying clothes for the latest season (or maybe the newest electronic gadgets, for you men out there), you have to PRIORITIZE how you spend your money.
The other kind of poor is when despite your best efforts at planning, budgetting, being creative and resourceful, and sacrificing frivolous items or indulgences, it is STILL hard to make ends meet. Welcome to the last few years of my life. I can honestly now say that I get why some people go to Walmart. When you are going through those shopping aisles and mentally adding up the difference in pennies between brand name and generic, and trying to figure out what item(s) you can omit from your list just to have something to make things seem not so tough, all you can do is worry about the impact your shopping trip will have down the road. Will you still be able to afford any unforseen expenses, like if something breaks or your kid gets sick?
I love my local and semi-local shops (like Fred Meyer), and I still do shop at them most of the time. However, there have been so many times where I am literally nickle-and-diming every expenditure, and just going to places like Winco are a sanity-saving option. I mostly use Walmart for big ticket and online purchases. I can honestly say I have only set foot in a Walmart once in the last 5 years, and I didn't buy anything (I was looking for a basinet before my son was born).
So the bottom line....I don't shop at Walmart if I can avoid it. But I may not be able to stave that off for much longer. I hate going there for sheer frustration at the quality; quality of the customer service, quality of the products themselves, and quality of the other people shopping there (oh wait, nevermind, the people watching at Walmart IS kind of fun!).
I know exactly what you
cromi — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 21:37I know exactly what you mean(my dad was actually a stock broker in the 80's too but didn't like the competitiveness of his position apparently). Especially on the hand me downs. My brother is 6 foot 5, and before the 7th grade has always been a foot taller than me. Even my toys were hand me downs, I'm serious I grew up with sing along tapes and specialty bought books that all had the name Christopher on them, my name is Brian. Not to mention the fact that all of my parents savings were drained in an unexpected variable(childhood cancer) but thats for my position on healthcare. My other brother is 7 years younger than me. He has grown up with luxuries I used to not have (t.v, new bike, new toys) and he does not hold the same sentiments for possessions he owns as I do with mine.
The fact that a company can be this direct about taking out other companies in the current state of our financial institutions is B.S. What was the governments excuse for saving chevy and chrysler? To save american jobs. The stimulus bill was made so that we could create jobs. The whole point of a stimulus bill in a time of economy is to pump as much money into the economy as possible while combating inflation. Wal-Marts plan undermines both whilst putting them dangerously close to violating a few anti-trust laws. So lets fight the man by boycotting the establishment.
I move to boycott Blizzard.
saedo — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:06I move to boycott Blizzard. They are clearly a heartless corporation that does nothing for its customers but take their hard earn cash to fill their money bin to swim in. They are blatently ripping ideas for other fine games like Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online, Tabula Rasa and Warhammer Online and passing it off as their own then pushing them off the market into bankruptcy. Those poor devolopers were only trying to make a living. We must band together to stop this evil force of corporate America. Who's in?
You forgot to mention all the
Dufe — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:10You forgot to mention all the local arcades that will inevitably close because their customer base is playing WoW instead!
Re: Walmart business practices
Shihli — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:16They offer a more-competitive business model than many other businesses. I used to work at a Walmart and they do not shy away from the fact that they focus on going to small-town and suburban towns, and offer low prices which inevitably leads to the death of downtown business.
... or does it?
Yes, they offer *better prices* for items of similar (or in some cases, better) quality. They put thousands of business "on the street" because those businesses do not have what it takes to remain competitive. They cannot adjust their business model - which in most cases, is "I'm the only clothing store in town, so why bother adjusting prices for demand? Demand is inelastic."
As for Project Impact - you think this is new? The modus operandi of any successful business is to be the best at what you do. Walmart is aiming to be the best at what they do, and to beat out their competition (Rite Aid, KMart, et al). This doesn't sound that surprising to me.
As a consumer we DO have a decision. Funny thing is, most people like the low prices of Walmart, so they are MAKING their decision every time they shop there. If Target, KMart, etc. put together a better business model that outdoes Walmart, then people will flock to other stores. In the mean time, people choose to go to the store that offers them the best bang for their buck.
