Wal-Mart is typically Matt's beat, but this rather good article about Wal-Mart in the Everett Herald caught my attention. It's nicely balanced, getting quotes from the usual anti-Wal-Mart suspects--the grumpy union member, the jealous competitors (who are getting their tails kicked) and the full-time anti-Wal-Mart activists who make their living trying to make the rest of us spend more--and from the normal people, who are just big fans of saving money. In case you're unclear, I'm a big Wal-Mart fan.
As such, I'm generally pleased to hear that there are going to be as many as four new Wal-Marts in Snohomish County, adding to the two that exist currently--the Supercenter in Tulalip and the regular old Wal-Mart in Mill Creek, where I can be found more often than I care to admit.
The first one up will probably be along 99 in my old stomping grounds of South Everett. There doesn't appear to be any real opposition to this store, which makes sense for a few reasons. First, there's no strong community organizations in the area, which is populated largely by apartment buildings. Secondly, it's a logical location and there are already quite a few big-box stores in the area. This Wal-Mart will probably drive some good economic growth in the area, which helps everyone.
Next up, if Wal-Mart gets its way, is Smokey Point, which the Herald article notes will take some pressure off the Tulalip Supercenter--which is, I can attest, a good thing. The article makes it sound like, though there is some resistance, it's not enough to prevent Wal-Mart from coming--details about the process are available here.
The most active debate recently has come regarding the proposed Stanwood Wal-Mart--see articles here and here, and even an abortive blog on the topic. The opposition to this one is the strongest in the area, so it will be interesting to see how this will play out. Stanwood seems like a logical spot for a Wal-Mart, sitting in a 30-mile gap between Wal-Marts in Mount Vernon and Tulalip, but there might be enough wealthy Seattle transplants (like this one) to keep the it out.
Last, and most odd, is the potential second Wal-Mart in Mill Creek. The current Mill Creek Wal-Mart is on what might be the most expensive piece of land of any Wal-Mart in the nation already (leading to a higher class clientele and better overall upkeep than your traditional Wal-Mart), so it seems a little strange that they'd be planning another one. It seems like it would make more sense to put one farther east, in Snohomish or Monroe, than another one so close to what will be two preexisting Wal-Marts. These letter writers certainly don't like the idea, but it sounds like the majority-Republican city council is one of the more amenable governments in the region, and is happy to snap up the opportunity if possible. Does it make sense for Wal-Mart, though? Only Wal-Mart can decided that.
Likewise, only consumers can decide whether Wal-Mart is good for them. Generally, they seem to think it is. It makes sense to me--Wal-Mart helps me live as if I were much wealthier than I really am, and I appreciate that. I don't appear to be alone, even in Snohomish County.
Cross posted at The Flag of the World.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at March 27, 2005 09:39 PM | Email ThisYes, typically results in the downtown being gutted. Then cities need to spend millions in tax dollars to re-vitalize them.
Oh well. People seem to like them and don't mind subsidizing them when their employees are sent to receive welfare in one form or another because of their low pay.
The worst that could happen is that area businesses go out and their employees are forced to...well...shop at Walmart.
Posted by: Erik on March 27, 2005 10:26 PMI'd prefer the discussion here remain based in reality, so please, leave the anti-Wal-Mart rhetoric at home unless you have some sort of facts to add to the discussion.
Posted by: Timothy on March 27, 2005 10:34 PMPerhaps instead of subsidizing mediocrity with our tax dollars, people should attempt to innovate, educate, and compete.
And if you haven't noticed, the previous post mentioned the 7.8% taxes versus the 5.5%. Oh what I would give to "only" have to pay 7.8% in sales taxes. But, alas, Wal-Mart ought not be the worst of your concerns, Erik. We are already seeing stores pop-up on tribal land, where NO sales tax is needed. This phenomena will explode... and before Illegit-oire knows what has happened, it will be too late. Even if the State does figure it out, there's nothing they can do. Tribal land is not a part of the State of Washington. (just a thought)
YourGovernorCostsMillion$
-Boys Ranch Appeal (forgot to appeal: $18m+)
-Blamed a Subordinate ($4m)
-count the ballots a third time ($.7m)
Becuase your house is full of cheap crap you really don't need?
