1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

What do you think about the Walmart protest?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Rebecca, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. #1
    Walmart has destroyed many small businesses. A friend in a small town near, an hour and a half away, said many businesses had to close down when Walmart came. It's hard to compete, since they have all that purchasing power, and buy everything from China. For the workers, they pay the lowest wages, and don't treat them well. The taxpayers pay for this since many Walmart workers end up on government assistance. On the other hand, I'm not fond of unions. And you could argue the workers chose to work there. They can leave. I don't know. I wonder if we would be better off if Walmart didn't exist? I wouldn't miss them.

    What do you think about the Walmart protest?
     
    Rebecca, Nov 26, 2012 IP
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #2
    When it comes to the private sector and big business, I think Unions have their place. If nothing else, they drag companies like Walmart down to the noncompetitive levels that allow other businesses in the area to compete. Given Walmart's atrocious record of putting small community business out of business, I find myself siding with the workers. Besides, its kind of hard to feel sympathy for a Goldman Sachs, a Walmart, a Hostess, a Best Buy, or a GM.

    Its just a damn shame the unions are filled with such reprehensible scum bags and thugs and mafia types, or they would have a lot more public sympathy.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 26, 2012 IP
  3. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #3
    Rebecca: You bring up interesting issues. Walmart should be of interest to one and all as it is so large and has an enormous far reaching impact on so many in such different ways including as you noted:

    Walmart's low prices kill competition from small businesses. So that means they kill competing jobs. They push businesses into closing because of the price advantages they offer.

    They generally offer low wages to a huge bulk of their employees on the retail side. Somewhere on average in the $11-12/hour range. That means that a single worker working full time is around the national poverty level getting govt assistance.

    Wow...that has implications on all sides of the political and real life spectrum.

    BTW they are BY FAR the largest private employer in the country and with somewhere around 1.8-2.0 million total workers around 1.4 million work in the US, a lot of that number at the low wage level. 1.4 million workers--the largest private employer in the country and about 1% of the entire work force.

    Its a big company with big impact.

    Walmart is also an incredible example of the Market at its working best in terms of growing a big business. From its earliest days the predominate theme was to be the low cost provider of goods and equally to be the low cost buyer of services so it could be the low cost provider.

    Its been remarkably successful in both efforts. Because it buys EVERYTHING at low costs it can provide low costs goods to consumers. Buying everything at low costs basically includes paying employees low wages, btw.

    Walmart's success is an example of how the "markets" work. The implications though are wide ranging as its low prices drive out other businesses and they keep salaries so low it is tough to work there full time and have a living wage in the US in various parts of the country.

    When push comes to shove if you are a retail employee there is no more effective time to strike than running up to Christmas as its the time sales should be strongest. So if the workers want to get impact, this is the time of year to strike.

    btw: there is another market consideration coming into play and it pretty much took effect last year for the first time. E retailers like Amazon have hit up consumers with smart phones on easy ways to price comparison on items that Walmart could be selling. Amazon, which doesn't have stores, can price cut on Walmart...so the market itself is doing to Walmart what Walmart did to others.

    Here is something else: Costco is a little different from Walmart in general in that its a membership store. You have to pay to get their prices. Walmart offers Sam's Club which is similar to Costco as a membership store.

    Costco's sales per foot are way way way higher than Sam's Clubs and supposedly its salaries for retail people are way higher too, reportedly around $17/hr versus around $11/hr for Sam's Club.

    Of course Costco's prices are similar to Walmart so they too kill the small businesses.

    BTW: govts get involved with Walmart. Local govts restrict them from entering markets because of all the issues raised above. Overall I would see the feds looking at it also as the prevailing wages on an immense number of people are way low. That doesn't mean the feds have to mandate massive changes but they should be looking at it.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  4. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #4
    Earl, it sounds as though you just agreed with me, with perhaps the exception of the idea that the Feds might take action. What cause could the Feds have to get involved? We already have minimum wage, and Walmart is in compliance?