I personally do not shop at Walmart, preferring to support local businesses. I don't like Walmart. But I can view them objectively and see that many people NEED those low prices for everyday items.
I would only add this
Dufe — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:44I would only add this thought, which may end up being too abstract for some:
Money is only an abstract resource used to facilitate a universal transfer of real resources between individuals (or entities, depending on your view). These real resources in turn provide us with some measure of utility, real or perceived. Our decisions of where to spend our money are always based on the utility we perceive we will ultimately recieve in return.
How does this apply to Wal-Mart and small, local, or downtown businesses? For many of us, the added money we have to pay at the latter usually offers us no or little perception of added utility. Some find added utility in the form of preserving a "nice downtown environment," some find it in the form of some emotional/intellectual feeling that they are being "more fair" (with respect to who though?), or are somehow more morally/ethically enlightened in doing so. Others feel that they are somehow doing the local economy a favor, which is not necessarily true at all, but it's their perception that matters when they make the decision. That being said, not everyone who percieves these or other forms of added utility shops at local businesses. Why? Because they may feel that there are other ways they can use their money that will net them a greater overall utility. (e.g. I'd rather not shop at Wal-Mart, but it allows me to save enough money that I can upgrade my cable internet speed, or maybe just buy food for myself/family, which is more important to me that the perceived utilities of shopping downtown.)
I suppose I could take this further, but hopefully that expands some thinking.
And again, anyone who doesn't shop at Wal-Mart due to what they think are unfair business pratices, but then goes to some other national retail chain instead . . . . you're just kidding yourself.
But you also have to realize
cromi — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 22:08But you also have to realize that the perceived tangent you are paying with. Is only as good as the people backing it. When the american dollar takes a hit you are also taking a hit in a business. You are reliant on the U.S. dollar well with China now they can easily forget about the united states. It is not a matter of Wal-Mart being evil or malicious it is simple business practices. If I can sell a marked down product to 5 million people in america I will more than likely double that sell in china with half the shipping cost. Americans have payed for the way we have done business. We are no longer making products we are inhibiting them. We are in a service based economy now instead of producing products. We have allowed this to happen because we were feeling the rewards of false money on credit. We have grown into an unhealthy economy and it needs to stop now.
The car companies have really payed up for their mistakes in the inhibiting of better mpg(some would say by the oil companies seeing as 7/10 worlds richest men are oil executives). When in the 70s we were able to make cars that went for over 25 mpg we should have been easily hitting better than that by the 90's.
The Banks have payed for their mistakes in the unhealthy practice of giving people bad loans purposefully then buying of debt and sub-prime mortgages.
But not one of the companies have yet to see anything but good about shipping a job to china. And why should they not? the government welcomes the job. You can pay 3 chinese workers to 1 american over a job and that is without healthcare benefits and pensions. The only problem is that when we continue to abuse the free-market in such a way as this, when we think of regulation as just socialism, and that if we give them free rein we will see good. We have rarely seen good from giving the greedy free rein and every time we have the american people not just the greedy have payed dearly. The Scary thought is, what is the ramifications that will come from the next mistake.
clarification request
Vitriola — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 06:34Cromi, I am confused at you saying what appears to be a contradiction.
"The stimulus bill was made so that we could create jobs. The whole point of a stimulus bill in a time of economy is to pump as much money into the economy as possible while combating inflation."
"We are in a service based economy now instead of producing products. We have allowed this to happen because we were feeling the rewards of false money on credit. We have grown into an unhealthy economy and it needs to stop now."
The "stimulus package" was a simple matter of taking huge amounts of money on credit and handing it over to companies that mismanaged things to the brink of extinction and let them get on with business as usual. Almost as soon as the money was received, they reported that it would not be enough and that they would need more. What we, therefore, *actually* just did was that we chalked up an almost unrecoverable amount of debt and gave it to bankers. (Note: most all of Obama's advisors are bankers. Look it up.)