Whatever happened to quality over quantity?
Posted by: Doc on March 27, 2005 11:04 PMWalmart rules because they bust unions. Check out the stories about the Walmarts in Canada where the Unions tried to butt in and change they way Walmart does business. Walmart management did the right thing and shut them down.
Walmart is naked, beautiful capitalism at it's best. If you can't take the competition, move to Canada where the government gives you a free ride.
Thanks for the post Timorthy.
Here, folks, we see liberal elitism at its finest. Doc, I wonder if you've ever even been to a Wal-Mart. You've certainly never been to my house--oh, wait, I live in an apartment, because I'm a young newlywed who can't afford the finer things in life. Or at least, I couldn't if Wal-Mart didn't exist. As it is, I can get things like digital cameras, printers and DVD players that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. They may not be the best quality, but they're better than nothing.
Additionally, I can buy household items that I need to buy anyway at vastly cheaper prices than I could get anywhere else. This gives me more money left over to do things I might not be able to afford otherwise, like run a blog, take my wife out for dinner, and take a nice vacation. And I'm not the only one who benefits like that.
So, "Doc", you can take your assumptions about Wal-Mart and about me and stick them where the sun don't shine, comprende?
Posted by: Timothy on March 27, 2005 11:32 PMBy the way, Timothy, the Republican-dominated council you are referring to would be the Snohomish County Council, and not any city council.
Nor does the Snohomish county council have that much to do with Wal-Mart's two existing locations. One of them is in the City of Lynnwood -- a city issue. The other is on the Tulalip Reservation (Quil Ceda). The Tulalip Tribes aren't exactly known as a pro-Republican organization.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 27, 2005 11:41 PMBut hey- its better to soak every last drop of blood from existing businesses and complain about bottom feeding Walmart than to bring businesses into the state. Look on the sunny side, there'll be plenty of DSHS jobs for everyone with the money they soak up from broken families and bankrupt businesses!!
http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?news_id=bus-n06374765&feed=bus&date=20050306
and the regular old Wal-Mart in Mill Creek, where I can be found more often than I care to admit.
Knock youself out. It's a free county.
Here's my beef:
The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
http://www.ericrasmussen.com/2005/01/wal-mart-economic-exploitation-at-its
Why should I subsidize them with corporate welfare?
Posted by: Erik on March 28, 2005 12:25 AMThis is the same math were a housewife should be compensated $150k per year for working as a full time chef, day care owner, chauffer, hooker, and maid. First cousin to the math that 1 in 3 men are either a wife beater or rapists.
Posted by: Andy on March 28, 2005 12:31 AMAs opposed to what... a house full of expensive, overpriced crap he really doesn't need?
"Whatever happened to quality over quantity?"
Some of the "cheap crap" I'v bought at Walmart has lated for years. And most of it is the same stuff I'd get somewhere else for more money.
Walmart caters to a certain crowd, and if you're too stuck up to shop there, or it's somehow beneath you because it's "Walmart" and not, say, "Macy's"... more power to you, but please don't deride the place because it's not overpriced.
Posted by: Mike H on March 28, 2005 12:35 AMActually see my post above, they do place people on welfare who work there and expect taxpayers to pick up the financial slack.
Posted by: Erik on March 28, 2005 12:36 AMThe report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
http://www.ericrasmussen.com/2005/01/wal-mart-economic-exploitation-at-its"
Perhaps you should try quoting something real...not just one person's views or a clearly biased groups views. Show me proof that Walmart employees are living on welfare. And if they are, yet still working...why are they collecting welfare if they are working? They get paid pretty good money. Would the unions hire them if they didn't work for Walmart? Would you prefer these employees that supposedly are still collecting welfare collect full welfare instead of contributing some to society?? Would your precious unions hire the elderly or the challenged? I think not!
Thanks for responding to none of my posts. Your simple complaint about a corporation costing the tax-payer millions via its employees is lost on me. I fail to see how I am paying for Wal-Mart employees. I don't fail to see, however, how Wal-Mart employees have to pay income tax, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. I do, however, see how IFFA, and other unions waste my tax dollars by claiming that they "need" equipment that requires extra firefighter to be hired by my city/county (when in fact, the current equipment is perfectly fine). A cost analysis of that pork, spread out over many year, healthcare, and retirement, has yet to be done, and I suspect you're too pro-Union to do it. Unions often are self-interested, and in the case of IFFA it's ALWAYS at the taxpayer's expense.