    @Rebecca: I too wouldn't miss Walmart, but then again, I never shop there. There is something distasteful about the place, on a myriad of levels.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  5. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #5
    O-nation...you and I agreeing on a domestic issue??? I better check the temperatures in hell....it must be freezing there. btw: I didn't say the feds should take action...I said they should look at it on this basis:

    1. Walmart employs 1% of all US workers 1.4 million. That is massive. Its the largest domestic private employer
    2. At a salary range for a lot of those workers at around $11/hour that basically hits the poverty level which can kick in govt assistance. There are things off base there...no matter what your perspective, right or left. Should a person working full time get govt assistance also? Is that salary level too low? Its something worthwhile to study.
    3. Walmart on the grand scale might be so anti competitive maybe the govt should look at it. OTOH, Walmart is uber successful at being the low cost provider and in that regard it defines the pure essence of unencumbered market strategy. Frankly consumers love the low prices that entails. Otherwise Walmart wouldn't be so big and successful.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  6. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #6
    I'm friends with 3 people that worked for Walmart in the past. It was in the last few years. The highest paid one made $9.25 an hour, and she was there for awhile. The other two were making $8 something. Might just be Arizona...:)
     
    Rebecca, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #7
    Private yes. The federal government "employs" 4.3 million people on welfare who do nothing for the money, and pays another 46 million in food coupons. That doesn't start to count the people who actually work for the government. Perhaps we should look at Walmart employment as a privately funded anti-poverty program, especially since, as you point out, many collect government benefits in addition to their paychecks.

    Absolutely not. Glad to see we can agree on this. The question is, do we agree on the solution?

    Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, they all seem to participate in activities like selling items below cost until the local competition is dead. Some even sell below cost against their larger competitors. I'm still not sure it can be called a monopoly, though I can definitely get behind municipalities that force those businesses onto the outskirts of town.

    Like I said, I personally won't set foot in Walmart, though I too often find myself in Home Depot/Lowes. I prefer to do my shopping online. More choice, peer review, better prices, no sales tax. Very few things I have to have in such a hurry that I'll go to the store, not to mention the fact I loathe the physical act of shopping. Maybe if more people bought from e-tailers, all those poor underpaid Walmart employees could go out and get better paying jobs when Walmart goes under. Who knows, maybe some of them might start up their own online business.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  8. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #8
    @Rebecca: Lousy salaries. If you are an adult it means you need another job or two to make it. Longer term you need another skill or you better be walmart's best employee and get promoted and a higher salary.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  9. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #9
    what is the problem? are other human beings an annoyance to you?
     
    earlpearl, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  10. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #10
    He lives in the OC you know. I think they probably hire people to shop for them.



    p.s. Just kidding Obamanation. :)
     
    Rebecca, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  11. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #11
    Is the problem Walmart paying too little or that people who have families are working for them? They have many positions for the unskilled, why shouldn't they hire teenagers and college students?

    I am in agreement with Pearl and Onation on most of what I read. Should there be some oversight? Should the USA have a scale for workers by age like they used to have in some states (not sure anymore) for those school aged and those older? I would hate to say they need a union, like ONation stated, the unions are so full of crooks it counteracts the good they used to do.
     
    debunked, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  12. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #12
    To requote Ronald Reagan. "There you go again" More of the language that turned the electorate against Romney let alone cost the GOP senate and house seats.

    The feds have a total work force of about 4.3 or 4.4 million included in that are soldiers on duty. So you believe this entire group of people are on welfare. Again the majority of the population does not believe that and only the extremists within the GOP actually adhere to that type of thinking. I'm sure soldiers in Afghanistan find your characterization deeply disturbing. The total US fed work inclusive of the military is basically the same total as 20 years ago. Meanwhile US spending is a lot higher than it was 20 years ago. We do spend more on "programs" but we also spend infinitely more on govt contractors, of which, by some accounting there are up to 7 million such people getting paid by taxpayers. My direct experience in that realm was that the contracting firm was being paid somewhere around 3 times the amt of the wage rate per contractor, which makes it an incredible rip off to tax payers.

    Meanwhile the total population of the US since 20 years ago has increased by about 60 million. So direct US work force as a percentage of population has decreased by a significant amt.







    o-nation. Your citation is from 2003. You used the present tense yet the article is from 2003. Did you actually take an English class at any time? Did you pass? Are you trying to twist the story??? (again)????

    and if the businesses sell at below cost, is that against the law? That is competition. That is the market. That is the kind of thing you have been screaming for again and again and again and again in all your posts. The article cites, in fact, how certain manufacturers of certain goods prevent that from occurring.

    What is it? Do you like the market or do you hate the market? Make up your mind.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  13. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #13
    Congratulations! You beat the living crap out of that strawman! It's dead Jim! I love the fact you used the "electorate turned on the GOP" meme, as if we had some kind of electoral loss reminiscent of the Democrat beat down/ass stomp the Obama lead Democrats took in 2010. Five seats. Not much of a beat down, is it.

    Regarding welfare stats in the US (4.3 million), let me point you to a site with some facts.

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

    I'll assume you were unable to operate the Google in your stupor. Put down the bottle.