So, you say at one point that "false money on credit" is bad (when talking about pesonal money) but that it is good too (when it is national money). Also, you say that increasing the debt is pumping money into the economy while combating inflation. It cannot be pumping money in if it is debt. The government is not actually *creating* money. If they are just printing more, then they are NOT combating inflation but accelerating it. What happens during inflation is that they are just taking a bite out of every dollar that everyone has. It works like a tax but without the hassle of passing it through and telling everyone about it. This way, they can just say that they are coming up with (almost) free money to solve all our problems. But they are just using feel good words to cover a horrific act. Well, I guess you can sell shit for sugar but changing the name will not make it sweet, to over paraphrase Juliet.
So, your comments seem to be at odds. Could you elucidate?
I'm not saying that a
cromi — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 07:45I'm not saying that a stimulus bill is to pump false money into the economy. The last time a country printed more money to satisfy their needs was in mexico only proving the point that money is a tangent only as good as backed by the people who print it. Mexico has been a very poor country ever since this incident. The stimulus bill creates jobs and gives money to education. You don't just pump false money into the economy because that money goes on the national debt, (Our next war, China and Arabia want us to pay them back, and then we claim the money of the national debt is just an idea not actuality.) The money of the national debt is payed as bonds, so it is credit. But we had 2 choices in the situation. When the government takes on the debt and is able to handle things well the inflation stays the same or only jumps up a little(as in food prices)http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending the amount of money spent on just transportation jobs alone I think should demonstrate my point that a stimulus bill is to create as many jobs as possible to pump that money into the economy.(Though I still was hoping for more to be spent green energy instead.)
I'm not a fan of what we gave the bankers. It was a better situation than watching them die. They say any leader has 2 choices in any situation, to overreact or to under react. Usually when a leader under reacts it does not bode well for the economy. To over react will save the economies. The banks have still not held true to their word on what they were going to do, and I would like to have seen some money being gained in the end by the government but when fox news cry out socialism every time you try to do something to the economy that might help our future it gets hard to push for something that aggressive (takebacktheland is also a good program to demonstrate the banks did not uphold their part of the bargain.)
What I mean by "false money on credit" is that we as a country are not producing anything substantial. We pay for services of another person yet we are also giving services to that person in return for the money to pay them. The whole Idea that America is a powerhouse of manufacturing has been blown out the window because we are no longer producing any substantial product, it also ends up hurting us in times of need because we no longer buy from services. The economy stays at home with businesses, we do not sell many products overseas anymore, and whats a person to do when no one buys their services and they have no money to pay for services themselves?
I would totally CHOOSE to
Aidin — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:40I would totally CHOOSE to shop at Target over WalMart IF...and ONLY IF...they could compete with the pricing...but alas...they can not.
Which is precisely my point.
Shihli — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:41Which is precisely my point. If another business can offer the competitive prices that Walmart does, people would begin shopping there instead.
Unfortunately, in most cases they can't afford to drop their prices that much (or they assume they can't).
One sidenote: There isn't a
Kwondre — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:09One sidenote: There isn't a single Wal-Mart on the island of Manhattan (one of the most densely populated land masses in the country) because Wal-Mart cannot afford to open a store there due to the rent prices. I guess there are ways to keep Wal-Mart away...you just gotta inflate everything so that $88K in annual household income is below the poverty line =T.
BTW you guys...can you tell me what a dollar menu is? I've never seen such a thing. All we have here is the $1.29 menu. WTF.
Used to love me the dollar
cromi — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 08:09Used to love me the dollar menu. When we went to McDonalds My dad gave my brother and me both 2 dollars to spend and if we were lucky he would let us share a pop.
My dads a cheapskate.
Haha.. well there is one in
Agoney — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 08:00Haha.. well there is one in queens and a couple in Secaucus so while not in manhattan not really like its far away :P
People should watch the
Shihli — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:09People should watch the episode of Penn and Teller - Bullshit! regarding Wal-Mart.
I used to be a hater. Now I just choose not to shop there.
Whenever I think of Penn and
Derchlon — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 16:08Whenever I think of Penn and Teller, I'm reminded of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
Kind of a tangent from the discussion, but worth a look.
penn & teller episode
Vitriola — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:29I looked for this episode on youtube and all I found was a 1:46 clip that showed people against wal-mart and penn saying "fuck you both". Can you link the full episode, please?