If you have a problem with Wal-Mart, please combat them on a level playing-field (as suggested by other people's posts above).
If you want to complain about wasted tax-money, you don't have to look far because...,
YourGovernorCostsMillion$
-Boys Ranch untimely appeal ($18m+)
-Blame a subordinate, lose + legal fees ($4m)
-Count the ballots three times ($.7m)
Use "Walmart Welfare Workers" on google and you will find literally dozens of articles on the matter.
And if they are, yet still working...why are they collecting welfare if they are working?
Yes. Yes. That's the crux. They pay so low that some of their employees qualify for welfare.
I suppose because of Washington's minimum wage, some employees are kept out of welfare because Walmart is forced to pay the workers more than their "market value."
However, I would rather have them pay than having to personally pay the workers welfare benefits.
I fail to see how I am paying for Wal-Mart employees.
You wouldn't unless you pay either state or federal taxes.
Posted by: Erik on March 28, 2005 01:00 AMI am proud as hell that an individual (Sam Walton) who had a dream and the spirit to create the largest retail outlet in the country and spreading around the world. If you don't know what raw efforts and courage it took to create a dream like this, then you have no business being blindly critical of it. Millions of Tons of goods are bought, transported, and sold in these stores every day. They ain't goin away!
Posted by: GS on March 28, 2005 01:12 AMI see how you skirted my question about your wonderful unions hiring these individuals. I know of people personally working for Walmart and they make pretty good money. I wonder how many of the Walmart workers that are working and collecting welfare are doing so fraudulently. Bottom line is that Walmart provides income to people who otherwise wouldn't have a job. Like it or not, Walmart is a very good member of the economic world. They help many people, I would bet more than the unions.
Posted by: Miriam on March 28, 2005 01:34 AMHard to know. Though it shouldn't be too hard to find out as the welfare issues have been well looked into.
I know of people personally working for Walmart and they make pretty good money.
Yes. However, many of them likely are having their wages artificially inflated by Washington State's minimum wage requirement even if their wage is above the minimum.
Washington has one of the highest if not the highest minimum wages in the US.
If it were removed, their wages would float down to their market rate or at least stop at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.
Posted by: Erik on March 28, 2005 01:48 AMAre you actually implying that Walmart is the only business in Washington state that is paying their employees higher rates soley because Washington State's minimum wage is so high? And who do you feel is responsible for the high cost of living in this state and the high minimum wage? If Walmart is not the only business in Washington State that is paying their employees higher rates soley because Washington State's minimum wage is so...why are you only ragging on them? What about Mervyn's? What about Macy's? Do you shop at any of these places? What about the education system? I worked at a public school for a little while and was not a teacher and I barely made $1,000/month. Why are you not upset about other businesses in this state paying their employees lower wages than union members get?
Posted by: Miriam on March 28, 2005 01:57 AMI'm beginning to see the flaw in your illogic:
"Yes. Yes. That's the crux. They pay so low that some of their employees qualify for welfare."
This is fantasy over reality. I saw the same thing when I was a 26 year old Company Commander in the U.S. Army, right after dumbheads like Albert Gore Jr. were claiming that U.S. soldiers were on food-stamps. I had numerous soldiers apply to me for relief monetary aid... essentially, emergency aid (in the form of donated, non-tax dollars) to help them with their struggling financial situations. Sometimes I approved of the aid, but always after an interview with the soldier and one or two of his NCO's (non-commissioned officers). What I always found among all applicants was a lack of budgetary responsibility (sounds like Congress, no?) in the form of frivilous spending on non-essential items (e.g. a cell phone, two automobiles, or automobile and motorcycle, etc., etc.). They often had newer cars than me.
So I'm not amenable to your argument Erik. It's very likely that there's overspending. And overspending doesn't necessarily equal underpayment. Many people in the USA are living beyond their means. Blaming Wal-Mart for someone's lust for better (cars, furniture, "fill in the blank") is ridiculous. And I suppose you'd like to legalize "theft" (when it comes to stealing from me) in order to cover the gap for "poor" Wal-Mart employees. Oh wait, Ron Sims already does that. Robin Hood was a thief, and if you advocate this crap, then so are you.