    Actually, the article citation was pulled from the top ten on Google for a particular set of keywords. Do you think it is inapplicable today? The rest of your post on the subject doesn't imply that, so why bring it up? Yes, Walmart, and many others sell at a loss to drive out small business on a regular basis. If you read the article, the implication was that Walmart was big enough to drive out large business, i.e. Toys-R-Us.

    In answer to your query, no, I have not taken any English classes. I was always more of a math guy. Given your lack of understanding of my post, I'm not sure I would be throwing any rocks on that front.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  14. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #14
    I simply would like to point out that for all the years and all the discussions I have participated in on DP since 2006 this is the first time I've seen a Star Trek reference.

    Live Long and Prosper.
     
    Corwin, Nov 27, 2012 IP
  15. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #15
    o-nation: 4.3 to 4.4 million is the total employment of the fed govt and since you used the word "employed" I naturally assumed you were speaking about employed people....and then relating them to welfare workers...as is the wont of the extreme right wing.

    You instead decided to orient your right wing attack on the 4.3 million on welfare...angrily describing them as "employed".

    No matter how you put it, as is the example of the hate filled radio character Limbaugh, spewing right wing anger didn't go very far in the past election or in the minds of most people.



    As far as Walmart goes I neither hate them or love them. I don't have much of an opinion in that way. They are huge. They are an incredible example of how the market works. They frankly have done a better job than other large multi product stores have done over a long term. I think most of it is a function of rigorously following the path of always being the cheapest buyer of products. That enables them to be the cheapest seller.

    It does create other issues. They employ a lot of people at very low salaries. They might be "bad" employers. Their combination of size and success does kill other businesses. That is an issue also.

    Ultimately though consumers "vote' with their pocketbooks. A lot of consumers do love them. Meanwhile, Ebusinesses such as Amazon could be threatening giants such as Walmart. Time will tell.

    I still don't have problems when businesses undersell and/or sell below price of purchase. Competition is tough. Those are the implications of the market.

    If you were a 100% market guy/libertarian/tea partier you should agree with that.

    It appears you aren't. It appears you are more of a "I want what I want" kind of whiner/complainer.

    hey, since you live in the west coast land of the conservatives, the vaunted "OC", why don't you get a (probably) illegal immigrant" to bring you a drink. Calm down, fella. The weather is usually great in "OC" and you and the rest of the well off conservative natives can have a dinner like the one Mitt Romney was surreptitiously filmed in, wherein he also railed against a lot of the population.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 28, 2012 IP
  16. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #16
    I know, "employed" is a bit of an exaggeration. The government pays them, but to be fair, they don't actually do any work for the money. This is the very point I was getting at. Walmart pays significantly more than welfare, and as you point out, many/ who work at Walmart still qualify for government benefits, if not welfare, than certainly food stamps and free health care. This is exactly my point. As a pay for work environment, Walmart employment is what most liberals would call an anti-poverty program, though most liberals would just rather bump up the amount paid by welfare and keep the word "work" out of the formula altogether.

    Of course they will. They already do, and it isn't just Amazon or Ebay. There are a myriad of etailers making a killing online. When Walmart expires, like all these giants do, perhaps Obama can bail them out to save those millions of low paying jobs. I'm not sure. He didn't pull the trigger with Hostess.

    It is what it is. I don't recall saying I was a fan of making such practices illegal, though I'm fairly certain they are in some municipalities. This is the same reason I am a fan of private sector unions. They too are part of the market. I'm also a fan of municipalities that tell Walmart to pound sand. Somewhere in the mix, the free market works itself out. It is also the reason that, like you, I am somewhat ambivalent about about this walmart/walmart worker tiff.

    What I am not a fan of is Federal government intervention. Let the municipalities sort this stuff out. If people don't like it, they will vote the bastards out, move, or perhaps legislate them out of business. Let people do what they want at the local level.


    Funny you should mention it. I just discovered my "immigrant" is legal and headed back to Mexico for a few weeks over Christmas. I hadn't considered it until now, but I pay more in cash(under the table) than Walmart does pre-withholding(over the table). Am I dumb, is Walmart smart, or is it that many Walmart employees simply can't or won't get a job anywhere else?
     
    Obamanation, Nov 28, 2012 IP
  17. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #17


    I vote yeah
     
    earlpearl, Nov 28, 2012 IP
  18. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #18
    Thank you for your vote.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 28, 2012 IP
  19. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #19
    I second that but don´t forget dishonest. ;)
     
    gworld, Nov 28, 2012 IP
  20. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #20
    It's means you are compassionate. Which, to the two flaming libs here, seems to the the equivalent of "stupid"?

    I always thought that modern liberalism is more into hating others than helping them. Guess Earl and gworld proved me right.
     
    Corwin, Nov 28, 2012 IP