Gotta find a torrent, easy
Shihli — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:54Gotta find a torrent, easy peasy. Just google it.
really?
Vitriola — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:07When you say, "they will be aiming at closing Rite-Aid, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us", that is incindiary stuff. How do you know that is their aim? What I saw when I read up on it is that they want to have the lowest prices around and stock what people want and not what they do not. Could they be allowed to do this if others cannot? Can we let them lower prices when others charge more?
I did not see where they were being meanies and *trying* to close down other stores, so I think that you would have to show some support for that. This seems to be at the core of your complaint as arguing about better prices is rather silly at best.
So, barring evidence of intent, the next question is, so what if they are? What is wrong? Are you worried about a monopoly? Is it the size of the company that reveals the evil behind the low prices? If so, should we boycott Exxon and Microsoft first?
What is the real point of offense that is causing you to rail here? I must confess that I find that missing in this call to arms.
Anyone who thinks Walmart's
Dufe — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 13:53Anyone who thinks Walmart's goals and practices are any different or any more "anti-competive," "unfair," or "unethical" than the vast majority of the American corporate world is naive. Target, Costco, Home Depot, etc have put at least as many competitors, suppliers, and distributors out of business as Wal-Mart (proportionally speaking, of course). In the absence of applicable regulation, efficiency will always win over ethics, diversity, and "equity" (whatever that word is supposed to mean these days).
Difference
starstalker — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:28There is a difference between your 3 examples and Wal-mart though. I know at least 2 of your examples provides affordable health care and family wage jobs, something Wal-mart does not provide for the vast majority of its workforce.
Be careful not to make it a
Dufe — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:48Be careful not to make it a single-factor comparison. For example, Wal-Mart treats it's supply chain workers and suppliers, in general, FAR better than Target and some others. Any comparisons made must look at the whole picture to be accurate.
Single-factor
starstalker — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 16:21I had never heard of a Target shutting down an entire store because its employees formed a union, but Wal-mart did just that. It has also closed entire departments in certain stores because those employees also formed unions. It might treats its suppliers nice, but as for its labor (the real faces of wal-mart), it has a long way to go.
I'm not glorifying Target here, they just keep coming up in comparisons.
A quick, generalized
Dufe — Wed, 09/09/2009 - 16:45A quick, generalized example:
You may notice that Target is quite a bit more "trendy" than Wal-Mart in it's offerings. This has a number of factors behind it, but at least one of them could be considered rather "unethical". When Wal-Mart is approached by a new supplier (manufacturer), they make that manufacturer go through appropriately rigorous market testing at selected Wal-Mart stores (test markets), usually distributed accross the nation. If the product shows sufficient volume, profit, and potential for longevity in the market, then Walmart (often gradually) increases the number of stores (markets) in which that product is offered. Generally speaking, the products that end up being offered nation wide (or near to it) at Wal-Mart enjoy somewhat stable growth and reasonable security.
Target has a different approach. As soon as a "hot product" appears, they try to offer it in as much volume at as many locations as possible, often with FAR less (or no) real market testing. Being a "hot product," they often sell extremely well in the short run and Target is happy to ramp up volume as quickly as possible to keep their supply equated with demand. Sometimes Target even forces the supplier into an exclusivity agreement. The supplier, of course, ramps up quantities as well - sometimes seeing an annual revenue growth rates approaching the triple digits (or even higher in some cases). The problem oocurs when the "hotness" of a such a trendy product dies down rapidly, which happens A LOT. Target then cuts orders back by up to 100% in an equally rapid manner. Without the nitty, gritty details, this puts the supplier out of business or at best forces huge layoffs and/or pay cuts.
This literally results in tens of thousands of lost jobs annually. Target calls this "business" just like Wal-Mart calls their employment practices "business." Which is really worse? Why bother making the distinction? Both are bad.
The "Nitty gritty" details
starstalker — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 15:39The "Nitty gritty" details are the important part. Did they sign an exclusivity agrement? Do they only manufacture one product to one chain of store? Poor business decisions are not the fault of the retail chain. What you've just described are 2 companies both doing things that can be seem as negative (maybe not). Walmart has done so many more things than most companies to differentiate its self.