YourGovernorCostsMillion$
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on March 28, 2005 01:57 AMNow he just wants to dictate Wal-Mart's pay structure to them. The average Wal-Mart pay is either $8.50, $9.26 or $10 an hour, depending on how you're counting, all of which are well above even Washington's absurdly high minimum wage. They provide great entry level jobs with huge opportunities for advancement for people who would otherwise have a difficult time finding work anywhere.
Posted by: Timothy on March 28, 2005 08:19 AMErik, I did that "Walmart Welfare Workers" search and found a lot of upset people making unsubstantiated claims. As far as "ProgressiveNews.org", well, they did not say anything supported with data. They did say that WalMart, like every other company and sports franchise, tries to get cities/states to compete for where they set up shop. That is different than welfare subsidies paid to employees.
If the community did not like the WalMart, then the community doesn't need to shop there. If the whole community really believed that WalMart was no good, that store would lose money and WalMart would close it and put the employees out on the street. In this country, thank goodness, we have a choice of where we shop and can't be told what to buy and from where to buy it because someone doesn't like that store.
If you do not have something bad about you on the internet, you haven't done anything worthwhile!
Posted by: Fred on March 28, 2005 08:29 AMhttp://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/tennessee_workers_medicaid.php
http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf
http://www.againstthewal.com/walmart.pdf
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/WALMARTREPORT.pdf
And to be "fair and balanced":
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1521
And just for fun, an article that originated in the Wall Street Journal comparing Costco and WalMart.
For the record, I'm a Costco guy. Wouldn't be caught dead in a WalMart.
Posted by: Steven on March 28, 2005 09:26 AMhttp://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/costco_employee_benefits_walmart.html
Posted by: Steven on March 28, 2005 09:28 AMThanks union lackey Brendan Williams for opening my eyes & making me a Wal-Mart shopper. I have already have converted three formerly too elitist for Wal-Mart friends into becoming Wal-Mart shoppers too!
In the PSU article it seems to blame WalMart for the manufacturing jobs going else where, which does not mean that a WalMart in their midst reduced demand for the manufactures product worldwide. There was a general decline in US manufacturing during that time. The boom was technology.
Posted by: Fred on March 28, 2005 10:05 AMwww.walmartfacts.com
Yes, it is a Wal-Mart website. Of course, many of the websites that come up in the Google search are done by unions and union shills. The mighty Univ. of California study referred to on many of these was 100 per cent paid for by unions fighting Wal-Mart's every step...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on March 28, 2005 10:20 AM1. If you don't like them, don't shop there!
2. If you don't like the way they run their shop, don't work there!
3. If you want to see them fail, build a better mousetrap!
(Or just continue to do things the democrat way - lie, cheat, steal, rinse & repeat ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 28, 2005 10:58 AMYou hit the nail on the head, Andy. There is no end to the nonsense, silly-math that these people will come up with in order to further some social engineering agenda.
I have a post about Walmart on my blog here:
http://sillyseattle.blogspot.com/2005/03/wea-vs-bogyman.html
Blaming Wal-Mart for someone's lust for better (cars, furniture, "fill in the blank") is ridiculous.
If so, I might agree.
However, the problem is that having large debts does not entitle someone to collect welfare. Only low wages among other factors do.
Look, if you are comfortable subsidizing them by paying the welfare rolls and want to work and shop there, be my guest. In fact, one may mandate the other.
For the record, I'm a Costco guy. Wouldn't be caught dead in a WalMart.
Nah. I wouldn't go that far.
Posted by: Erik on March 28, 2005 11:19 AMSomething amazing to me in these anti Wal-Mart screeds is how the nexus between unions, anti-sprawl environmentalists, and extreme lefties (e.g., socialists) has resulted in incoherent arguments. A prime example: it’s not in the best interests of a single mother of two making $15,000/year to save money on groceries at Wal-Mart because it’s better for her money to go into the pocket of a union member who’s better off than she is. The tortured logic behind this idea was expressed in a recent article in the P-I (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/205768_focus02.html). For me, the statement that jumped from the page in this article was the following: “The situation won't change until a movement comes together and builds the kind of social and political power for workers and citizens that can balance that of Wal-Mart. This is not impossible: In Germany, unions are powerful enough to force Wal-Mart to play by their rules.” Yes, THAT Germany, where there is nothing short of economic catastrophe with 12 percent unemployment, virtually no economic growth, and where decades of labor-market politics has left an economy so uncompetitive that business investment has dropped to a trickle. This is the consequence of a government trying to manage competition. In Germany, it was laws that limited the hours that stores could be open (generally 8:00AM to 6:30PM, with shorter hours Saturday and no Sunday openings), and prohibited discounting, all in the name of “fair competition”. Similar laws in many European Union countries have driven up the price of nearly every item, negatively impacting purchasing power despite apparent generous wages (if you don’t believe me, compare prices on a CD or digital camera between Amazon.com and Amazon.de using current exchange rates). Wal-Mart at least provides the choice of living cheaply in this country, something most Europeans don’t have.
Posted by: Ex-WA on March 28, 2005 11:28 AMIt seems to me a lot of people out there who dislike Wal-Mart are of the type that would prefer that we be standing in line for two hours at the Glorious People's Revolutionary Co-Op for bread,...
Posted by: Vexorg on March 28, 2005 11:53 AMCostco loses money on the stores. Well, maybe. But so what? From the free market perspective championed here, y'all should be jumping up and down for joy. Does this bother the stock market? Costco's P/E is higher than WalMart's, so the market must think they are doing something right.
My point isn't to completely bash WalMart. As the world's largest retailer, they are clearly bringing value to millions of people. I was merely trying to point out that: 1) their business model is not without its social cost; and 2) there may be other business models that can provide consumer value with lower social costs.
Continue shopping.
Posted by: Steven on March 28, 2005 12:37 PMYour story of your time as an Army Company Commander brought back memories for me. Sounds like we were in at about the same time. As a platoon leader I had a soldier inquire about financial assitance, claiming that he couldn't afford to put food on the table. Turns out that in one month he had racked up the equivilant of four month's pay in rental car bills, far more than it would have cost him to actually buy an old used car, because he liked to impress his buddies by driving fancy new cars. Rather than dip into the Army's Emergency Relief fund, I had him call home and ask his parents for a loan, because clearly there was no emergency, only bad judgement.
I would venture to guess that Wal-Mart employees are no different from any other cross section of America. Some are smart with the money, others aren't. But to blame that on Wal-Mart simply doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Jason on March 28, 2005 01:23 PMIn fairness to Erik, apparently the eligibility for welfare is based "only" on income. [altough Erik, I'm sure there are other factors too, such as # of dependents, etc.] Wal-Mart salaries seem perfectly fine for one to avoid the need for welfare. We have not state income tax here (meaning, more take-home pay for the employee), and we have a fairly high sales tax (this would tend to encourage people to spend less - or only spend on essential items, if they're approaching the poverty line).
Oh, and Wal-Mart employees also get to pocket the money that would have been spent on Union dues.
PS- a soldier certainly deserves a raise over a union employee any day. Discourage sloth and mediocrity.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on March 28, 2005 02:20 PMYou are a tasteless asshole. Hopefully Stefan can pull your pitiful post from this site.
Posted by: Steven on March 28, 2005 03:59 PMIf, on the other hand, Timothy would like to see the USA prosper and remain strong he should carefully check every label and buy American-made products. If he wants, he can write the manufacturer's name down and go home to research whether it's a union-firm or not. If he's opposed to union-made products he can continue his search.
While I oppose closed-shop policies, I do not hesitate to purchase union-made articles simply because they are union-made. Freedom, though, wins every time: I prefer to buy Taiwanese over Chinese and American over Taiwanese.
A friend of the family was recently fired from WalMart because she had an on-the-job injury and could only perform light duty. Her supervisor sent her home several nights becuase there was nothing to do on light duty. Once her light duty was finished Ploni was summarily fired, WalMart holding that she had left early without permission on 48 days. Ploni's stance is she was sent home and, last I heard, her supervisor has made a deposition to the effect that he sent her home becuase there was no light duty work to perform.