As the nations (and worlds) largest private employer, they have the power to do a lot of good and enforce a lot of change. Instead of closing down stores that unionize, closing departments that unionize (and going so far as to offer a company hotline to managers who suspect their store might be unionizing), paying its female workers less then males and promoting them less often, forcing employees to work without breaks on numerous and document occaisons, spending as little as possible on employee benefits (total spent on employee benefits was less than one half of one percent of its retail sales), building stores on burial sites, contracting with custodial companies who hire illegal immigrants (on multiple and repeat occaisons), actively opposing and lobbying against any increase in the scanning and inspection of shipping containers from overseas (96% of its donations in this category went to republicans on the senate comitee for homeland security), refusing competing stores from buying/leasing abandoned stores (as of 2006, walmart as over 320 stores shuttered), and has accumulated over 5 million dollars in fines by environmental regulatory agencies, they could have chosen to do "the right thing". Instead they ride the backs of their employees for all they can (76 *current* [as of 2008] class action lawsuits filed by current and former employees for wage violations).
These are things commited as a whole by the company, not a select few store managers. Yes, every large chain has things that it could improve upon, but no store has as many documented and verifiable shady business practices as walmart does.
Well, I did mention that some
Dufe — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 16:04Well, I did mention that some do sign exclusivity agreements; however, even without them, if you sold 100 times as many of your goods to Target as to anyone else, it doesn't matter. If you have one product or line of products that makes up even 50% of your revenue, suddenly losing it can (and likely will) kill you. Furthermore, even if it doesn't kill the manufacturer's business as a whole, if Target was the only buyer of said products, then certainly all the workers in that line or division are going to be out of jobs, regardless of how sound and stable that manufacturer's overall business plan is. "Poor business decisions are not the fault of the retail chain." By that logic, poor employment decisions are not Wal-Mart's fault either. And lets leave unions some other thread, some other time.
I see nothing on that list that is not done as bad or worse by others. There are also other companies with longer lists. Where's the breakoff point? How many bad practices must a business have before the media can whip us into a frenzy over it? What about all the bad practices other companies have that are never caught because they don't receive the massive amount of attention Wal-Mart does? And the number of "documented and verifiable shady business practices" is a rather irrelevant claim without some way of normalizing or adjusting for the severity of said practices. For example, "refusing competing stores from buying/leasing abandoned stores" is quite arguably not very shady at all, and even if it were, how much impact does that really have on said competitors?
What about the positive side? It's very convenient to ignore it in these discussions, but the fact that Wal-Mart alone accounted for a 1% reduction in inflation in 1999 is significant. I won't bother make any lists here, but the point is, if you only look for the negative, then that's all you'll ever see.
Keep in mind, I've never claimed that Wal-Mart is a shining model of socially responsible corporate governance. My point is only that it's not as bad as some people would like us to think, and it's definitely not outside the norm for American corporate behavior.
It might not be outside the
starstalker — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 16:47It might not be outside the norm, but the sheer scale of walmarts operations and reach make it just that much worse. You can argue its easier going after the largest fish in the pond, but when you employee 1.6 million employees, and treat them as well as Walmart does, you're just inviting scrutiny. Imagine if Walmart had actually changed its stance on labor, and actually tried to be a responsible corporation, do you think it would be in this mess? The vast complaints about walmart stem from its anti-labor practicies, from withholding earnings and federally mandated break and lunch periods, to its anti union stance, to its disregard for the welfare of its employees (let the government subsidize them!). Everything else is just "added on" so to speak while they are under that microscope. You can bet Home Depot has had a few environmental fines tossed its way, but there aren't thousands of sites on the web all blasting it as a company for it.
Also, while I too have seen some of the things I talked about done by other companies, I still have not encountered a company that has reportedly done all of them. I'm not saying other retail stores are angels, there is definetly dirty laundry everywhere you go. But the scale of walmart's negativity is so large, it is the worst of the worst. There really isn't any mistaking that.