Now, one can take the point that WalMart is Mom, apple pie, freedom and the American Way...there's just some big left-wing conspiracy to impugn the firm's collective integrity. One could also say there must be something to repeated allegations from a variety of people in a numerous places which all seem to point to the same thing: WalMart is a poorly managed firm which can't seem to avoid bad press despite claims of being oh so well managed.
But, hey, Timothy, you keep shopping there if you want. It's a free country.
Posted by: Kelly on March 28, 2005 05:21 PMWal*Mart’s profits are not coming from generating margin on its sales; it’s coming at the expense of it vendors. Any business that is selling to Wal*Mart is for the most part making top line revenue only. In most cases they are losing money on the account. Wal*Mart is the most notorious business partner any company can do business with. They consistently use their systemic business practices to erode margin/profits with their vendors. While this is invisible to the consumer, it is not in the corporate community. Ask any company that does business with them.
While they fill a market need in those that require the bottom price just to survive, it is not a place where those that can afford to shop elsewhere value ethics integrity in their business practices. While I can support those that need to shop there for true economic reason, those that can truly afford to pay the dime more at Target/Kmart/Fred Meyer should. The only true market growth for Wal*Mart in the US at this point is converting its customer base to the middle and upper economic levels.
This is another wing-nut that won’t be caught dead there.
Again, the post was satire, meant for those who can't appreciate how satire, according to Webster, is meant to expose a vice or folly which religious fanatics should have brought to their attention, lest they do even more stupider things.
I never shop at Walmart. Their various impacts upon long-established businesses and local economies is deplorable. "Walmart, where cheap products ALWAYS cost cheaper"
Posted by: Artie on March 28, 2005 06:04 PM
Actually, I'm a big fan of our trade imbalance with China, partially for for reasons discussed here. Additionally, I don't see what's so bad about the fact that the Chinese build things for us that we pay them very little for. Can you explain how that's a bad thing for us?
Posted by: Timothy on March 28, 2005 06:05 PMSecond, anyone who holds Costco up as a noble alternative also doesn't know what they are talking about. While Costco may pay some of its employees a bit more, they kick the stuffing out of their vendors to support their business model. That also results in lower wages all around, albeit one generation further down the line.
Get with the program, everyone. If you want to make a good living, don't plan on a CAREER as a cashier or shelf-stocker. As I have told some of my siblings more than once.
Posted by: HT on March 28, 2005 08:56 PMAs per squeezing their suppliers- you can choose to not sell to Walmart, and many companies don't and won't. I like to see that they do in fact require a very high standard ie "don't send a load of goods stacked like garbage because it runs up my costs in terms of space and waste"
Also notably Walmart 'squeezes' the video game industry quite frequently on violence and nudity in games- WHY? Because their family valued customers said very clearly by voting with their dollars that they wouldn't tolerate it for most of the 90's. Only recently has that policy changed. I suspect it's because they have gotten into more blue states where parents have no say at all over their kids and the courts let their kids have any porn or drug they want to get their hands on.
Posted by: Andy on March 28, 2005 09:30 PMSee, I've become so much more "tolerant" and "worldly" and "international" as I get older.
I wasn't born with a silver-spoon in my mouth, either, by the way. I turned many a wrench under a U.S. Army tank, without the help of a union to let me out of work early.
I'll proudly drive that tank right at IAW's or IAFF's (for that matter) headquarters. I can't stand American unions.
PS- ever noticed that Wal-Mart doesn't have butchers the way most Supermarkets do? Ever wonder why?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on March 29, 2005 01:56 AMPlaying the "Made in China" card? Just another example of the obfuscation used by the anti Wal-Mart unions. In California, there are plenty of Wal-Marts, many of which have been built without significant community opposition. The flap has come with the Wal-Mart Supercenters, which are basically a Wal-Mart with added grocery store. Guess what the grocery store sells? Food, just like Safeway. Except cheaper. Often, much cheaper. And where does that food originate? Primarily the U.S., sometimes Mexico. Rarely China. So what's the problem? Most competing grocery stores are unionized, so now Wal-Mart becomes evil for selling home-grown food. This is inconsisten with the China argument used against Wal-Mart, regardless of the problems/benefits of trade imbalances. You could just as well criticize Best Buy for selling Chinese goods--I don't think those big ticket plasma TVs are made in the U.S. either.
Posted by: Ex-WA on March 29, 2005 06:52 AMCompetition always improves services and products. It may take time, but it will win. The best part is the US with the US worker can beat almost any competition - hence the Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, etc. manufacturing going on in this country coming out with the same quality.
Posted by: Fred on March 29, 2005 09:26 AMErik was recently let out again. He doesn't make any sense probably mostly because of his medication.
Posted by: Eriks brother Jerik on March 29, 2005 12:23 PMSure go ahead and buy at Walmart and support your friendly communist country. Greed has no loyalty.
Furthermore, I would not be caught dead at a company that encourages illegal immigration like Walmart. Walmart was caught redhanded recently pushing it's janitorial vendors to use illegal immigrants because you guessed it illegal immigrants will work for almost nothing. Unfortunately, it only got $11 million slap on the hand.
"Gee, you're right. I should want Americans to have to do crappy, monotonous manufacturing jobs that pay poorly, instead of the Chinese."
A monotonous manufacturing job is better than monotonous cashier job at Walmart because the manufacturing job pays twice as much.
Posted by: M&M on March 29, 2005 12:28 PMBased on that thinking, I have to kind of agree that Wallmart is ok. I'd rather not see small specialty downtown shops close because it's fun to see something different and unique, so I make a point to shop downtown ever so often.
The only reason I never go to Wallmart is the same reason I never go to Costco - I can't stand running around a zillion screaming, snotting kids piling out of shopping carts. And I won't shop at midnight to avoid this crowd.
It's capitalist America, and we're all free to make our personal choices just as I have outlined I've done. Deal with it or move to Europe or Canada.
Posted by: M on March 29, 2005 03:24 PMI usually agree with you- but I have to say you are way off base on this one. As a Stanwood native, I can fathom just how destructive a Wal*Mart would be for the community.
Sure cheap products are great, in fact I shop at Wal*Mart in Spanaway, Puyallup, or at anyone of their many city and I-5 locations.
Small town living is what makes this country a great place. Trying to avoid the hustle and bustle of city life? Great, head to Stanwood or Camano Island for a weekend retreat. But don't put a Wally World there, or you risk ruining the small town atmosphere.
This is one of the reasons it pains me to be a Republican. Small community businesses being taken out by Wal*Mart is cause for celebration in Republican circles, when it should be the opposite.
I think I'm going to start a Wal*Mart boycott, I'm tired of seeing this happen to small towns; especially when that small town is my own!
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on March 30, 2005 01:40 AMPatrick
It is good to hear another Republican standing up against Wal*Mart. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy.
-WalMart starts at minimum wage. Their medical coverage is minimal, and I haven't heard anything about their vacation plans.
-At Costco, as a PART TIME employee, you can expect:
A starting wage of $10hr, time and a half on Sunday. Full medical benifits after 6mo, including vision, life, health, dental, short and long term disability. Raises after every 800hrs worked. Paid holidays after a 90 day probation. A week of paid vacation time, plus floating holidays, after one year.
There is no arguement here, Costco takes better care of their employees, and that in turn is better for the economy as the money is spread around for more then just a top few CEO's to enjoy. This, in turn is better for the economy as the employees have more money to churn back into the economy.
And, also, Ex-WA...
(2) How many Costco employees do you see “stocking” shelves?
With the exception of produce, you will never see Costco being stocked during business hours. Every warehouse has a 'morning crew' of about 100 employees who stock the store at night.
(4) Little or no technical assistance. Aside from outside product representatives selling their own products, you get almost zero assistance at Costco.
I do apologize if you haven't located them at your local warehouse, but we have an entire section of staff who are there soley for that purpose. They're called the majors department.
(5) Avoiding sale of items that require “human involvement”.
There might be some truth in this. We don't do everything. We just do a lot, and damn cheap.
At my local Costco, they’ll only sell you tires if you buy a set of four
Again I apologize. This is not the policy of the company. We'll gladly change one or all tires at my warehouse. We also offer lifetime balence and rotating.
(6) Low store density. Costco won’t open a store unless customers will be lined up 10-deep at the cash registers.
That's not really true. People just do line up 10 deep, Costco is popular like that. :)