And you can say that walmart has contributed to a 1% reduction in inflation, but does that makeup for the cost to taxpayers in the subsidizing of over 1000 retail store construction projects, and in addition to the 2.5 billion dollars in estimated tax subsidies to its empoyees? Teh value of the dollar might not have deteriorated as fast, but when you have to pay more into the government programs funding the healthcare, housing benefits, school lunch plans for those familes, etc, is it really that much of a savings? Again, the scale here is important. Walmart should be paying its employees enough to be able to afford those things on their own. Walmart should not be closing entire stores just because their employees (lawfully) unionized. Walmart should not be jeapordizing the security of nation ports so they can save a few bucks on shipping delays. And most of all, Walmart should not be witholding breaks, lunches, and earnings from its workforce (yes, they are not the first store to do this, but 70+ current class action suits because of this? It has not been one rogue store manager doing this...)
ExxonMobile can get away with
Dufe — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 17:21ExxonMobile can get away with posting an over $10billion in NET profit in a single QUARTER at a time when gas prices were at their highest without the media getting all over them for it. Thousands of truckers and other logistics workers were impoverished by these prices. Maybe we should boycott them for all the damage those gas/diesel prices did to the logistics industry and Americans as a whole? Who's sitting on that money now? That's ~5% of the stimulus fund annually if it were to hold constant.
Coca-Cola's international tax-evasion scheme is under investigation in the EU for skipping out on tens of billions of euros worth of taxes.
Union workers at "a government site" get paid twice as much as non-union workers at the same site, but are routinely caught playing cribbbage, napping, and surfing the nether parts of the interwebs for half the day. (Things the non-unioners cannot get away with and thus do not do.)
American union workers at GM were paid 25% more and produced ~10% less than American non-union workers at Toyota.
I can't believe Wal-Mart is so scared of unions!!! No, that doesn't make it right, but you have to understand ALL of the motivations. Also, comparing a sinlge good item to a large list of bad ones isn't really a valid or constructive.
I fully agree that Wal-Mart should not do the things you mentioned. But to this day, no one has produced a good, numerically backed argument to show in a statistically sound fashion that Wal-Mart is any worse than anyone else. All that has been presented by the press and detractors is that it's size makes it worse. I'll guarantee that there are 1.6 million other workers in the world, or the US for that matter, that are under equally bad, though maybe not identical, employment conditions. The fact that they don't all work for the same employer is irrelevant in terms of the actual social impact.
Now, if Wal-Mart did fix all these issues, what would happen? Wal-Mart would have to raise it's prices and some competitor would come in and do the exact same kinds fo things. And they would succeed. Wal-Mart's success is a testament that the majority of the American public obviously is relatively indifferent to these issues versus the prospect of higher prices. You cannot fix the issue by trying to get what will inevitably be an easily ignoreable diminuative boycott going. The fix must occur through legislation on a national scale, otherwise the minimum price retailer void will simply be filled by another if/when Wal-Mart changes their practices. If you don't like it, get your people together and lobby for it. And don't lobby against the Wal-Mart name, lobby against unfair employment practices.
"Ain't no rest for the
cromi — Thu, 09/10/2009 - 18:31"Ain't no rest for the wicked, money don't grow on trees, I've got bills to pay, I've got mouths to feed there ain't nothing in this world for free, No I can't slow down I can't hold back though you know I wish I could, No there ain't rest for the wicked until we close our eyes for good." The lyrics just kind of fit to me.
Almost all businessmen will do this given the chance. And why should they not be doing this? We let them do it. Gas companies made tons of money for their inflation of prices witch caused inflation of itself. The shipping companies passes those prices onto the stores, the stores pass that onto the consumer, and then the item being shipped price gets pushed up to items say coke so those companies can stay above the inflation (and because they were just given an excuse to push up their product on the index.)
We see companies raise their prices all the time because they can. I do not really believe Nintendo Wii actually had a shortage of consoles. But nothing raises demand and price on an item like people perceiving few people have it and they might not be able to get it at their leisure. The consumer is as much to pay than the government because we pay these businessmen for their shady practices. The best weapon we have against these people who hurt the idea laissez fair by not being or being a good businessman is that we have the money they want. And that, and unity is the only real threat we have against them unless the government wants to start regulating them which they will again find a way to get around to shady business practices.